Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 12724
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 10-258-SLR-MPT
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE 39,231
`
`
`
`Richard K. Herrmann (# 405)
`Mary B. Matterer (# 2696)
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801-1494
`(302) 888-6800
`rherrmann@morrisjames.com
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`George A. Riley
`Luann L. Simmons
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
`(415) 984-8700
`griley@omm.com
`lsimmons@omm.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`Dated: October 20, 2015
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 12725
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`
`
`Page
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 2 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 3 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 4 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6 
`
`I. 
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID AS INDEFINITE .......................... 6 
`
`A. 
`
`The Term “Alert Sound Generator For Generating An Alert Sound
`When The Call Is Received From The Remote Caller” Is Indefinite ........ 7 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`“Alert Sound Generator…” Is A Means-Plus-Function
`Term ............................................................................................... 7 
`
`“Alert Sound Generator…” Is Indefinite Under § 112 ¶ 6 ............ 9 
`
`“Alert Sound Generator…” Is Indefinite Under MMI’s
`Proposed Construction ................................................................. 12 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Term “Control Means For Controlling Said Alert Sound
`Generator” Is Indefinite ........................................................................... 13 
`
`The Term “RF Signal Processing Means For Transmitting And/Or
`Receiving Radio Waves” Is Indefinite ..................................................... 14 
`
`II. 
`
`MMI HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING
`INFRINGEMENT................................................................................................ 16 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`MMI Has Failed To Show That The Accused iPhones Practice The
`Limitation Of “An Alert Sound Generator For Generating The
`Alert Sound When The Call Is Received From The Remote Caller” ...... 17 
`
`MMI Failed To Show That The Accused iPhones Practice The
`Limitation Of “Control Means For Controlling Said Alert Sound
`Generator” ................................................................................................ 18 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 20 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 12726
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES 
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 14
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 1, 10
`Billingnetwork.com, Inc. v. Cerner Physician Practice, Inc.,
`509 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (M.D. Fla. 2007) .................................................................................. 18
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................... 2, 17
`Cox Commc’ns Inc. v. Sprint Commc’ns Co.,
`No. 12-487-SLR, 2015 WL 2338091 (D. Del. May 15, 2015) ............................................... 12
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 14
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 10
`Genband USA LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 4722185 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2015) .............................. 9
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 12
`Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 19
`Intellectual Sci. & Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`589 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 16
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................... 12
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,
`No. 1-14-CV-134-LY, 2015 WL 4937464 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) ................................. 11
`Johnston v. IVAC Corp.,
`885 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989)............................................................................................... 16
`Lifeport Scis. LLC v. Endologix, Inc.,
`No. CV 12-1791-GMS, 2015 WL 4141819 (D. Del. July 9, 2015)...................................... 8, 9
`McKesson Info. Solutions LLC v. Trizetto Grp., Inc.,
`426 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D. Del. 2006) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Page
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 12727
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`No. 2014-1218, 2015 WL 5166358 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2015) ............................................ 9, 14
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................. 2, 3, 13, 16
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................................ 6, 12
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 14
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................... 17
`O’Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. 62 (1854) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................................... 16
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 6
`Vantage Point Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-909-JRG, 2015 WL 575167 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2015) ..................................... 8
`Voice Domain Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. CV 13-40138-TSH, 2015 WL 4638577 (D. Mass. Aug. 4, 2015) ..................................... 9
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ....................................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ........................................................................................................................... 1
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1995) ................................................................. 8
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2001) ................................................................................. 8
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition (2004) ...................................................... 8
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language
`Unabridged (1993).................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 12728
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully moves for summary judgment of invalidity and non-
