Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 6633
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ATLANTIC BROADBAND GROUP, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHTHOUSE NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CABLE ONE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00842-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00843-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv-00844-RGA
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 6634
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et
`al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`COMCAST COMMUNICATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv-00845-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00846-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00847-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00848-RGA
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 6635
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv-00849-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00850-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00851-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv-00852-RGA
`
`i
`
`I l
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 6636
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WA VEDNISION HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`WIDEOPEN WEST FINANCE, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00853-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 1: 15-cv-00854-RGA
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq., BAYARD, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Sara E. Bussier, Esq.,
`BAY ARD, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark S. Raskin, Esq., MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK
`LLP, New York, NY; Robert A. Whitman, Esq., MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP, New
`York, NY; Michael S. DeVincenzo, Esq. (argued), MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP,
`New York, NY; John F. Petrsoric, Esq. (argued), MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP, New
`York, NY.
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE;
`Jennifer Ying, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE;
`Michael Brody, Esq. (argued), WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Chicago, IL; Jonathan Retsky,
`Esq., WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Chicago, IL; Krishnan Padmanabhan, Esq. (argued),
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, New York, NY; Anup Misra, Esq., WINSTON & STRAWN
`LLP, New York, NY; Alexandra McTague, Esq., WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Menlo Park,
`CA; James Lin, Esq., WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Menlo Park, CA;
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`December 9, 2016
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 6637
`
`~~IT
`
`Presently before the Court is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,941,822 ("the '822 patent"), 8,341,679 ("the '679 patent"), and 8,984,565 ("the
`
`'565 patent"). The Court has considered the Parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief. (Civ. Act.
`
`No. 15-842-RGA, D.I. 68; Civ. Act. No. 15-843-RGA, D.I. 67; Civ. Act. No. 15-844-RGA, D.I.
`
`68; Civ. Act. No. 15-845-RGA, D.I. 68; Civ. Act. No. 15-846-RGA, D.I. 70; Civ. Act. No. 15-
`
`847-RGA; D.I. 67; Civ. Act. No. 15-848-RGA, D.I. 68; Civ. Act. No. 15-849-RGA, D.I. 67; Civ.
`
`Act. No. 15-850-RGA, D.I. 68; Civ. Act. No. 15-851-RGA, D.I. 68; Civ. Act. No. 15-852-RGA,
`
`D.I. 68; Civ. Act. No. 15-853-RGA, D.I. 69; Civ. Act. No. 15-854-RGA, D.I. 68). 1 The Court
`
`heard oral argument on November 15, 2016. (D.I. 78).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff filed these actions on September 21, 2015, alleging infringement of three
`
`patents. (D.I. 1). All three patents share a common specification. The patents claim devices and
`
`methods for distributing signals on a wideband signal distribution system. (See, e.g., '822 patent,
`
`claim 1; '679 patent, claim 1; '565 patent, claim 1).
`
`II.
`
`LEGALSTANDARD
`
`"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). "'[T]here is no magic formula or
`
`catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate
`
`weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'"
`
`Soft View LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips,
`
`1 Unless otherwise specifically noted, all references to the docket refer to Civil Action No. 15-842-RGA.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6638
`
`415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the
`
`literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction
`
`analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning ....
`
`[Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."
`
`Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a
`
`claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314.
`
`When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history-the court's construction is a determination oflaw.
`
`See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The court may also
`
`make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all
`
`evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology,
`
`the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 6639
`
`evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history. Id.
`
`"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it
`
`defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa 'per
`
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would
`
`exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade
`
`Comm 'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`The '822 patent is directed to an intelligent device system and method for distribution of
`
`digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
`
`follows:
`
`1. An intelligent device for receiving and processing RF signals, comprising:
`an input configured to receive a modulated RF signal containing multiple
`channels, and to receive channel in use information which identifies each channel
`in the modulated RF signal that includes information addressed to at least one
`addressable device;
`a demodulator unit configured to demodulate at least two channels
`contained in the modulated RF signal when the channel in use information
`identifies the at least two channels as containing information addressed to the at
`least one addressable device; and
`a combiner configured to combine the at least two channels demodulated
`by the demodulator unit into a digital stream when the channel in use information
`identifies the at least two channels as containing information addressed to the at
`least one addressable device, and to output the digital stream to the at least one
`addressable device.
