Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 21802
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 23 PagelD #: 21802
`
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 21803
`
`Nos. 2020-2222, 2021-1527
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`v.
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED, nka Broadcom Inc., BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, nka Avago Technologies International
`Sales Pte. Limited, APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of
`California in Case No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR, Judge George H. Wu
`
`NON-CONFIDENTIAL JOINT APPENDIX VOLUME I OF IV
`(Appx1-Appx2390)
`
`
`KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN
`JAMES R. ASPERGER
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`WILLIAM F. LEE
`JOSEPH J. MUELLER
`LAUREN B. FLETCHER
`MADELEINE C. LAUPHEIMER
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
`
`ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON INSIDE COVER
`
`May 6, 2021
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 21804
`
`MARK D. SELWYN
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 858-6000
`
`STEVEN J. HORN
`DAVID P. YIN
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
`
`DEREK L. SHAFFER
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 538-8000
`
`KEVIN A. SMITH
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 875-6600
`
`KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON
`TODD M. BRIGGS
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 801-5000
`
`EDWARD J. DEFRANCO
`BRIAN P. BIDDINGER
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`(202) 849-7000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 21805
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`VOLUME I OF IV
`
`Stipulated Protective Order, Dkt. No. 101 (Feb. 2, 2017)
`
`JUDGMENT, VERDICT, ORDERS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Final Ruling on Claim Construction, Dkt. No. 213 (July 12, 2017) Appx1-
`Appx35
`
`Final Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgmnet,
`Dkt. No. 830 (Dec. 28, 2018)
`
`Appx36-
`Appx63
`
`Final Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Asserted Claims of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,916,781, Dkt. No. 849 (Jan. 18, 2019)
`
`Appx64-
`Appx100
`
`Final Rulings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to
`No Inequitable Conduct, Dkt. No. 1518 (July 1, 2019)
`
`Appx101-
`Appx112
`
`Order regarding Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion
`for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b), Defendants’ Motion
`for Partial Reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude
`[Dkt. Nos. 844, 845, 887, 888, and 1024], Dkt. No. 1432 (Aug. 9,
`2019)
`
`Civil Minutes regarding Daubert Motions, Dkt. No. 1630 (Nov.
`21, 2019) [FILED UNDER SEAL]
`
`Amended Civil Minutes of Pretrial Conference, Dkt. No. 1926
`(Dec. 30, 2019)
`
`Civil Minutes of Pretrial Conference, Dkt. No. 1919 (Jan. 9,
`2020)
`
`Civil Minutes of Jury Trial, Day 3 with Claim Construction
`Order, Dkt. No. 1957 (Jan. 16, 2020)
`
`Appx113-
`Appx137
`
`Appx138-
`Appx155
`
`Appx156-
`Appx166
`
`Appx167-
`Appx169
`
`Appx170-
`Appx171
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 21806
`
`
`
`Final Jury Instructions, Dkt. No. 2112 (Jan. 29, 2020)
`
`Jury Verdict, Dkt. No. 2114 (Jan. 29, 2020)
`
`Civil Minutes of Telephonic Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for
`Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed) and/or New Trial, Dkt.
`No. 2238 (July 21, 2020) [FILED UNDER SEAL]
`
`Civil Minutes of Telephonic Hearing on CalTech’s Motion for
`Supplemental Damages, Interest, Attorneys’ Fees, and a
`Permanent Injunction or On-Going Royalties, Dkt. No. 2239 (July
`21, 2020) [FILED UNDER SEAL]
`
`Judgment, Dkt. No. 2245 (Aug. 3, 2020)
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781
`
`DOCKET SHEET
`
`Civil Docket Sheet for The California Institute of Technology v.
`Broadcom Limited et al., No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR (C.D.
`Cal.)
`
`TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`Appx172-
`Appx189
`
`Appx190-
`Appx193
`
`Appx194-
`Appx240
`
`Appx241-
`Appx251
`
`Appx252-
`Appx254
`
`
`
`Appx255-
`Appx266
`
`Appx267-
`Appx280
`
`Appx281-
`Appx292
`
`
`
`Appx293-
`Appx539
`
`
`
`Trial Transcript, January 15, 2020 (morning session), Dkt. No.
