Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26247 Page 1 of 34
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No.: 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM); (Lead
`Case No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM)
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`50(B) MOTION AND/OR MOTION
`FOR NEW TRIAL
`REDACTED FOR PUBLIC FILING
`13A
`Department:
`Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Judge:
`
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`Hearing: November 30, 2018
`Time: 1:30 pm
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26248 Page 2 of 34
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS INFRINGEMENT .................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “Connections” Argument .... 2
`
`The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “Users” Argument ............... 5
`
`The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s Claim Constructions ............ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Subscriber unit” ........................................................................ 6
`
`“Connections” ............................................................................. 8
`
`The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “System” Claim
`Argument .............................................................................................. 8
`
`The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “iPhone as Sold”
`Argument ............................................................................................ 10
`
`F.
`
`Apple’s Other Grounds for JMOL Should be Rejected...................... 12
`
`IV.
`
`THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IS SUPPORTED BY PROPERLY
`ADMITTED EVIDENCE ............................................................................. 12
`
`A. Apple Ignores the Infrastructure Analysis .......................................... 12
`
`B. Wi-LAN Apportioned the Value of the Inventions ............................ 14
`
`1. Wi-LAN did apportion to the value of the inventions .............. 14
`
`2. Wi-LAN’s use of the iPhone is widely accepted for
`calculating damages .................................................................. 16
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Apple misstates Prof. Madisetti’s VoLTE opinions ................. 17
`
`Madisetti’s opinions are reliable and based on sufficient
`facts ........................................................................................... 18
`
`Professor Prince’s evidence also properly apportions to the
`value of the patented features ................................................... 20
`
`Apple mischaracterizes Wi-LAN’s use of the licenses and
`rate cards ................................................................................... 22
`
`D.
`
`Sprint iPhones Infringe and Are Properly in the Royalty Base .......... 24
`
`-i-
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26249 Page 3 of 34
`
`E.
`
`Remittitur Is Not Warranted ............................................................... 25
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-ii-
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26250 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Sols., Inc.,
`11-0189 AG (RNBx), 2014 WL 12577148 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2571332 (N.D. Cal. June 30,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team,
`774 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 11
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
`782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Marc Chantal USA, Inc.,
`No. 06-CV-1584 H (POR), 2009 WL 10674076 (S.D. Cal. Aug.
`12, 2009) ........................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Estate of Bynum v. Magno,
`55 F. App’x 811 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 5, 22
`
`Carucel Invs. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-118, 2017 WL 1394068 (S.D. Cal. March 2, 2017) ......................... 11
`
`CSIRO v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 15, 16, 18
`
`DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc’ns, Inc.,
`170 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26251 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`No. 12-0089 (KM)(JBC), 2017 WL 1034197 (D.N.J. Mar. 17,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Eisenbise v. Crown Equip. Corp.,
`260 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (S.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................. 19
`
`Enovys LLC v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc.,
`614 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Hiramanek v. Clark,
`No. 13-cv-00228-RMW, 2016 WL 6459548 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 24
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co.,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 9
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 13, 15, 18
`
`Ironworks Patents, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`255 F. Supp. 3d 513 (D. Del. 2017) ................................................................... 23
`
`Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 16-CV-01314-JPG-RSP, 2018 WL 2688185 (E.D. Tex. June 5,
`2018) ............................................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`KFX Med., Corp. v. Arthrex,
`No. 11CV698 DMS (BLM), 2014 WL 11970553 (S.D. Cal. Feb.
`18, 2014) ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`904 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ......................................................... 21
`
`Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................ 1
`
`Mondis Tech., Ltd. V. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-565-TJW-CE, 2011 WL 24117367 (E.D. Tex. June
`14 2011) .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26252 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 5873711 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 16
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-01735-H-RBB, 2016 WL 7644790 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
`490 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ................................................................ 19
`
`Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 7
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co.,
`298 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co.,
`108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Torres v. City of Los Angeles,
`548 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 1
`
`Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co.,
`No. CV 12-11935-PBS, 2015 WL 6408118 (D. Mass. Oct. 23,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Uniloc USA v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 16
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 15, 18
`
`Visteon Glob. Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-10578, 2016 WL 5956325 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2016) .................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26253 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 271(a) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed R. Civ. P. 50(b) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26254 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`After a two-week trial, the jury found that Apple infringes four claims from
`
`two patents and awarded Wi-LAN $145.1 million. Substantial evidence supports
`
`the jury’s finding of infringement and damages, and Apple’s motion asking this
`
`Court to overturn the jury’s determination should be denied. (ECF 529 (“Mot.”).)