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 39,231 (“the ’231 Patent”). Claims 2-4 and 12 of the ’231
`
`Patent are invalid because they include three indefinite claim limitations: (1) “alert sound
`
`generator for generating the alert sound when the call is received from the remote caller,”
`
`(2) “control means for controlling said alert sound generator,” and (3) “RF signal processing
`
`means for transmitting and/or receiving radio waves.” Each of these limitations recites “function
`
`without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function” and, therefore, each is subject
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.1 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(en banc) (internal citation omitted). And each limitation fails to satisfy the requirements of
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 because the ’231 Patent specification includes insufficient disclosures of structure
`
`corresponding to the functions claimed by these terms. For the claimed “alert sound
`
`generator…,” the specification discloses only a box labeled “Alert Sound Generator 13” and one
`
`sentence reiterating its function. Similarly, for “control means…” and “RF signal processing
`
`means…,” the specification makes only “black box” disclosures without disclosing the specific
`
`structures and algorithms necessary for performing the claimed functions. As a matter of law,
`
`these “black box” disclosures are insufficient and render these claim terms indefinite. Augme
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Even if the asserted claims were sufficiently definite to be valid—and they are not—the
`
`Court should grant summary judgment of non-infringement because no reasonable jury could
`
`find that the accused iPhones satisfy the “alert sound generator” and “control means” limitations
`
`from the evidence offered by MobileMedia Ideas, LLC (“MMI”). To establish infringement of
`
`
`1 Because the ’231 Patent issued before the effective date of the 2011 America Invents Act,
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies rather than 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 12729
`
`
`these means-plus-function terms, MMI must provide evidence that the accused iPhones include
`
`structure “identical or equivalent” to the structure disclosed in the ’231 Patent specification and
`
`that the accused structure performs “the identical function recited in the claim.” MobileMedia
`
`Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MMI failed to identify any
`
`actual structure in the accused iPhones corresponding to these terms. Instead, MMI argues the
`
`jury could find infringement based on the functionality of the accused iPhones. This is
`
`insufficient, as it is well established that mere functional equivalence does not render an accused
`
`product or process infringing. Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145
`
`F.3d 1303, 1309–10 (Fed. Cir. 1998). MMI’s infringement position is both legally flawed and a
`
`compelling example of the importance of applying § 112 ¶ 6 to purely functional claim terms.
`
`Because no reasonable jury could find infringement from this evidence, summary judgment of
`
`non-infringement is appropriate.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`The ’231 Patent is one of sixteen patents MMI asserted against Apple in this five-year-
`
`old action. D.I. 8. MMI contends that the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4 (“the accused
`
`iPhones”) infringe claims 12 and 2-4 (“the asserted claims”) of the ’231 Patent. D.I. 461 at 4.
`
`On November 8, 2012, the Court construed more than thirty claim terms of nine patents,
`
`including the ’231 Patent, and ruled on the parties’ four summary judgment motions. Id. With
`
`respect to the ’231 Patent, the Court construed (1) “to change a volume of the generated alert
`
`sound” to mean “to alter the degree of loudness of the alert sound that is being generated without
`
`cutting off the telephone circuit” and (2) “means for specifying a predetermined operation by the
`
`user” to be a means-plus-function term with a function of “specifying a predetermined operation
`
`by the user” and a structure of “a CPU and operation keys.” Id. at 42-44. The Court granted
`
`Apple’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that under its construction
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 12730
`
`
`of “to change a volume,” and in light of undisputed facts about the operation of the accused
`
`iPhones, the accused iPhones did not practice the limitation of “said control means controls said
`
`alert sound generator to change a volume of the generated sound.” Id. at 44-45.
`
`After the Court denied MMI’s motion for reconsideration and entered final judgment of
`
`non-infringement of the ’231 Patent (and after a trial and post-trial briefing on three patents that
`
`survived summary judgment), MMI appealed. D.I. 539, 540, 550. A Federal Circuit panel held
`
`the Court’s construction of “to change a volume” was erroneous and vacated judgment of non-
`
`infringement. MobileMedia Ideas, 780 F.3d at 1181. Noting that the phrase “to change a
`
`volume” is recited within the means-plus-function claim term “control means” for controlling
`
`“said alert sound generator to change a volume of the generated alert sound only for the received
`
`call,” the panel reasoned that the term should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 to “cover[]
`
`the corresponding structure described in the specification for performing the claimed function.”
`
`Id. at 1179-80. It held that the proper construction of the term must “encompass[] both stopping
`
`and reducing the volume of the alert sound as recited in dependent claims 2 and 3” and remanded
`
`to this Court for further proceedings. Id. at 1181. After issuance of mandate, the Court granted
`
`Apple leave to move for summary judgment with respect to the ’231 Patent. D.I. 571 at 2-3.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`Apple seeks summary judgment of invalidity of claims 2-4 and 12 of the ’231 Patent
`
`because the following terms are indefinite as a matter of law:
`
`a.
`
`“alert sound generator for generating the alert sound when the call is received
`
`from the remote caller”;
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“control means for controlling said alert sound generator”; and
`
`“RF signal processing means for transmitting and/or receiving radio waves.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 12731
`
`
`2.
`
`Apple seeks summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 2-4 and 12 of the ’231
`
`Patent because MMI failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find
`
`the accused iPhones practice the following limitations:
`
`a.
