Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 9983
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 10-258-SLR-MPT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
`
`Richard K. Herrmann (# 405)
`Mary B. Matterer (# 2696)
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`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: January 28, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 9984
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 2 
`THE ’075 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`GSM 04.83 And GSM 04.08 Render The Claims Obvious. .................................. 3 
`B. 
`The ’068 Patent Combined With GSM 04.83 And 04.08 Render The
`Claims Obvious. ..................................................................................................... 7 
`MMI Presented No Evidence iPhones Release Calls As Accused Or That
`The Accused DISCONNECT Message Meets All Claim Elements. ..................... 7 
`MMI Presented No Evidence That Any iPhones Has Ever Released
`1. 
`A Second Call As Described In The Accused GSM “Abnormal
`Case.” ......................................................................................................... 8 
`MMI Presented No Evidence That The Accused DISCONNECT
`Message Contains “An Information Element That Indicates That
`The Wireless System Is To Immediately Release The Incoming
`Call.” .......................................................................................................... 9 
`THE ’068 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 10 
`Bayless Discloses All Limitations, Including Claim 23’s “Only A Single”
`A. 
`Predetermined Selection Operation. .................................................................... 11 
`It Is Undisputed That Bayless Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 24. .............. 14 
`MMI Presented No Evidence That Apple Performs Each Step Or That The
`“Predetermined Selection Operation” And “Selecting And Determining”
`Limitations Are Met. ............................................................................................ 14 
`The Asserted Claims Require Steps Performed “By The User,”
`1. 
`And MMI Produced No Evidence That Apple Performed These
`Steps. ........................................................................................................ 14 
`MMI Presented No Evidence That The iPhone Displays Call
`Handling Options In Response To A “Predetermined Selection
`Operation.” ............................................................................................... 15 
`MMI Presented No Evidence That The iPhone Allows “Selecting
`And Determining” By The User. ............................................................. 18 
`THE ’078 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 18 
`MMI’s Infringement Case Is Based On A New And Unsupported Claim
`A. 
`Construction Argument. ....................................................................................... 19 
`1. 
`MMI’s Original Infringement Theory Was Disproved At Trial. ............. 19 
`2. 
`MMI’s New Theory Was Wrong And Prejudicial. .................................. 20 
`Kyocera Discloses All Limitations Of Claim 73. ................................................ 22 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 9985
`
`C. 
`
`Kyocera and Lucent Together Render Obvious Claim 73. .................................. 25 
`1. 
`Kyocera And Lucent Disclose All Elements Of Claim 73. ..................... 25 
`2. 
`Clear And Convincing Evidence Demonstrates It Would Have
`Been Obvious To Combine Kyocera With Lucent. ................................. 26 
`A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED ...................................................................................... 28 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 9986
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES 
`Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc.,
`561 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP,
`No. 02-1694, 2006 WL 890995 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2006) ......................................................... 30
`
`Belden Techs., Inc. v. Superior Essex Communs. LP,
`802 F. Supp. 2d 555 (D. Del. 2011) .......................................................................... 6, 24, 25, 30
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`In re Androgel Antitrust Litig. (No. II),
`No. 09-2084, 2012 WL 5352986 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2012) ..................................................... 29
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 5, 30
`
`In re Shepard,
`50 C.C.P.A. 1439 (CCPA 1963) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,
`496 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 6, 7, 24
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 5, 27
`
`Lab. Skin Care, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`757 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D. Del. 2010) .......................................................................................... 29
`
`Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int’l,
`740 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Lucent Techs, Inc. v. Extreme Networks, Inc.,
`231 F.R.D. 453 (D. Del. 2005) .................................................................................................. 29
`
`MFS, Inc. v. Dilazaro,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D. Pa. 2011) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 9987
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 29
`
`Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`784 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Tex. 2011), aff’d 692 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................... 15
`
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 29
`
`Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,
`227 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 17, 19
`
`Pannu v. Iolab Corp.,
`155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 2, 22
`
`Perkin–Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.,
`732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc.,
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`Ricoh Co, Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
`No. 11-1009, 2013 WL 216406 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2013) .......................................................... 1
`
`Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co.,
`724 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 2, 6, 27
`
`RULES 
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ...................................................................................................................... 1, 28
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 9988
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`“’068 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,070,068 (JTX-5).