`
`('822 patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
`
`The '679 patent is also directed to an intelligent device system and method for
`
`distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system. Claim 1 is representative
`
`and reads as follows:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 6640
`
`1. An intelligent device for transmitting information on a modulated RF signal,
`comprising:
`an input configured to receive a digital stream containing digital
`information, the digital information containing at least one destination address to
`which the digital information is to be sent;
`an RF channel detector configured to detect which dynamically allocated
`RF channels are currently being used in a wideband signal distribution system, and
`to generate RF channel in use information identifying which of the dynamically
`allocated RF channels are currently being used in the wideband signal distribution
`system;
`a traffic sensor configured to measure an information throughput of the
`digital information received by the input, and to generate traffic information
`identifying the information throughput of the received digital information;
`a modulator unit configured to modulate the digital information into at least
`two separate dynamically allocated RF channels when the traffic information
`indicates that the information throughput of the digital information exceeds an
`information capacity of a single RF channel, and to output a modulated RF signal
`containing the at least two separate dynamically allocated RF channels to the
`wideband signal distribution system such that the digital information contained in
`the received digital stream is distributed across the at least two dynamically
`allocated RF channels output to the wideband signal distribution system; and
`a processor configured to
`receive the RF channel in use information generated by the RF
`channel detector and the traffic information generated by the traffic sensor,
`determine which dynamically allocated RF channels are available
`to carry the digital information, from among a plurality of RF channels
`contained in the modulated RF signal, based on the RF channels which are
`identified in the RF channel in use information as not currently being used
`in the wideband signal distribution system,
`determine a number of dynamically allocated RF channels from
`among the plurality of RF channels contained in the modulated RF signal
`on which to carry the digital information received by the input based on the
`information throughput of the digital information and the information
`capacity of a single RF channel,
`instruct the modulator unit to distribute the received digital
`information across at least two dynamically allocated RF channels by
`modulating the received digital
`information into
`the at least two
`dynamically allocated RF channels when the traffic information indicates
`that the information throughput of the digital information exceeds an
`information capacity of a single RF channel, and
`instruct the modulator unit on which specific dynamically allocated
`RF channels from among the plurality of RF channels to carry the digital
`information in the modulated RF signal based on the determined number of
`dynamically allocated RF channels on which to carry the digital
`information, the at least one destination address contained in the digital
`information, and the determined available dynamically allocated RF
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 6641
`
`channels which are not currently being used m the wideband signal
`distribution system.
`
`('679 patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
`
`The '565 patent is also directed to an intelligent device system and method for
`
`distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system. Claim 1 is representative
`
`and reads as follows:
`
`1. An intelligent device for transmitting information on a modulated RF signal,
`comprising:
`a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having instructions
`recorded thereon; and
`a processor, by executing the instructions recorded on the computer(cid:173)
`readable recording medium, being configured to:
`receive a digital stream containing digital information, the digital
`information containing at least one destination address to which the digital
`information is to be sent;
`receive channel in use information identifying which dynamically
`allocated RF channels are currently being used in a wideband signal
`distribution system;
`receive traffic information identifying an information throughput of
`the received digital information;
`determine which dynamically allocated RF channels are available
`to carry the digital information, from among a plurality of RF channels
`contained in a modulated RF signal, based on the RF channels which are
`identified in the channel in use information as not currently being used in
`the wideband signal distribution system;
`determine a number of dynamically allocated RF channels from
`among the plurality of RF channels contained in the modulated RF signal
`on which to carry the received digital information based on the information
`throughput of the digital information and the information capacity of a
`single RF channel;
`instruct the modulator unit to distribute the received digital
`information across at least two dynamically allocated RF channels by
`modulating the received digital information into at least two dynamically
`allocated RF channels to be output to the wideband signal distribution
`system, when the traffic information indicates that the information
`throughput of the digital information exceeds an information capacity of a
`single RF channel;
`instruct the modulator unit on which specific dynamically allocated
`RF channels from among the plurality of RF channels to carry the digital
`information in the modulated RF signal based on the determined number of
`dynamically allocated RF channels on which to carry the digital
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 6642
`
`information, the at least one destination address contained in the digital
`information, and the determined available dynamically allocated RF
`channels which are not currently being used in the wideband signal
`distribution system; and
`instruct the modulator unit to output the at least two dynamically
`allocated RF channels over which the received digital information is
`distributed to the wideband signal distribution system.
`
`('565 patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
`
`1.
`
`"intelligent device"
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "No construction necessary. Plain meaning.
`E.g., a device or apparatus as claimed"
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "a component in a local network that
`forwards a signal [from/to] a distribution unit [to/from] addressable devices and
`standard outlets"
`
`Court's construction: The preamble is limiting. "The intelligent device as
`claimed in the independent claims"
`
`Defendants argue that because this term appears in the preamble of all independent claims,
`
`it is necessarily limiting and must be construed. Plaintiff counters that the term is simply the name
`
`given to the invention by the patentee and that the device is sufficiently described in the body of
`
`the claim. Defendants make three points in support of their argument that the preamble is limiting:
`
`first, the preamble recites essential structure; second, the use of the term in the preamble provides
`
`an antecedent basis for its use in a number of dependent claims; third, the applicant relied on the
`
`preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claim over prior art.