`
`Apple argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of
`
`infringement and rehashes a half-dozen failed claim construction arguments that
`
`the Court already rejected at Markman, summary judgment, and trial. The Court
`
`should again reject these arguments for the same reasons it already found and
`
`because it would be error to import Apple’s new claim construction limitation on
`
`JMOL. See infra n. 3. Apple also rehashes its Daubert damages arguments
`
`already rejected by the Court. Accordingly, the Court should reject Apple’s
`
`13
`
`motion in full.1
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In the Ninth Circuit, JMOL “is properly granted only if no reasonable juror
`
`could find in the non-moving party’s favor.” KFX Med., Corp. v. Arthrex, No.
`
`11CV698 DMS (BLM), 2014 WL 11970553, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014)
`
`(citation omitted). On JMOL, the court must view the evidence “in the light most
`
`favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in
`
`favor of that party.” Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205-06 (9th
`
`Cir. 2008).
`
`A new trial is warranted “only if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of
`
`the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a
`
`miscarriage of justice.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir.
`
`2007). “The Ninth Circuit shows ‘substantial deference to a jury’s finding of the
`
`appropriate amount of damages.’” Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Marc Chantal
`
`
`1 All exhibits cited herein refer to the exhibits to the Declaration of Kevin
`Schubert.
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26255 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`USA, Inc., No. 06-CV-1584 H (POR), 2009 WL 10674076, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Aug.
`
`12, 2009) (citation omitted). A court may order a new trial only if an award is
`
`“‘grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or only
`
`based on speculation or guesswork.’” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`III. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS INFRINGEMENT
`
`A. The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “Connections” Argument
`
`The Court should again reject Apple’s argument that the accused products
`
`do not allocate bandwidth across “connections.”2 The trial evidence showed that
`
`the accused products allocate bandwidth across (1) a VoLTE connection and (2) a
`
`data connection. These two connections are each located between the subscriber
`
`unit (baseband processor) and its users (i.e., the voice and data apps on the
`
`application processor)
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple argues that Wi-LAN presented only a “queues-as-connections” theory
`
`(Mot. at 3), but Wi-LAN never identified “queues” as the claimed “connections.”
`
`Rather, as Apple itself acknowledges (Mot. at 9), Wi-LAN identified the “VoLTE
`
`connection and a data connection” as the “connections.” Trial Tr. (“TT”) at
`
`251:19-254:24, 285:3-286:14, 327:6-24, 387:22-390:4; Ex. 1 (PX-681). The trial
`
`evidence showed that these connections are between the subscriber unit (baseband
`
`processor) and its users (i.e., apps on the application processor). Id.; TT at 251:19-
`
`254:24 (“between the application processor and the baseband processor, there are
`
`two connections here [the VoLTE connection and the data connection]”); Ex. 2
`
`(PX-275) at 7-9; Ex. 3 (PX-404) at 910. All the voice packets go through the
`
`2 The Court rejected Apple’s “connections” argument on summary judgment by
`noting evidence that the accused products “allocate bandwidth based on the
`priority of the connection.” (ECF 401 at 8; see ECF 358 at 14 n.10, 21-22.)
`Apple’s motion also rehashes the same “connections” argument it presented at the
`summary judgment hearing. Jun. 22, 2018 Hr. Tr. at 28:5-30:1 (“Everything they
`point to is stuff that is inside the baseband processor that the Court has already
`ruled has nothing to do with those connections.”).
`
`-2-
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26256 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`VoLTE connection and all the data packets go through a data connection, where
`
`the queues are the endpoints of the connections. Id.; TT at 251:19-254:24 (“[T]he
`
`two different connections, one for the VoLTE voice and other for the browser data
`
`… are feeding to the queues.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, Apple’s allegation that Wi-LAN only showed allocation across
`
`“queues,” not “connections,” is false. Mot. at 4. Based on this evidence, Apple’s
`
`argument fails.