`
`“’075 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,253,075 (JTX-9; JTX-10).
`
`“’078 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078 (JTX-1).
`
`“PTO” refers to the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
`
`“Apple” refers to Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`“MMI” refers to Plaintiff MobileMedia Ideas, LLC.
`
`“GSM 04.08” refers to European Telecommunication Standard - ETS 300 557: European
`
`Digital Cellular Telecommunications System (Phase 2), Mobile Radio Interface Layer 3
`
`Specification (DTX-40).
`
`“GSM 04.83” refers to European Telecommunication Standard - ETS 300 567: European
`
`Digital Cellular Telecommunications System (Phase 2), Call Waiting (CW) and Call Hold
`
`(HOLD) Supplementary Services - Stage 3 (DTX-41).
`
`“Kyocera” and “Morita” refer to Japanese Patent Pub. H6-133081 (DTX-70).
`
`“Lucent” and “Hassan” refer to U.S. Patent No. 5,550,646 (DTX-209).
`
`“Bayless” refers to U.S. Patent No. 5,754,636 (DTX-26).
`
`“TT” refers to the trial transcript of the December 2012 jury trial in this case.
`
`“PTCT” refers to the transcript of the November 21, 2012 pretrial conference in this case.
`
`“First Meldal Report” refers to the First Expert Report of Dr. Sigurd Meldal dated
`
`January 13, 2012 (D.I. 367, Ex. A)
`
`“Second Meldal Report” refers to the Second Expert Report of Dr. Sigurd Meldal dated
`
`March 5, 2012 (D.I. 335, Ex. B)
`
`“Meldal Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Dr. Sigurd Meldal In Support of MMI’s Brief
`
`In Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity (D.I. 335).
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 9989
`
`Apple renews its Rule 50 JMOL motion that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are
`
`invalid and not infringed. Alternatively, Apple moves under Rule 59 for a new trial.
`
`JMOL of invalidity is proper because Apple presented clear and convincing evidence
`
`identifying each limitation of the asserted claims in the prior art and establishing why one of
`
`ordinary skill would have combined these invalidity references. MMI presented no evidence of
`
`secondary indicia of non-obviousness but relied on conclusory expert testimony in conflict with
`
`the evidence and legal standards. Because obviousness is a legal question and no implicit factual
`
`findings support the verdict, the asserted claims should be held obvious as a matter of law.
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., No. 11-1009, 2013 WL 216406, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. Jan.
`
`22, 2013). JMOL of non-infringement should also be granted because the verdict is not
`
`supported by the evidence. MMI presented no evidence that Apple directly infringes the ’068 or
`
`’075 Patents, and MMI’s only theory for the ’078 Patent was neither disclosed in discovery nor
`
`supported by the evidence. Alternatively, the Court should grant a new trial because the verdict
`
`is against the great weight of the evidence, and MMI’s counsel engaged in improper conduct that
`
`was confusing to the jury and unfairly prejudicial to Apple.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`MMI’s operative complaint alleges infringement of sixteen patents. D.I. 8. On
`
`November 8, 2012, the Court issued a claim construction and summary judgment order. D.I.
`
`461, 462. Trial was limited to claims 5, 6, and 10 of the ’075 Patent, claims 23 and 24 of the
`
`’068 Patent, and claim 73 of the ’078 Patent. PTCT 18:11-17.
`
`A seven-day trial commenced on December 3, 2012. At the close of evidence, Apple
`
`moved for JMOL, and the Court reserved judgment. TT 1513:17-1516:5, 1517:1-6; D.I. 504.
`
`The jury returned a verdict of direct infringement, no induced infringement, and no invalidity of
`
`all asserted patents. D.I. 507. On January 14, 2012, Apple renewed its JMOL and new trial
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 9990
`
`motions; Apple submits this brief in support of its motions. D.I. 516, 517.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`JMOL should be granted when “the jury’s findings, presumed or express, are not
`
`supported by substantial evidence or, if they were, that the legal conclusions implied [by] the
`
`jury’s verdict cannot in law be supported by those findings.” Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d
`
`1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (formatting omitted). “‘Substantial’ evidence is such relevant
`
`evidence from the record taken as a whole as might be accepted by a reasonable mind as
`
`adequate to support the finding under review.” Perkin–Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.,
`
`732 F.2d 888, 893 (Fed. Cir. 1984). JMOL is also appropriate when there is a “purely legal
`
`basis” requiring reversal, see Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 211
`
`(3d Cir. 2009), and is mandated “where the facts and the law will reasonably support only one
`
`conclusion,” Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 78, 88 (3d Cir. 2000).