`2151 (Apr. 2, 2020)
`
`Appx2212-
`Appx2282
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 21807
`
`BYGor.
`
`DEPUTY
`
`sll
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`) No. CV 16-3714-GW-AGRx
`
`FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`))
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED AND
`APPLE,INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Appx172
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 21808
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2of18 Page ID
`#137595
`
`Final Jury Instructions
`
`I.
`
`Introductory Instructions
`
`Membersof the Jury: Now that you have heardall ofthe evidence, it is my duty to instruct
`you on the law that applies to this case. Each of you has received a copy ofthese instructions
`that you may take with you to the jury room.
`It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will
`apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree
`with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions,
`prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before
`you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so.
`Please do not read into these instructions or anything that I may say or do or have said or
`done that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.
`
`This caseis a civil lawsuit alleging patent infringement.In this case, the California Institute
`of Technology, which I will refer to as “Caltech,” is suing Defendants Apple Inc., Broadcom
`Corporation, Broadcom Limited, and Avago Technologies, Limited, for what
`it claims is
`unauthorized use of three Caltech patents,
`in products sold by Defendants.
`Broadcom
`Corporation, Broadcom Limited, and Avago Technologies, Limited are related entities and can be
`treated as a single defendant whichI will refer to as “Broadcom.”
`Caltech owns three patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in
`2006, 2008 and 2011, related to encoders and decodersthat use a specific type of error correction
`coding. Caltech claims and bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that
`Apple’s products that support Wi-Fi (including its iPhones,
`iPads,
`iMacs, MacBooks, and
`AppleTV) and Broadcom’s chips (that support Wi-Fi) infringe Caltech’s patents.
`Broadcom and Apple claim that their products do not use Caltech’s technology, and that
`their products instead use a form oferror correction coding that is different from the specific type
`of error correction coding claimed by Caltech’s patents.
`Caltech is seeking what it believes to be a reasonable royalty from Broadcom and Apple to
`compensate for the alleged infringement. Broadcom and Apple denythat Caltechis entitled to any
`damages because: (1) they deny infringement, and (2) they believe that what Caltech is seekingis
`not reasonable.
`
`When a party has the burden of proving any claim or affirmative defense by a
`“preponderance of the evidence,” it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim
`or affirmative defense is more probably true than nottrue.
`You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented
`it. Unless I instruct you otherwise,all issues in this case must be established by a preponderance
`of the evidence.
`
`You should decide the case as to each Defendant separately. Unless otherwisestated, the
`instructions apply to all parties.
`
`—l—
`
`
`Appx173
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 21809
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3of18 Page ID
`#137596
`
`The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consistsof:
`1. the sworn testimony of any witness;
`2. the exhibits that are admitted into evidence;
`3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed; and
`4. any facts that I have instructed you to accept as proved.
`
`In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into
`evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the
`facts are. I will list them for you:
`
`1. Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not
`witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, closing arguments and at
`other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the
`facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your
`memory of them controls.
`2. Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty
`to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of
`evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it.
`3. Testimony that is excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to
`disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.
`4, Anything you may have seen or heard when the court wasnot in session is not
`evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at thetrial.
`
`Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as
`testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
`evidenceis proof of one or morefacts from which you could find another fact. You should consider
`both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either
`direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how muchweightto give to any evidence.
`
`There are rules of evidence that control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer
`asked a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thought thatit
`was not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer raised an objection. If I overruled the
`objection, the question was answered or the exhibit received. If I sustained the objection, the
`question was not answered, and the exhibit not admitted. WheneverI sustained an objection to a
`question, you must ignore the question and must not guess what the answer might have been.
`Sometimes I may order that evidence be stricken from the record and that you disregard or
`ignore that evidence. That means when you are deciding the case, you must not consider the
`stricken evidence for any purpose.
`
`In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide whichtestimony to believe and
`which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none
`ofit.