`
`Apple faults witnesses for testifying that bandwidth is allocated through the
`
`queues, but ignores that this is how the patents and claims teach bandwidth
`
`allocation. TT at 165:2-6 (Mr. Stanwood explaining that the patents teach
`
`allocating bandwidth across the connections through the queues), 1175:3-25,
`
`279:14-280:14 (Prof. Madisetti explaining the same). Indeed, Apple never
`
`addresses that the claims themselves recite “allocating between the queues a
`
`bandwidth allocation.” ’145 Patent, claim 26.
`
`Apple’s argument that bandwidth cannot be allocated across connections
`
`through the queues because the queues are allegedly “deep inside” the subscriber
`
`unit also fails. Principally, Apple’s argument is not required by any claim
`
`construction and contradicts the Court’s summary judgment order. See n. 2.
`
`Apple cannot impose a new claim construction at JMOL.3 Nor can Apple further
`
`3 Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 464-65 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the district
`court “may not issue” a new claim construction “at the JMOL stage”; “the question
`for the trial court is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s
`verdict under the issued construction.”); Enovys LLC v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc.,
`614 F.3d 1333, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (district court properly declined to
`
`-3-
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26257 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`limit a claim construction on JMOL, even if it disputes the scope of the Court’s
`
`constructions. See n. 3. Apple’s argument that bandwidth must be allocated at the
`
`edge of the subscriber unit also contradicts the claims and patents, which Apple
`
`never addresses.4
`
`Even if the Court were to impose Apple’s new requirement, substantial
`
`evidence supports the jury’s finding of infringement because the trial evidence
`
`showed that the accused products allocate bandwidth at any point on the
`
`connections “all the way” up to the users (including at the two buses). TT at
`
`285:13-286:14; see also 281:23-283:12. In addition, Apple’s allegation that the
`
`“queues” are “deep inside” the subscriber unit was disputed. For example, on
`
`cross, Prof. Madisetti testified that the “queues” are “electrically” at the edge of the
`
`subscriber unit, not “deep inside” the subscriber unit. TT 384:23-386:3 (opining
`
`that electrically “the first place that the user connections intersect with the
`
`baseband chip” is the queues). Accordingly, even if the Court were to require that
`
`bandwidth must be allocated at the edge of the subscriber unit, a reasonable juror
`
`could have still found infringement.
`
`Apple’s argument that Wi-LAN has swapped a “logical channels-as
`
`connections” theory from the ’798 case with a “new queues as-connections theory”
`
`is baseless because Wi-LAN never pointed to “logical channels” or “queues” as
`
`20
`
`connections at trial.5 The non-VoLTE products in the ’798 case did not infringe
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`address whether its “pre-authorized” construction applied to only one device or
`multiple devices on JMOL because any clarification should have been sought pre-
`verdict).
`4 See ’145 Patent, claim 26 (“allocating between the queues a bandwidth
`allocation”), Fig. 13 (showing queues on the inside of a device), Col. 23:53-56
`(describing bandwidth “allocations across the connections in the queue”); TT at
`165:2-6, 1175:3-25, 279:14-280:14.
`5 “Queues” and “logical channels” also are not “synonyms,” as alleged. Mot. at 1.
`“Queues” are a structure, while a “logical channel” is not structure, but rather may
`“give a particular type of label to a queue.” TT at 314:10-20, 407:1-8.
`
`-4-
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26258 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`because they had only one connection. (’798 case, ECF 278 at 7.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iPhones have a fundamentally different architecture than the prior iPhones, and
`
`allocate bandwidth across two connections to support transmission of VoLTE
`
`voice and application data over an LTE network and infringe. Id.
`
` These VoLTE
`
`But Apple never objected to this testimony at trial, nor
`
`in its Rule 50(a) motion, and cannot do so now. Estate of Bynum v. Magno, 55 F.
`
`App’x 811, 813 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party who fails to make a contemporaneous
`
`objection to the introduction of testimony at trial forfeits its right to contest the use
`
`
`
`
`
`of that evidence in a motion for judgment as a matter of law.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “Users” Argument
`
`Apple reargues its failed summary judgment argument that bandwidth must
`
`be allocated “to each of the applications Dr. Madisetti identified as ‘users.’” Mot.