`
`Obviousness is a question of law appropriately resolved on JMOL. Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`
`616 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed Cir. 2010).
`
`Courts have “wide discretion” to grant a new trial when (i) the verdict is contrary to the
`
`great weight of the evidence, (ii) “the verdict results from jury confusion,” or (iii) improper trial
`
`conduct unfairly influenced the verdict. Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352, 363 (3d Cir.
`
`1999); see, e.g., MFS, Inc. v. Dilazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 464 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
`
`III. THE ’075 PATENT
`
`The ’075 Patent asserted claims are directed to a mobile phone rejecting a second
`
`incoming call by sending a single rejection message to the wireless system with an “information
`
`element indicating to the wireless system that the wireless system is to immediately release the
`
`incoming call.” JTX-9; JTX-10. In the ’075 Patent provisional application, the inventors
`
`explained that GSM networks already had this feature, and they were trying to implement the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 9991
`
`feature in CDMA networks. JTX-11; TT 1100:12-23. At trial, MMI asserted the patent against
`
`the same GSM feature from which the idea was taken.
`
`Apple presented clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims are obvious based
`
`on combinations of (1) GSM 04.83 and GSM 04.08 (“the GSM references”) and (2) the ’068
`
`Patent with the GSM references. Apple established, and MMI did not dispute, that the GSM
`
`references together disclose every element of the asserted claims. MMI presented no evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness, and the jury was not instructed on such
`
`considerations. MMI relied instead on flawed and misleading arguments that an engineer would
`
`not be able to combine GSM 04.08 with GSM 04.83, despite GSM 04.83’s specific instructions
`
`to do so. MMI also implied there was an inventive leap between call rejection for a first call and
`
`call rejection for a second call. Yet the ’068 Patent expressly discloses call rejection for a second
`
`incoming call using the GSM standard, and MMI presented no evidence or argument in response.
`
`MMI’s case turns on the fiction that the messaging taught by GSM 04.08 cannot be used for a
`
`second call – a premise in direct conflict with the evidence and MMI’s infringement case. As
`
`such, no reasonable jury could have found the asserted claims valid.
`
`The undisputed evidence also proved that the iPhone does not infringe the ’075 Patent
`
`because the accused DISCONNECT message does not indicate that a base station must
`
`immediately release a second incoming call, as required by each asserted claim.
`
`A.
`
`GSM 04.83 And GSM 04.08 Render The Claims Obvious.
`
`When the inventors applied for the ’075 Patent, they wrote “GSM has a feature like this.”
`
`JTX-11. Dr. Akl, Apple’s expert, agreed that GSM already had the claimed call rejection
`
`feature, and Apple presented clear evidence that the GSM references render the claims obvious.
`
`See, e.g., DTX-41 § 1.1; DTX-40 §§ 0, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.3.1, 5.4.2; 5.4.3.4; TT 1093:5-1114:12;
`
`1160:14-1162:5; Appendix A (claim chart). GSM 04.08 discloses the messages exchanged
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 9992
`
`between a mobile phone and base station to establish and release calls – for a first or second call.
`
`TT 1102:4-16, 1108:6-22, 1152:8-20. GSM 04.83 addresses call handling for second calls, or
`
`“call waiting” calls, and instructs that a mobile phone and base station “shall” use GSM 04.08 for
`
`second calls. DTX-41 §§ 1.1, 1.3.1; TT 1104:3-22, 1107:9-20. In particular, GSM 04.83 refers
`
`to GSM 04.08’s call “clearing messages” to release a second incoming call. DTX-41 § 1.3.1.
`
`Dr. Akl testified that one such call clearing message, RELEASE COMPLETE, can be sent
`
`during initial setup between the mobile phone and base station. Dr. Akl concluded that the
`
`RELEASE COMPLETE sent in response to setup meets the claims because it is a single message
`
`that indicates to the base station to immediately release the call. TT 1102:17-1104:2, 1106:2-
`
`1107:3; DTX-40 §§ 5.2.2.3.1, 5.4.3.4; see also DTX-40 at 7 (“Call clearing”).