`In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
`1. the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the thingstestified to;
`
`~2-
`
`
`Appx174
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 21810
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4of18 Page ID
`#137597
`
`2. the witness’s memory;
`3. the witness’s manner while testifying;
`4. the witness’s interest in the outcomeofthe case, if any;
`5. the witness’s bias or prejudice, if any;
`6. whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;
`7. the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and
`8. any other factors that bear on believability.
`
`Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or
`she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People
`often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same
`event but rememberit differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that
`testimony is untrue just becauseit differs from other testimony.
`However,
`if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about
`something important, you may choosenotto believe anything that witness said. On the other hand,
`if you think the witnesstestified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you
`may accept the part you think is true and ignorethe rest.
`The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the numberof
`witnesses whotestify. What is important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much
`weight you think their testimony deserves.
`
`During your deliberations, you will not have a transcript ofthetrial testimony,
`
`You have been allowed to take notes during thetrial to help you rememberthe evidence.
`If you did take notes, please keep them to yourself until you go to the jury room to decide thecase.
`When youleave, your notes should be left in the jury room. No one will read your notes.
`Whetheror not you take notes, you should rely on your own memory of the evidence. Notes
`are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of
`other jurors.
`
`A deposition is the swom testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is placed
`underoath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party asked questions. The questions and answers
`are recorded either in written form or by meansofa video recording.
`
`Certain depositions were presented to you in the form of playing the recording of the
`witness’s deposition testimonyin lieu of those witnesses’ live testimony during the trial.
`Insofar
`as possible, you should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court in lieu of live
`testimony, in the same wayas if the witness had been presentto testify. During the playing of
`those depositions, not only were you able to see and hear that testimony but also a transcription of
`the testimony was simultaneously scrolled at the bottom of the screen to assist you whenlistening
`to the recordings. However, bear in mindthat the recording is the evidence, not the transcript. If
`you heard something different from what appeared in the transcript, what you heard is controlling.
`
`During thetrial, you heard testimony from certain witnesses who because oftheir education,
`
`3+
`
`‘
`
`
`Appx175
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 21811
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page5of18 Page ID
`#:137598
`
`training and/or experience were allowed to give opinions on issues in the case and the reasons for
`their opinions.
`
`Such opinion testimony should be judged like any other testimony. You may acceptit or
`reject it, and give it as much weight as youthink it deserves, considering the witness’s education
`and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case.
`
`Certain charts and summaries not admitted into evidence have been shown to you in order
`to help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other evidence in the case. Charts
`and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence that supports them. You should,
`therefore, give them only such weight as you think the underlying evidence deserves.
`
`Certain charts and summaries have been admitted into evidence to illustrate information
`broughtout in the trial. Charts and summariesare only as goodas the testimonyor other admitted
`evidence that supports them. You should, therefore, give them only such weight as you think the
`underlying evidence deserves.
`
`Corporations and other legal entities are allowed to sue and be sued in court. All parties
`are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious
`consideration by you as any party.
`
`Under the Jaw, a corporation is considered to be a person. It can only act through its
`employees, agents, directors, or officers. Therefore, a corporation is responsible for the acts ofits
`employees, agents, directors, and officers performed within the scope of authority.
`
`From timeto time during the trial, the parties presented information that is confidential to
`one or more of the parties. At those times, it became necessary for measures to be takento protect
`the confidentiality of the information, such as sealing the courtroom. The parties agreed to these
`procedures to protect the confidentiality of the information and undue weight should not be given
`to these measures.
`Each of you are required to maintain the confidentiality of the information that was
`presented under seal. You may discuss this information in your deliberations with other jurors,
`but may not discuss it with any other individuals or after the completion of your jury service.
`
`Il. Stipulated Facts
`
`The parties have agreed to the following and you musttherefore treat these facts as having
`been proved.
`
`1. Caltech is the ownerofall right, title and interest in U.S, Patent No. 7,116,710.
`2. Caltech is the owner ofall right, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032.
`
`3. Caltech is the ownerof all right, title and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781.
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710 (the “’710 patent”) is titled “Serial Concatenation of
`
`—4—
`
`
`Appx176
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 21812
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page6of18 Page ID
`#137599
`
`Interleaved Convolution Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes.”
`
`5. The ’710 patent issued on October 3, 2006.