`
`“alert sound generator for generating the alert sound when the call is received
`
`from the remote caller”; and
`
`b.
`
`“control means for controlling said alert sound generator.”
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The ’231 Patent describes a “communication terminal” that permits a user to silence the
`
`ringing terminal without changing the state of the incoming call—i.e., without hanging up or
`
`informing the caller that the ring has been silenced. See Simmons Decl. Ex. A at Cover.2 Figure
`
`2 of the ’231 Patent illustrates this communication terminal, which includes CPU 7, Alert On/Off
`
`Controller 12, Alert Sound Generator 13, and RF Signal Processing 10:
`
`’231 Patent, Figure 2 [annotated] (Simmons Decl. Ex. A)
`
`
`2 All references to “Simmons Decl. Ex. __” refer to exhibits to the declaration of Luann L.
`Simmons filed concurrently with and in support of this brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 12732
`
`
`The specification discloses that when a user receives a call, CPU 7 detects the call and
`
`controls Alert On/Off Controller 12 to control Alert Sound Generator 13 to generate an alert
`
`sound informing the user of an incoming call. Id. at 2:48-52. The user silences the alert sound
`
`by pressing Operation Key 3, which causes CPU 7 to control Alert On/Off Controller 12 to
`
`control Alert Sound Generator 13 to stop the alert sound. Id. at 3:1-5. The specification does not
`
`discuss RF Signal Processing 10 in its discussion of the terminal’s operation when the user
`
`receives a call or when the user silences the alert sound associated with an incoming call; RF
`
`Signal Processing 10 is mentioned only in the specification’s discussion of when the user
`
`initiates a call to a remote caller. See id. at 2:48-3:6; 2:29-47.
`
`The asserted claims were amended in a reexamination. Simmons Decl. Ex. B. Claims 2-
`
`4 depend from claim 12, which recites the following:
`
`12. A communication terminal for informing a user of a received call from
`a remote caller by an alert sound, comprising:
`an alert sound generator for generating the alert sound when the call is
`received from the remote caller;
`control means for controlling said alert sound generator; and
`means for specifying a predetermined operation by the user,
`wherein when said alert sound generator is generating the alert
`sound and said means for specifying said predetermined operation
`is operated by the user, said control means controls said alert sound
`generator to change a volume of the generated alert sound only for
`the received call, without affecting the volume of the alert sound
`for future received calls, while leaving a call ringing state, as
`perceived by the remote caller, of the call to the terminal for the
`remote caller unchanged,
`further comprising:
`RF signal processing means for transmitting and/or receiving radio
`waves;
`and an antenna for transmitting and/or receiving said radio waves,
`wherein said call ringing state between said apparatus and said
`remote caller is established by said transmitted and/or received
`radio waves.
`
`Id. at 2:12-39.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 12733
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID AS INDEFINITE
`
`A patent claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution
`
`history, it fails to inform a person skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with
`
`reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). A
`
`patent claim that includes a limitation subject to § 112 ¶ 6 is indefinite if the specification fails to
`
`disclose corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions of that limitation.
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52. Indefiniteness is a question of law for the court. Teva Pharm.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The asserted claims of the ’231 Patent recite three indefinite claim limitations that
`
`attempt to reach all ways of achieving a particular result. Such functional claiming has been
`
`forbidden since at least 1854, when the Supreme Court invalidated Samuel Morse’s pioneering
`
`patent on telegraphy because it claimed the transmission of information using electric current
`
`without being limited to any “specific machinery or parts of machinery described in
`
`the…specification and claims.” O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 112-13 (1854). In 1952,
`
`Congress ensured that no claim would reach all ways of performing a function by enacting § 112
`
`¶ 6, which provides that a claim “expressed as a means or step for performing a specified
`
`function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof” is construed to
`
`extend only to “the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
`
`equivalents thereof.” And in a recent en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit held that § 112 ¶ 6
`
`applies not only to claim terms using the phrases “means for” or “steps for,” but also extends to
`
`any claim term that “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” or recites “function without
`
`reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 12734
`
`
`All asserted claims of the ’231 Patent are invalid because the specification fails to
`
`disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the functions claimed by the “alert sound
`
`generator…,” “control means…,” and “RF signal processing means…” terms, as required by
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6. See id. at 1352.
`
`A.
`
`The Term “Alert Sound Generator For Generating An Alert Sound When
`The Call Is Received From The Remote Caller” Is Indefinite
`
`The parties dispute the proper construction of “an alert sound generator for generating an
`
`alert sound when the call is received from the remote caller.”3 Apple contends this term should
`
`be construed under § 112 ¶ 6, whereas MMI contends it should be construed as “a sound
`
`generator capable of generating an alert sound when a call is received from the remote caller.”