`
`at 5. The Court rejected this argument, explaining that “[t]he claims themselves
`
`describe allocation of bandwidth to ‘connections,’ not ‘users’ [and] the Court did
`
`not adopt the claim construction Apple proposes here, namely that bandwidth must
`
`be allocated to multiple ‘users’ as opposed to ‘connections.’” (ECF 401 at 7.)
`
`-5-
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26259 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Therefore, Apple’s “users” argument fails because it is not based on a claim
`
`limitation.6
`
`Apple cannot impose a new claim construction on JMOL. See n. 3. Even if
`
`the Court reversed its claim constructions, a reasonable juror could still have found
`
`that the accused products allocate bandwidth to users (i.e., apps) because the
`
`evidence showed that by allocating bandwidth through the queues, the accused
`
`products allocate bandwidth all the way up to the users. TT at 285:23-286:14.
`
`Substantial evidence also showed bandwidth may be allocated individually to data
`
`from the phone app (a first user) and data from the Safari app (a second user). TT
`
`at 253:6-254:12 (describing allocating 60 units of bandwidth to the VoLTE
`
`connection and phone app data and 40 units to the data connection and Safari app
`
`browser data). Prof. Madisetti never stated that bandwidth is only allocated to
`
`“all” users at a time, as Apple alleges. Mot. at 5.
`
`C. The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s Claim Constructions
`1. “Subscriber unit”
`
`Apple re-argues its failed Markman construction that “subscriber unit”
`
`should be construed as a CPE. Mot. at 6. But Apple cannot seek to reverse the
`
`Court’s construction on JMOL. See n. 3. And subscriber unit should not be
`
`limited to a CPE for at least the reasons the Court found at Markman. First, the
`
`“specification does not limit ‘subscriber unit’” to a CPE, and, in fact, describes the
`
`“subscriber unit” in the context of “mobile cellular telephone systems.” (ECF 203
`
`at 7 n. 3.) Second, the Examiner “read the invention claimed therein on prior art
`
`that included a ‘cellular telephone network.’” (Id.)7 Third, the Patentee “did not
`
`6 Contrary to Apple’s suggestions otherwise, Mr. Stanwood never testified that the
`Court’s constructions or the ’145 Patent require allocating bandwidth to users.
`Mot. at 5. He testified that the patents teach allocating to connections through the
`queues. TT at 165:2-6, 223:20-224:2, 1175:3-25. Mr. Stanwood also testified that
`one connection may have hundreds of users. TT at 224:3-24. Regardless, Mr.
`Stanwood’s testimony on this point is tangential.
`7 The Court likewise found in the ’798 case that the “Examiner was reading prior
`
`-6-
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26260 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`use the term ‘CPE’ in the patent claims,” even though it did in other patent claims.
`
`(Id. at 6.) Fourth, the patents do not use subscriber unit and CPE interchangeably.
`
`(Id. at 6-7 (finding no evidence of intent in the patents to equate CPE and
`
`subscriber unit); ECF 163-02, Ex. A (’798 case Markman Order) at 7 (“[I]t is not
`
`clear that CPEs are interchangeable with ‘wireless subscriber radio units.’”))8
`
`Apple reargues that a related patent (the ’514 patent) equates the subscriber
`
`station with CPE. Mot. at 6-7. But, as Wi-LAN showed at Markman, the ’514
`
`patent does not equate these terms and merely shows that CPE is a type of
`
`subscriber station like other Wi-LAN patents. See Ex. 5 (Markman Hearing Slide);
`
`Ex. 6 (’437 Patent). Contrary to Apple’s allegations, Mr. Stanwood never testified
`
`that a subscriber unit is limited to a CPE or “separate piece of equipment.” Mot. at
`
`7. In fact, Mr. Stanwood repeatedly testified that his patents teach that a subscriber
`
`unit can be a chip in a cell phone. TT at 84:3-6, 106:8-9 (“Q: Can a cell phone use
`
`a subscriber unit? A: Yes, It can.”), 131:2-132:22, 165:7-166:6 (explaining that a
`
`15
`
`“subscriber station” can be implemented on an ASIC chip per the patents).9
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Finally, Apple cites an extrinsic document, with little foundation, which has
`
`minimal relevance, if any, here. Mot. at 7 (citing DX-765); Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1318-24 (Fed Cir. 2005) (extrinsic evidence is “less reliable” than
`
`intrinsic evidence and cannot “contradict claim meaning” unambiguous from the
`
`intrinsic evidence).