`6. The named inventors listed on the *710 patent are Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and
`Robert J. McEliece.
`
`7. The ’710 patent expires on August 23, 2022.
`8. U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (the “’032 patent”) is titled “Serial Concatenation of
`Interleaved Convolution Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes.”
`
`9. The ’032 patent issued on September 2, 2008.
`
`10. The named inventors listed on the ’032 patent are Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and
`Robert J. McEliece.
`
`11. The ’032 patent expires on August 18, 2020.
`
`12. U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 (the “°781 patent”) is titled “Serial Concatenation of
`Interleaved Convolution Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes.”
`
`{3. The ’781 patent issued on March 29, 2011.
`
`14. The named inventors listed on the ’781 patent are Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and
`Robert J. McEliece.
`
`15. The ’781 patent expires on October 16, 2021.
`
`16. Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation with a principal place of business at
`5300 California Avenue,Irvine, California 92617.
`
`17, Avago Technologies Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of the country of
`Singapore with principal places of business at 1320 Ridder Park Dr., San Jose, California
`95131 and 1 Yishun Avenue 7, Singapore 768923.
`
`18. Apple Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with
`principal place of business at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014.
`
`19. The California Institute of Technology is a non-profit private university located in
`Pasadena, California.
`
`20. The parties entered a stipulation identifying the representative products for purposes of
`the infringement and non-infringementanalysis.
`
`The parties have further agreed to the following:
`
`1. For purposes of evaluating infringement or noninfringementof the claims asserted in
`this case, the RU encoder is representative of the Prediction Correction encoder (also
`known as the “PC encoder”). No evidence regarding the Prediction Correction Encoder
`shall be offered or discussedattrial.
`
`2. If Caltech proves by a preponderance of the evidence that any accused product
`meets all limitations of one or more asserted claims based on its incorporation of the RU
`
`—5—
`
`
`Appx177
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 21813
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of18 Page ID
`#:137600
`
`encodershall constitute proofthatall other accused products incorporating the RU encoder
`or the PC encoder, as listed in Exhibit 1, Sections IJ and IV, meetall limitations ofthe same
`one or more claims.
`
`3. If Caltech fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any accused
`product meetsall limitations of one or more asserted claims based on its incorporation of
`the RU encoder, that failure shall mean that all other accused products incorporating the
`RU encoderor the PC encoder,as listed in Exhibit 1, Sections II and IV, also do not meet
`all limitations of the same one or moreclaims.
`
`4. For purposesof evaluating infringement or noninfringement, the Permuted Layer
`decoderis representative of the Submatrix Layer decoder with regard to the limitations of
`claim 18 of the ‘032 patent. No evidence regarding the Sub-Matrix Layer decodershall
`be offered or discussed at trial.
`
`5. If Caltech proves by a preponderance of the evidence that any accused product
`meets all limitations of claim 18 of the °032 patent based on its incorporation of the
`Permuted Layer decoder shall constitute proofthatall other accused products incorporating
`the Permuted Layer decoder or the Sub-Matrix Layer decoder, as listed in Exhibit 1,
`Sections V and VI, meetall limitations of the same claim.
`
`6. If Caltech fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any accused
`product meets all limitations of claim [8 of the ’032 patent based on its incorporation of
`the Permuted Layer decoder,
`that failure shall mean that all other accused products
`incorporating the Permuted Layer decoder or the Sub-Matrix Layer decoder, as listed in
`Exhibit 1, Sections V and VI, also do not meetall limitations of the same claim.
`
`III. Patents in General and the Three Patents Involved in This Case
`
`Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (referred to herein
`as “PTO”). A valid United States patent gives the patent holder the right to prevent others from
`making, using, offering to sell, or selling the patented invention within the United States, or from
`importing it into the United States, during the term of the patent without the patent holder’s
`permission. A violation ofthe patent holder’s rights is called “infringement.” The patent holder
`can try to enforce its patent against persons believed to be infringers by means of a lawsuit filed
`in federal court.
`
`This case involves three patents that were issued by the PTO which were “assigned” to
`Caltech. An assignmentis the transfer of ownership of a patent application or a patent from one
`entity or person to another.