`
`MMI did not dispute that the GSM references combined disclose all claimed elements,
`
`and its expert, Dr. Meldal, did not identify any element missing from the combination. MMI
`
`argued only that the GSM references cannot be combined, and suggested that one of ordinary
`
`skill could not “put[] rejection from [GSM] 4.08 onto call waiting [from GSM 04.83].” See, e.g.,
`
`TT 1564:15-17 (MMI’s counsel argued in closing: “The invention, the invention is putting
`
`rejection from 4.08 onto call waiting.”). The overwhelming evidence established that the GSM
`
`references were designed to be combined. Dr. Meldal admitted that GSM 04.83 describes
`
`releasing a waiting call and specifically instructs: “For the release of the waiting call the mobile
`
`station and the network shall act in accordance with GSM 04.08.” DTX-41 § 1.3; TT 1445:11-
`
`17; 1454:1-12; see also 1441:14-1445:10. The GSM references are two parts of Phase 2 of the
`
`GSM standard, published by one standards body (ETSI) in 1995. See DTX-40; DTX-41; TT
`
`1108:6-10. GSM 04.83 references GSM 04.08 sixteen times in twenty pages and incorporates
`
`GSM 04.08 by reference. See DTX-41 § 0.2; TT 1442:10-23. GSM 04.83 repeatedly states that
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 9993
`
`GSM mobile phones and base stations “shall act” in accordance with GSM 04.08 to handle a
`
`second incoming call. See, e.g., DTX-41 §§ 1.1, 1.3; TT 1444:10-16.1
`
`Dr. Akl established that a person of skill in the art would combine the GSM references to
`
`reject a second incoming call. TT 1107:9-1109:6. Dr. Akl testified that GSM 04.08 messages
`
`can be used for a first or second call and an engineer would be motivated to use GSM 04.08
`
`messages to reject a second call – in fact, GSM 04.83 instructs the engineer to do so. TT 1108:6-
`
`22, 1152:8-20. Dr. Akl explained that after reading GSM 04.83’s mandate to use GSM 04.08,
`
`one of ordinary skill would easily locate relevant portions of GSM 04.08, using, for example, the
`
`table of contents. TT 1107:15-1108:5. Apple engineer Matthew Klahn also testified that it
`
`would be trivial for an engineer to find the appropriate messages in GSM 04.08. TT 863:15-25.
`
`Unable to contest GSM 04.83’s instructions to combine the GSM references, Dr. Meldal
`
`simply ignored GSM 04.83 altogether. Dr. Meldal speculated that his students, looking only at
`
`GSM 04.08, would not use GSM 04.08 to handle a second call. TT 1395:15-1396:5, 1397:19-
`
`1398:13. Dr. Meldal provided no analysis disputing the evidence that an engineer looking at
`
`both GSM references would know to combine the two. A person of ordinary skill is presumed to
`
`have and know the contents of the prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995); Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (person of
`
`ordinary skill is an “inventor working in his shop with the prior art references – which he is
`
`presumed to know – hanging on the walls around him.”). Dr. Meldal’s misleading and
`
`unsupported opinion is contradicted by the record evidence and insufficient to support the
`
`
`1 Even if GSM 04.83 did not explicitly teach that GSM 04.08 must be used for a second
`incoming call, the claims would still be obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007) (“[I]f the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
`art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 9994
`
`verdict. See Belden Techs., Inc. v. Superior Essex Communs. LP, 802 F. Supp. 2d 555, 573 (D.
`
`Del. 2011) (conclusory expert testimony on lack of motivation to combine “provides no support
`
`for the jury’s verdict.”). Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 496 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (“When an expert opinion is not supported by sufficient facts to validate it in the eyes
`
`of the law, or when indisputable record facts contradict or otherwise render the opinion
`
`unreasonable, it cannot support a jury’s verdict.”) (citations omitted).
`
`Dr. Meldal’s opinion regarding the GSM combination also contradicts his infringement
`
`opinion. Dr. Meldal’s infringement theories depend on the combination of GSM 24.083 and
`
`GSM 24.008, and he admitted that GSM 24.008 can be followed to reject a first or second call.