`
`
`art concerning a mobile unit on the ‘wireless subscriber radio unit’ in the ’640
`Patent.” (ECF 163-2, Ex. B at 12); Ex. 4 (’640 Prosecution History Excerpt).
`8 Other intrinsic evidence cited by the ’145 and ’757 patents is consistent. See,
`e.g., Schubert Decl. Ex. 7 (’407 Patent) at Col. 6:44-47; Ex. 8 (’571 Patent) at Col.
`1:29-36; Ex. 9 (’455 Patent) at Col. 18:8-14.
`9 Prof. Madisetti likewise explained how the patents teach that a subscriber unit is
`not limited to a CPE and may be a component of a cell phone. TT at 373:3-376:13
`(“[the ’757 patent at Col. 3:5-11] says the subscriber unit can be implemented in
`software, in firmware or hardware components. . . . It could be an application-
`specific integrated circuit, or ASIC. . .”).
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26261 Page 15 of 34
`
`
`2. “Connections”
`
`Apple re-argues its failed claim construction for “connections.” Mot. at 7-8.
`
`But, again, Apple cannot seek to reverse the Court’s construction on JMOL. See n.
`
`3. Even if the Court could reconsider its construction of “connections,” it should
`
`again reject Apple’s attempt to limit “connections” to require “user devices” for at
`
`least the reasons found at Markman. For example, as the Court held, “[a]lthough
`
`the specification describes ‘users’ to ‘include both residential and business
`
`customers,’ it also recites ‘user applications.’ The specification also goes on to
`
`describe different types of ‘connections,’ e.g., VBR connections and DAMA
`
`connections, which suggests the ‘users’ are not confined to ‘user devices.’” (ECF
`
`203 at 8.) Prof. Madisetti and Mr. Stanwood’s testimony that a “subscriber unit”
`
`can be a chip in a cell phone further shows that “connections” are not limited to
`
`“user devices.” TT at 106:8-9; 373:3-376:13.
`
`Apple also reargues that the Court’s construction of “connections” is
`
`contrary to a Federal Circuit decision from the ’798 case. Mot. at 7. But the Court
`
`already rejected this argument at Markman stating, “[t]he issue here, whether the
`
`‘connections’ are between the subscriber station and ‘users’ or ‘user devices,’ was
`
`not before the Federal Circuit” and the Federal Circuit opinion is “neither helpful
`
`nor determinative” on this issue. (ECF 203 at 8, n.4.) Further, the Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed this Court’s constructions of “connections.”
`
`D. The Court Should Again Reject Apple’s “System” Claim Argument
`
`Apple rehashes its failed summary judgment argument that the claims
`
`require multiple parties for infringement. Mot. at 8. But, as the Court found, “it
`
`does not appear that multiple actors are required to infringe the asserted claims.”
`
`(ECF 401 at 8.) The trial evidence showed that Apple alone directly infringes
`
`because the accused iPhones infringe as sold in the box before they are turned on.
`
`TT at 286:6-19, 290:9-11 (agreeing “all the elements in all the claims” are present
`
`in the iPhones “as sold”), 367:12-18, 377:3-379:25. Prof. Madisetti never
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S OPPOSITION TO JMOL
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS (BLM)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 538 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.26262 Page 16 of 34
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“admitted a base station is required to establish infringement,” as Apple alleges.
`
`Mot. at 8.
`
`The asserted apparatus claims are not “system” claims, as Wi-LAN
`
`explained at summary judgment.10 (ECF 358 at 8-9.) An example of a system
`
`claim is “A system comprising: a base station; and a subscriber unit.” Each
`
`limitation in claim 26 of the ’145 Patent, for example, is part of a “subscriber unit,”
`
`which is met by hardware/software in the accused iPhones. “Base station” is not
`
`recited anywhere in the claim. Any reference to “base station” in other claims or
`
`Court’s constructions merely provides the environment in which the claimed
`
`10
`
`device operates.11 Apple’s divided infringement argument also contradicts the
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Court’s Clarification Order in the ’798 case which clarified that the “subscriber
`
`unit” may be a component of a cellular phone. (ECF 360-5 at 3.) Because there is
`
`no divided infringement issue, th