`
`The three patents are: (1) Patent No. 7,116,710 issued on October 3, 2006, (2) Patent No.
`7,421,032 issued on September 2, 2008, and (3) Patent No. 7,916,781 issued on March 29, 2011.
`Copies of the three patents are included in the Jury Notebook at Tabs 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
`Henceforth, the patents will be referred to by their last three digits — for example the 7,116,710
`patent will be called the ’710 Patent.
`
`
`Appx178
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 21814
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8of18 Page ID
`#137601
`
`A patentandthe claims containedin the patentissued by the PTO are presumedto be valid.
`The validity or invalidity of the three patents herein is not an issue in this case. Your job in this
`trial is to determine whether Caltech has proved by a preponderanceofthe evidence that Broadcom
`and/or Apple infringed anyof the claims in Caltech’s patents and, if so, the amount of damagesto
`be awarded becauseofthe acts of infringement.
`
`Thefirst part will contain informationalitems such
`A patent usually has three main parts.
`as (but not limited to) the patent number, the date the patent application was filed, the date it was
`issued, the namesof the inventors of the patent, whether the patent has been assigned,alist of
`other patent documents that the PTO looked at in evaluating the patent application, and a section
`sometimes called “Other Publications” which sets out books and articles which discuss the
`technology involved and what was generally known about the specific area at the time of the
`application. For example, if you look at the ’710 Patent at Tab 2 at the pages marked at the
`bottom as JTX 1-1 and JTX 1-2, that is the first part of that patent.
`The second part of a patent is referred to as the “specification” which typically includes:
`(1) a paragraph entitled “Abstract” which briefly summarizes the invention, (2)
`a background
`section that describes the nature of the problem the invention is supposedto solve, (3) one or more
`drawingscalled “figures” that assist in delineating the invention and/or illustrate various aspects
`of the application, and (4) a detailed description of one or more embodimentsofthe invention. An
`embodiment is a specific device or method that uses the invention; for example as to Thomas
`Edison’s lightbulb patent, it would be a particular form of a lightbulb.
`In the ’710 patent, the
`specification section begins at the lowerright-hand corner of page JTX 1-1, skips page JTX 1-2,
`and goes from JTX 1-3 through 1-11. You will notice that starting on page JTX 1-8, there are
`two columns which are numbered sequentially on each page and there are numbersin the center
`of each page going from 5 to 65. Those numbersare to assist in locating references; for example
`in the ’710 patent, a reference to column 6 lines 33 through 49 would be to Table 1 on page JTX
`1.10.
`
`The third (and most important) part of a patent is a statement of the “claims”in the patent.
`The claims are what give the public notice of the definitions or boundaries of the invention. They
`are similar to the description of property you may have seen in a deed, referring to precise
`measurements taken on the ground. The claims are numbered and appear at the end ofthe patent
`document. Each claim constitutes a separate definition of the invention. For example, as to
`the °710 Patent, there are 33 separate claims numbered from 1 to 33 on page JTX 1-11 starting on
`Column 7 line 14 and ending on Column8line 63.
`
`A claim sets forth, in words, a set of requirements. Each claim sets forth its requirements
`in a single sentence.
`If a device or a methodsatisfies each of these requirements, then it is
`covered by the claim.
`
`The coverage of a patent is assessed claim-by-claim. In patent law, the requirements of a
`claim are often referred to as “claim elements” or “claim limitations.” When a thing (such as a
`product or a process) meets all of the requirements of a claim, the claim is said to “cover” that
`thing, and that thing is said to “fall” within the scope ofthat claim.
`In other words, a claim covers
`
`~7—
`
`
`Appx179
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 21815
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 9of18 Page ID
`#137602
`
`a productor process where each of the claim elementsor limitations is present in that productor
`process.
`
`Claims can either be “independent”or “dependent.” An “independent claim”sets forth
`all of the requirements that must be met in order to be covered by that claim. Thus,it is not
`necessary to look at the language in any other claim to determine what an independentclaim covers.
`In this case, claims 11 and 18 of the ’032 patent, and claim 13 of the °781 patent are each
`independentclaims.