`
`"Preamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention is
`
`generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim." Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d
`
`945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006). "When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive
`
`antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the
`
`claimed invention." Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 6643
`
`As to Defendants' first argument, none of the independent claims use the term "intelligent device"
`
`in the body of the claims. The preamble to each of those claims adds no limitations; it "merely
`
`gives a descriptive name to the set oflimitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth
`
`the invention." IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`With respect to Defendants' third argument, the prosecution history does not support importing
`
`limitations beyond what is actually claimed. As Plaintiff notes, the claims in the patent as allowed
`
`are different from those in the applications and office actions cited by Defendants. (D.I. 68 at 59).
`
`In light of these differences, nothing in the prosecution history suggests that any of the limitations
`
`Defendants seek to impose were ever required in order to distinguish these allowed claims over
`
`prior art.
`
`Defendants are correct, however, that the preambles of the independent claims are limiting
`
`in that they provide an antecedent basis for the use of the term "intelligent device" in the body of
`
`certain dependent claims. I do not agree, however, that this necessarily means the term requires
`
`construction. Each of the dependent claims at issue is quite specific as to the intelligent device to
`
`which it refers. For example, claim 8 of the '822 patent begins "The intelligent device of claim
`
`1." In other words, the antecedent basis of the "intelligent device" claimed in the body of each
`
`dependent claims is the intelligent device of the specified independent claim, which is fully
`
`described in that independent claim. Therefore, I construe "intelligent device" in each dependent
`
`claim to mean the intelligent device as claimed in the referenced independent claim.
`
`2.
`
`"combiner"
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "a multiplexer that, when it receives multiple
`channels or inputs, performs parallel to serial conversion on those channels or
`inputs"
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "A multiplexer required to operate in the
`manner claimed"
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 6644
`
`c.
`
`Court's construction: "multiplexer that, when it receives multiple channels or
`inputs, performs parallel to serial conversion on those channels or inputs"
`
`The parties agree that the "combiner" as claimed is a multiplexer. In briefing and at oral
`
`argument, the disagreement between the parties seemed limited to whether the combiner was
`
`required to perform a parallel to serial conversion, with Defendants arguing in favor of such
`
`limitation. (D.I. 68 at 28; D.I. 78 at 96:21-25). The primary point of disagreement, as I understood
`
`it at the time of oral argument, was that the limitation as originally proposed by Defendants did
`
`not appear to allow for the "pass-through" function of a multiplexer when only a single input is
`
`presented to it. (D.I. 78 at 94:21-24). It seems to me that Plaintiffs current proposed construction
`
`addresses this point of disagreement and is consistent with Defendants' statements at oral
`
`argument. (Id. at 97:3-5). Defendants' current proposal, on the other hand, does not provide any
`
`clarification as to the meaning of this term. Therefore, I will adopt Plaintiffs construction.
`
`3.
`
`"modulated RF signal"
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "No construction needed. Plain meaning. E.g.,
`a signal or signals modulated for transmission as a radio frequency signal"
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "one or more channel(s) modulated onto a
`single RF carrier"
`
`Court's construction: "plain meaning"
`
`With respect to this term, Defendants have not actually proposed to construe anything
`
`beyond adding limitations that find no support in the patent. Their proposed construction uses two
`
`of the three words from the disputed phrase without providing any further clarification of their
`
`meaning. Furthermore, Defendants introduce another word, "carrier," that itself would need to be
`
`defined. It seems to me that "modulated RF signal" is a term that a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand without further clarification. Furthermore, I see no support for limiting the modulation
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 6645
`
`to a single carrier. To the contrary, the specification's description of one embodiment refers to the
`
`use of quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) which by definition requires multiple carriers.2
`
`('822 patent at 9:57-60). Therefore, I will construe this term to have its plain meaning.
`
`4.
`
`"wideband signal distribution system"
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "No construction necessary. Plain meaning.
`E.g., a system that distributes signals on a wide band of frequencies."
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "local infrastructure for distributing data
`between a distribution unit and addressable device and outlets"
`
`Court's construction: "a system that distributes signals on a wide band of
`frequencies with wideband as defined in the specification"
`
`Defendants seek to impose two limitations on the meaning of this claim term: first, that
`
`the system must be local in character; second, that the system involves distribution specifically
`
`"between a distribution unit and addressable device and outlets." The second limitation would
`
`require reading in a limitation from a preferred embodiment, which I decline to do. The
`
`specification states, "A wideband signal distribution system typically includes a distribution unit
`
`having a plurality of inputs and outputs, and a series of cables, such as twisted pair cable, running
`
`between a plurality of outlets and the inputs and outputs of the distribution unit." (Id. at 2:48-52).