`
`D.I. 327 at 7-8; D.I. 303 at 5. Under either party’s construction, this term is indefinite.
`
`1.
`
`“Alert Sound Generator…” Is A Means-Plus-Function Term
`
`The term “alert sound generator…” should be construed as a means-plus-function claim
`
`term under § 112 ¶ 6 because it claims a “function without reciting sufficient structure for
`
`performing that function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349. In Williamson, the Federal Circuit
`
`overruled the “strong” presumption against subjecting claim language not written in “means
`
`for…” form to § 112 ¶ 6. Id. The Federal Circuit also overruled case law holding that § 112 ¶ 6
`
`applies only if a claim term is “essentially devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.”
`
`Id. In its place, the court announced a new, flexible standard: § 112 ¶ 6 applies to any claim
`
`term that “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Williamson
`
`holds that § 112 ¶ 6 may apply to “[g]eneric terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and
`
`other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs.” Id. at 1350.
`
`
`3 This dispute was not resolved by the Court’s November 8, 2012 opinion. D.I. 461 at 40-45.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 12735
`
`
`The term “alert sound generator…” recites a function—generating an alert sound—
`
`without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Contemporaneous dictionaries
`
`define “generator” as something that performs the function of generating. See Webster’s Third
`
`New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1993) (defining “generator”
`
`as “one that generates, causes or produces”); see also Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`
`4th Edition (2004) (“a person or thing that generates”); Cambridge International Dictionary of
`
`English (1995) (“a machine which produces something, esp. electricity”); Webster’s II New
`
`College Dictionary (2001) (“One that generates”).4 Apple’s expert, Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan,
`
`opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand “alert sound generator” to
`
`connote a specific structure—rather, he or she would understand it to mean any conceivable
`
`mechanism for generating a sound. Simmons Decl. Ex. D ¶ 123.
`
`The claim language surrounding this term further confirms the term’s purely functional
`
`nature—the ’231 Patent not only claims a “generator,” it claims “a generator for generating.”
`
`Reexamination Certificate at 2:16 (emphasis added). In Lifeport Sciences LLC v. Endologix,
`
`Inc., Judge Sleet found the term “a first introducer for introducing a first prosthesis into the
`
`vessel” to be governed by § 112 ¶ 6, remarking that the term represented “quintessential
`
`functional claiming.” No. CV 12-1791-GMS, 2015 WL 4141819, at *5 (D. Del. July 9, 2015)
`
`(emphasis added). Similarly, in Vantage Point Technology, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the
`
`Eastern District of Texas found the phrase “snooper for snooping” to be subject to § 112 ¶ 6
`
`“because the patentee simply rewrote the claimed function as a noun.” No. 2:13-CV-909-JRG,
`
`2015 WL 575167, at *16-18 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2015) (emphasis added). The same rationale
`
`applies here—the ’231 Patent simply recasts the claimed function of “generating an alert sound”
`
`
`4 Simmons Decl. Ex. C.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 12736
`
`
`in the noun form of an “alert sound generator” without reciting any “structure for performing that
`
`function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349.
`
`In its previous claim construction briefing, MMI argued that § 112 ¶ 6 should not apply
`
`to this claim term because the term does not use the words “means for” or “step for,” and it
`
`contended that courts had applied § 112 ¶ 6 to non-means terms in only “exceedingly rare”
`
`occasions. D.I. 363 at 3. If this were ever the law, it was expressly overruled by the Federal
`
`Circuit’s en banc holding in Williamson. 792 F.3d at 1349. Since Williamson was decided,
`
`courts have applied § 112 ¶ 6 to many non-means terms, including “compliance mechanism,” see
`
`Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 2014-1218, 2015 WL 5166358,
`
`at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2015); “microphone interpretation mechanism,” see Voice Domain
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. CV 13-40138-TSH, 2015 WL 4638577, at *6 (D. Mass.
`
`Aug. 4, 2015); “packetization module” and “echo cancellation module,” Genband USA LLC v.
`
`Metaswitch Networks Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 4722185, at *12-13 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Aug. 7, 2015); and “introducer,” Lifeport Sciences LLC, 2015 WL 4141819, at *5. Like these
`
`terms, the “alert sound generator” term defines the claim limitation only by its function, and
`
`therefore should be construed according to § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`2.