`
`See TT 587:25-599:3, 1437:9-1438:18. The GSM sections Dr. Meldal relied on for infringement
`
`are identical in all relevant respects to corresponding sections in the prior art GSM 04.83 and
`
`GSM 04.08. See, e.g., PTX-56 and DTX-41 §§1.3 and 1.3.1; PTX-60 and DTX-40 §§ 5.2.2.3.4,
`
`5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.3.2, 5.4.3.3, 5.4.3.5. This is significant for two reasons. First, Dr. Meldal’s
`
`concession that GSM 24.008 and 24.083 do work together shows there is no reason to doubt that
`
`an engineer could successfully combine the same sections of prior art GSM 04.83 and 04.08.
`
`The asserted claims are therefore obvious as a matter of law. See Wyers, 616 F.3d at 1239-40
`
`(reversing denial of JMOL; claims obvious where it is a matter of common sense to combine
`
`prior art references and there is a reasonable expectation of success).
`
`Second, because the undisputed evidence established that the GSM 24.008 and 24.083
`
`disclosures on which Dr. Meldal relies for infringement are identical to the corresponding
`
`disclosures in GSM 04.08 and 04.83, it is clear that what MMI accuses of infringement was
`
`already disclosed in GSM in 1995, three years before the ’075 Patent’s priority date. In fact, as
`
`Dr. Akl testified, the relevant GSM functionality has not changed in 20 years. TT 1098:21-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 9995
`
`1099:3. Because the ’075 Patent is invalid under MMI’s infringement theory, no reasonable jury
`
`could find the ’075 Patent both infringed and valid.
`
`B.
`
`The ’068 Patent Combined With GSM 04.83 And 04.08 Render The Claims
`Obvious.
`
`MMI suggested that second call rejection was not already known in GSM and that going
`
`from first call rejection (GSM 04.08) to second call rejection (GSM 04.83) required an inventive
`
`leap. However, MMI did not rebut Apple’s clear and convincing evidence that the ’068 Patent
`
`and GSM references together expressly disclose rejecting a second call using GSM and that there
`
`was a motivation to combine the references. The ’068 Patent teaches a user interface the
`
`provides an option to reject a second incoming call, and states that the call control functionality
`
`to reject a second call may be performed using “a standard in the GSM system.” See, e.g.,
`
`Section A above, and JTX5 Figs. 7 (SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP8, SP9) and 6A, 6B, 6D, 1:29-38,
`
`6:6-13, 7:4-9, Fig. 2, 3:16-25; TT 1114:14-1123:18, 1156:4-22; Appendix A. Unable to rebut
`
`this evidence, Dr. Meldal merely argued that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would actually
`
`be looking away from 4.08” for handling a second call. TT 1403:22-1404:10. Dr. Meldal’s
`
`conclusory testimony was directly refuted by the evidence, including GSM 04.83’s teaching that
`
`the mobile station and network “shall act in accordance with GSM 04.08” to reject a second call.
`
`As such, it cannot support the verdict that the ’075 Patent is valid over the ’068 Patent combined
`
`with the GSM references. Integra, 496 F.3d at 1342.
`
`C. MMI Presented No Evidence iPhones Release Calls As Accused Or That The
`Accused DISCONNECT Message Meets All Claim Elements.
`
`The jury’s finding that the accused GSM iPhones infringe the asserted claims is not
`
`supported by the evidence for at least two independent reasons. First, MMI could not produce
`
`any evidence that the accused method of releasing a second call has ever actually occurred on
`
`any iPhone. Second, even if the iPhone did release a second call using the accused method,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 9996
`
`MMI failed to provide evidence that this accused method meets all claim elements.
`
`Under the Court’s claim construction, a rejection message must be a “single
`
`communication sufficient to cause the base station to ‘immediately release the incoming call,’”
`
`and “immediately release” means that “the wireless system must, without requiring any
`
`additional action by or communication from the mobile phone, ‘release the incoming call on the
`
`communication channel between the mobile phone and the remote transceiver.’” D.I. 505 at 20.
`
`The only evidence presented at trial established that accused iPhones release second incoming
`
`calls only after a three-message exchange with the base station. TT 864:6-25, 1072:15-1073:12,
`
`1075:14-1080:21. This exchange does not meet the “immediately release” limitation because “it
`
`requires additional communication from the iPhones.” D.I. 461 at 34.