`
`"Typically" does not mean "always," however, and I do not find support in the claims or
`
`specification to limit the meaning of this term.
`
`As to whether the system must have "local infrastructure," I agree with Plaintiff that the
`
`claims and specification do not support limiting the meaning of wideband signal distribution
`
`system in this way. As an initial matter, it is not clear what precisely Defendants mean by "local"
`
`2 See, e.g., GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL STANDARD 1037C, TELECOMMUNICATIONS: GLOSSARY
`OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TERMS ( 1996), available at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-103 7 /fs-103 7 c.htm (defining
`QAM as "quadrature modulation in which the two carriers are amplitude modulated" and quadrature modulation as
`"modulation using two carriers out of phase by 90° and modulated by separate signals").
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 6646
`
`and I am not inclined to construe a claim term using words that themselves are ambiguous or
`
`unclear. Defendants argue that the patentee defined the wideband signal distribution system to be
`
`the system described in the Flickinger patent referenced in the specification. (D.I. 68 at 77). The
`
`specification is not so limiting, however, stating only that this invention uses a wideband signal
`
`distribution system "such as that disclosed" in the Flickenger patent. ('822 patent at 1 :41-42).
`
`This is not a clear definition of the wideband signal distribution system disclosed in the patent, nor
`
`is it a disavowal of other possible types of wideband signal distribution systems.
`
`Furthermore, the restriction to a local infrastructure is not supported by the patent. For
`
`example, the specification states, "An intelligent device system may also be, for example, an
`
`intelligent device system for local sending and receiving." ('822 patent at 3:22-23). The patent
`
`certainly contemplates that the intelligent device might be implemented in a local infrastructure,
`
`as described in this embodiment, but nothing in the patent suggests that the invention is so limited.
`
`In fact, the specification also states, "An intelligent device system may also be, for example, an
`
`intelligent device system for remote sending." (Id. at 3:3-4). I will not adopt a construction that
`
`imports a limitation from one embodiment and also reads out another embodiment. Finally, I note
`
`that the patentee chose to expressly define "wideband" in the specification to mean "a signal or
`
`signal sets having an analog or digital characteristic that can be distributed on a carrier of 5 MHz
`
`to in excess of 1 GHz, for example." ('822 patent at 7:6-9). Therefore, I will construe this term
`
`to mean "a system that distributes signals on a wide band of frequencies with wideband as defined
`
`in the specification."
`
`5.
`
`"addressable device"
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "No construction needed. Plain meaning."
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "a device with which an intelligent device
`directly communicates based on the device's address"
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 6647
`
`c.
`
`Court's construction: "plain meaning"
`
`The parties do not disagree on the meaning of the term "addressable device." The
`
`disagreement over construction of this term stems from Defendants' proposal that the intelligent
`
`device must communicate "directly" with the addressable device. This additional limitation only
`
`produces additional uncertainty, however. Even at oral argument, Defendants had trouble
`
`articulating what it means for the intelligent device to communicate directly with an addressable
`
`device. (D.I. 78 at 106:5-108:6). Furthermore, it seems clear that Defendants' reason for
`
`introducing this limitation is to head off infringement contentions that they see as exceeding the
`
`scope of the patent. (Id. at 108:7-9). It seems to me that Defendants are simply making a non-
`
`infringement argument rather than attempting to meaningfully construe a term that has a plain
`
`meaning to persons of ordinary skill in the art. I will not read limitations into a claim terms that
`
`are unsupported by the intrinsic evidence. Therefore, I will construe this term to have its plain
`
`meanmg.
`
`6.
`
`"dynamically allocated RF channels"
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "plain meaning, which excludes pre-assigned
`channels"
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "RF channels onto which information is
`allocated dynamically. An RF channel that is always selected for transmission of
`information (such as a pre-assigned channel) is not a dynamically allocated RF
`channel."
`
`c.
`
`Court's construction: "plain meaning, which excludes pre-assigned channels"
`
`The parties agree that that pre-assigned channels are not dynamically allocated. What the
`
`parties disagree on, however, is not clear to me. Defendants' proposed construction appears to do
`
`little more than mimic the words of the claim term and adds nothing to the meaning of this term.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00854-RGA Document 85 Filed 12/09/16 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 6648
`
`Therefore, I will construe this term to have its plain meaning with the understanding that pre(cid:173)
`
`assigned channels are not dynamically allocated.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this
`
`Memorandum Opinion suitable for submission to the jury.
`
`12
`
`