`
`“Alert Sound Generator…” Is Indefinite Under § 112 ¶ 6
`
`Because the ’231 Patent specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the
`
`“alert sound generator” term’s claimed functions, this term fails to meet the requirements of
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 and is indefinite. Claim terms subject to § 112 ¶ 6 are limited to the structures
`
`disclosed in the specification, if any, that are clearly linked to each claimed function.
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52. When there are multiple claimed functions, “the patentee must
`
`disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions”; if the
`
`specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite. Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 12737
`
`
`Here, the claimed functions are “generating the alert sound when the call is received from
`
`the remote caller” and “chang[ing] a volume of the generated alert sound only for the received
`
`call” when controlled by the control means to do so. Simmons Decl. Ex. B at 2:16-18, 2:27-29.
`
`The specification fails to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to either of these claimed
`
`functions. Indeed, the specification’s entire discussion of the “alert sound generator” is limited
`
`to a box labeled “Alert Sound Generator 13” in Figure 2 (shown below) and the description of its
`
`function as the “alert sound generator 13 [that] generate[s] an alert sound.” Simmons Decl.
`
`Ex. A at 2:48–63. Box 13 in Figure 2 is the only structure identified by MMI’s counsel at the
`
`claim construction hearing. Simmons Decl. Ex. F at 119:16-23 (“Figure 2 shows you a box.
`
`That’s the alert sound generator. It tells you it’s a box, figure 2 is a block diagram showing you
`
`the equipment. So the generator is the generator of the sound.”).
`
`
`’231 Patent, Figure 2 [detail; annotated] (Simmons Decl. Ex. A)
`
`The Federal Circuit has expressly held that such “black box” disclosures do not provide
`
`sufficient structure. Augme Techs., 755 F.3d at 1338. In Augme Technologies, the Federal
`
`Circuit found a patent figure labeled with “[a]ssemble second code module” was insufficient to
`
`provide corresponding structure for the claimed function of “assembling the second computer
`
`readable code module.” See id. In ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., the Federal Circuit
`
`found a patent figure labeled “Purchase Orders” to be “just a black box that represents the
`
`purchase-order-generation function without any mention of a corresponding structure.”
`
`700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Similarly, the ’231 Patent’s generic description of the “alert
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 12738
`
`
`sound generator” as “generat[ing] an alert sound” fails to provide the missing details regarding
`
`its structure. Simmons Decl. Ex. A at 2:48–63. This description provides no structure; it merely
`
`“mirrors the language used to claim the function,” thus failing “to pay the price of employing the
`
`sort of functional claiming allowed under Section 112, paragraph 6.” Joao Control &
`
`Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc., No. 1-14-CV-134-LY, 2015 WL 4937464, at *6,
`
`*9-10 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`MMI’s infringement theories further illustrate the indefiniteness of the claimed “alert
`
`sound generator.” MMI’s expert, Dr. Sigurd Meldal, opines that the accused iPhones meet the
`
`“alert sound generator” limitation because they have a “mechanism for generating an alert
`
`sound.” Simmons Decl. Ex. H ¶ 318. Dr. Meldal’s analysis merely replaces one functional term
`
`with another generic “verbal construct.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (recognizing
`
`“mechanism” as a “nonce word”). His infringement theory is unbounded by any structural
`
`limitation—under it, this claim element would be satisfied by any “mechanism” that performs
`
`the claimed function of generating an alert sound, including an electric motor ringing a bell, a
`
`simple buzzer, a general-purpose computer with software to play a compressed digital audio file,
`
`or even a barking dog or a crying baby. Indeed, MMI contends that the iPhone’s vibration
`
`mechanism is an “alert sound generator” because it generates a sound. See Simmons Decl. Ex. H
`
`¶ 318 (“Each of the iPhone Products has a mechanism for generating an alert sound to alert the
`
`user when a call is received, including the mechanism that plays the ring tone, and the
`
`mechanism that vibrates the phone.”) (emphasis added); see also Simmons Decl. Ex. E ¶ 83
`
`(Dr. Balakrishnan opining that Dr. Meldal’s construction “does not provide notice of what in the
`
`Accused iPhone Products allegedly meets this limitation” and “simply repeats the text of the
`
`limitation itself, ‘an alert sound generator.’”). As the Federal Circuit made clear in Williamson,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 578 Filed 10/20/15 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 12739
`
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 prohibits the claiming of a function that is unbounded by any corresponding structure.
`
`Because the ’231 Patent fails to disclose sufficient struct