`
`MMI argued that iPhones infringe based on an “abnormal case” defined in the GSM
`
`standard. PTX-60 (GSM 24.008) § 5.4.3.5; TT 583:22-585:13. Under this abnormal case, a base
`
`station may release a second call following the expiration of two timers and the continued failure
`
`of a mobile phone to respond as required under the standard. Id.
`
`1.
`
`MMI Presented No Evidence That Any iPhones Has Ever Released A Second
`Call As Described In The Accused GSM “Abnormal Case.”
`
`Both Dr. Akl and Apple engineer Matthew Klahn testified that there is no evidence that a
`
`second call has ever been released from an iPhone as a result of the accused “abnormal”
`
`procedure. See TT 1084:15-21; TT 867:13. Dr. Meldal conceded there is no evidence but
`
`simply insisted the absence of evidence is not relevant. TT 744:10-15. Thus, there was no
`
`evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that any accused iPhone has ever infringed the
`
`asserted claims, and JMOL should be granted. See, e.g., PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`
`Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (upholding JMOL where plaintiff had no evidence
`
`of any transaction in which defendants actually met claim limitation.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 9997
`
`2.
`
`MMI Presented No Evidence That The Accused DISCONNECT Message
`Contains “An Information Element That Indicates That The Wireless
`System Is To Immediately Release The Incoming Call.”
`
`MMI did not present evidence that the accused DISCONNECT message comprises an
`
`“information element indicating to the wireless system” that it is “to immediately release the
`
`incoming call,” i.e., that the DISCONNECT message indicates that “the wireless system must,
`
`without requiring additional messages or action by the mobile phone, release the incoming call.”
`
`See JTX-9; JTX-10; D.I. 505 at 20 (emphasis added). In fact, the accused DISCONNECT
`
`message does the opposite, and thus cannot infringe under the Court’s construction.
`
`Dr. Akl and Dr. Meldal both testified that when a base station receives a DISCONNECT
`
`message, the base station does not immediately release the incoming call. Instead, it sends a
`
`RELEASE message, sets a timer, and enters the Release Request state, in which it is “waiting for
`
`a response” from the mobile phone. PTX-60 §§ 5.4.3.2, 5.1.2.2.13, TT 1082:5-8, 1091:21-
`
`1092:2, 1133:9-1134:11. The mobile phone is required to respond to the RELEASE message.
`
`PTX-60 §§ 5.4.3.2, 5.4.3.3; TT 728:3-10. If the timer expires with no response from the mobile
`
`phone – a situation the standard defines as “abnormal,” the base station still does not release the
`
`call. Instead it sends another RELEASE message and again waits for a response from the mobile
`
`phone. PTX-60 §§ 5.4.3.2, 5.1.2.2.13, TT 1082:20-1083:2, 1084:22-1086:1. As Dr. Meldal
`
`testified, the base station “stays waiting for the response.” TT 595:25-596:6. Thus, the
`
`undisputed evidence demonstrates that the DISCONNECT message indicates to start the release
`
`process and wait for a response from the mobile phone – not to immediately release the call.
`
`Faced with the fact that the DISCONNECT message does not instruct the base station to
`
`immediately release the call, Dr. Meldal claimed the “cause 17” sent with the DISCONNECT
`
`message does. TT 587:25-588:21, 591:23-592:2, 596:13-15. But Dr. Meldal offered nothing to
`
`support his claim. In fact, the evidence shows cause 17 does not instruct the base station release
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 518 Filed 01/28/13 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 9998
`
`a call, much less to immediately release it. For example, cause 17 can be sent with a CALL
`
`CONFIRMED message that instructs the base station to continue connecting an incoming call.
`
`See PTX-60 § 5.2.2.3.1, DTX-41 § 1.1. As Dr. Meldal conceded, cause 17 can be sent with the
`
`DISCONNECT message in the “normal” scenario in which the base station releases the call only
`
`after receiving more messages from the mobile phone, i.e. not “immediately.” TT 596:10-12.
`
`MMI argued that a DISCONNECT message is “sufficient” to eventually release an
`
`incoming call: “That disconnect message is sufficient to cause to release the call. That’s our
`
`infringement case, ladies and gentlemen.”