`
`Claims 20 and 22 of the *710 patent are “dependent claims.” A dependent claim does not
`itself recite all of the requirements of the claim but refers to another claim for someofits
`requirements. In this way, the claim “depends” on another claim. A dependent claim incorporates
`all of the requirements of the claim(s) to which it refers. The dependent claim then adds its own
`additional requirements. To determine what a dependent claim covers, it is necessary to look at
`both the dependent claim and any other claim(s) to whichit refers. A product or method that meets
`all of the requirements of both the dependent claim and the claim(s) to whichit refers is covered
`by that dependent claim. Normally, adependent claim will begin by referencing the earlier claim
`which it is incorporating.
`For example, claim 20 of the ’710 Patent is a dependent claim because
`it begins by including “the coder of claim 15.”
`
`IV. Claims Construction
`
`Before you decide whether Apple and/or Broadcom have infringed any of the asserted
`claims of the *710, ’032, and ’781 Patents, you will need to understand the patent claims. As I
`mentioned at the beginning ofthe case, the patent claims are the numbered sentencesat the end of
`the patent that describe the boundaries of the patent’s protection. It is my job as judge to explain
`to you the meaning of any languagein the claimsthat needsinterpretation.
`
`I have interpreted the meaning of some of the language in the patent claims involved in
`this case. I handed out a documentearlier in this case reflecting those meaningsand instructed you
`to place it in your juror notebook.
`It should be located at Tab 9 of your juror notebook. You
`must accept those interpretationsas correct.
`
`Those terms and their definitions are as follows:
`
`The Tanner Graph diagram that is claimed in Claims 11 and 18 of the ’032 Patent has been
`construed as “a graph representing an IRA code asaset of parity checks where every messagebit
`is repeated, at least two different subsets of message bits are repeated a different numberoftimes,
`and check nodes, randomly connected to the repeated message bits, enforce constraints that
`determine the parity bits.”
`
`The term “random permutation”as it appears in the Tanner Graph in Claims 11 and 18 of
`the *032 Patent has been construed as “changing the order of data elements by a purely random or
`pseudo random process.”
`
`
`Appx180
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361-6 Filed 06/21/24 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 21816
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR Document 2112 Filed 01/29/20 Page 10of18 Page ID
`#137603
`
`The term “repeat” as it appears in Claim 15 of the ’710 Patent, which is incorporated into
`Claims 20 and 22 of the ’710 Patent, and as it appears in the Court’s construction of the Tanner
`Graph in Claims 11 and 18 ofthe ’032 Patent has been construed as “generation of additionalbits,
`where generation can include, for example, duplication or reuseofbits.”
`The term “low-density generator matrix coder”as it appears in Claim 20 of the ’710 Patent
`has been construed as “coder that generates output bits, where process of generating output bits
`comprises multiplying a low-density matrix by input bits, and the output bits outputted by the
`coder can be less than, equal to, or more than the numberofinputbits.”
`The term “irregularly” as it appears in Claim 15 of the ’710 Patent, which is incorporated
`into Claims 20 and 22 of the ’710 Patent, has been construed as “a different numberof times.”
`
`The term “scramble” as it appears in Claim 15 of the ’710 Patent, which is incorporated
`into Claims 20 and 22 of the ’710 Patent, and the term “permute”as it appears in Claims 11 and
`18 of the ’032 Patent, have each been construed as “changing the order of data elements.”
`
`The term “sums of bits in subsets of the information bits” as it appears in Claim 13 of
`the ’781 Patent has been construed as “the result(s) of adding together two or more information
`bits from a subset of informationbits.”
`
`Myinterpretation of the language should not be taken as an indication that I have a view
`regarding the issue of infringement. The decisions regarding infringement are yours to make.
`
`For a claim term for which I have not provided a definition, you should apply the ordinary
`and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.
`
`In these instructions, when there is a reference to a “person of ordinary skill in theart,” the
`reference is to a person whois working in the technology of the asserted invention at the time of
`the filing date of the patent.
`In deciding the level of ordinary skill, you should considerall the
`evidence introducedattrial, including:
`(1)
`the levels of education and experience of persons workingin thefield;
`(2)
`the types of probl