Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 124, PageID.8942 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S COMMENTS ON THE DEFENDANTS’ FIRST
`TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s instruction, Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC respectfully
`
`submits the following comments on Defendants’ First Technology Tutorial as
`
`previously exchanged and discussed during the first technology tutorial conference
`
`held on January 23, 2023. The remarks below seek to clarify potential
`
`misunderstandings about the technology at issue, or highlight situations where the
`
`technical issues discussed at the hearing are potentially disputed, rather than
`
`generally accepted background.
`
`Neo’s Patents Do Read on 5G.
`
`During the tutorial, the Court asked about the difference between 4G/LTE and
`
`the newest 5G (also called New Radio) standards. 1/23/23 Hg. Tr. (“Tr.”) 9:20–22.
`
`While Neo has no further comment on the explanation of 5G offered during the
`
`hearing, Neo Wireless notes that, as reflected in its Complaints, the Asserted Patents
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S COMMENTS ON THE DEFENDANTS’ FIRST
`TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s instruction, Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC respectfully
`
`submits the following comments on Defendants’ First Technology Tutorial as
`
`previously exchanged and discussed during the first technology tutorial conference
`
`held on January 23, 2023. The remarks below seek to clarify potential
`
`misunderstandings about the technology at issue, or highlight situations where the
`
`technical issues discussed at the hearing are potentially disputed, rather than
`
`generally accepted background.
`
`Neo’s Patents Do Read on 5G.
`
`During the tutorial, the Court asked about the difference between 4G/LTE and
`
`the newest 5G (also called New Radio) standards. 1/23/23 Hg. Tr. (“Tr.”) 9:20–22.
`
`While Neo has no further comment on the explanation of 5G offered during the
`
`hearing, Neo Wireless notes that, as reflected in its Complaints, the Asserted Patents
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 124, PageID.8943 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`cover implementations of both 4G/LTE and 5G. Neo’s infringement contentions to
`
`date have focused on Defendants’ use of 4G/LTE, based on Neo’s understanding
`
`that Defendants have yet to implement 5G compatible technology into their Accused
`
`Products. But if Defendants did implement 5G, they would infringe most if not all
`
`of the same claims at issue in the case, in much the same way.
`
`Neo’s Inventions Do Not Mandate the Use of DSSS Signals.
`
`During the tutorial, there was a brief discussion by Defendants’ expert about
`
`“Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum” (DSSS) signals. See Tr. 21:14–23:1. This
`
`concept was not introduced in either party’s first tutorial, but Defendants’ expert
`
`referred to it as a topic the Court should focus on, in part because this type of signal
`
`is purportedly “part of” Neo’s invention in certain patents. Tr. 22:20–21. As will be
`
`addressed in the parties’ claim construction briefing, this was not objective
`
`background information, but rather a preview of a heavily disputed claim
`
`construction argument. Neo expects Defendants will attempt, in the claim
`
`construction process, to improperly limit Neo’s claimed invention to one specific
`
`embodiment described in the specification. See Dkt. 114-2 (Joint Claim Construction
`
`Chart) at 3, 6 (disputed terms 6 and 10). As Neo will explain in its second technology
`
`tutorial, certain Asserted Patents describe DSSS as an example embodiment of
`
`certain signals described therein. But despite any insinuation by Defendants’ expert,
`
`the Asserted Patents and claimed inventions are not limited to using DSSS signals.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 124, PageID.8944 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`Defendants’ Discussion of Physical Channels Was Incomplete.
`
`As discussed briefly during the hearing and in Defendants’ tutorial, the
`
`4G/LTE and 5G standards define physical channels—that is, sets of physical
`
`resources in time and frequency (subcarriers), for various types of signaling.
`
`Defendants’ tutorial describes two types of defined physical channels in both the
`
`uplink and downlink between a mobile device and a base station, and the Court asked
`
`about the relationship between those channels and the random access procedure also
`
`described in Defendants’ tutorial. Tr. 11:1–11. Neo notes that the relevant standards
`
`define additional channels that are used in both the uplink and downlink. A relevant
`
`example is the Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH), which carries the
`
`random access signaling enabling the initial and re-establishment of communication
`
`within the cellular network. Neo Wireless’s second technology tutorial intends on
`
`further discussing the channels relevant to the Asserted Patents and Claims.
`
`In addition, slide 36 of Defendants’ tutorial presents a representation of an
`
`uplink resource grid allocated between two uplink physical channels (the PUCCH
`
`and PUSCH), stating that “the location of the PUCCH and PUSCH can vary on the
`
`uplink resource grid according to the base station’s decision[.]” The representative
`
`grid in slide 36 shows instances where the PUSCH intermingles with the frequency
`
`subcarriers used by the PUCCH (such in RB0, RB1, RB4, and RB5). While this
`
`issue will be addressed more fully later in the case, in the context of infringement,
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 124, PageID.8945 Filed 01/30/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`Neo notes for the record that to the best of its knowledge, this configuration never
`
`occurs in LTE. Rather, based on the allocation rules defined in the 3GPP standards,
`
`the PUCCH is scheduled on the frequency subcarriers near the edge of the grid, with
`
`the remaining central frequency subcarriers (those between the subcarriers
`
`scheduled for the PUCCH) allocated to other uplink channels, such as the PUSCH.
`
`OFDMA and SC-FDMA Are Two Versions of the Same System.
`
`Defendants’ first technology tutorial states that that the uplink signaling
`
`between a mobile device and the base station in a 4G/LTE network does not use
`
`OFDMA (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access) because it uses Single-
`
`Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA). This is a thinly veiled
`
`preview of Defendants’ non-infringement position in this case. But it is incorrect.
`
`SC-FDMA, like standard OFDMA, is a version of OFDM, and that is not in
`
`dispute. Furthermore, as presented in Neo Wireless’s first technology tutorial, SC-
`
`FDMA is also referred to as linearly pre-coded OFDMA (LP-OFDMA). As will be
`
`explained in further detail in Neo’s forthcoming second technology tutorial,
`
`Defendants’ side-by-side illustrations of OFDMA and SC-FDMA are misleading to
`
`the extent they suggest that SC-FDMA signals do not assign data to individual
`
`subcarriers. On the contrary, just like in traditional OFDMA, SC-FDMA allocates
`
`individual portions of data to each subcarrier allocated for the signal. SC-FDMA
`
`does distribute individual pieces of data across multiple subcarriers, and uses
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 124, PageID.8946 Filed 01/30/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`adjacent subcarriers for transmission (rather than scattered subcarriers, as is possible
`
`in standard OFDMA). But this process does not “cancel” or negate the fundamental
`
`features of OFDMA, as suggested by Dr. Akl. Tr. 26:11–25. Instead, as described
`
`during the hearing, Tr. 27:1–4, SC-FDMA shifts processing and energy burdens
`
`from the mobile device to the base station.
`
`An SC-FDMA scheme still contains all the foundational features and
`
`principles that are in standard OFDMA. For example, in both standard OFDMA and
`
`SC-FDMA schemes, there is a time-frequency resource grid which allocates the
`
`wireless communication resources by the frequency domain and the time domain. In
`
`both schemes, the frequency domain is divided into multiple subcarriers, where the
`
`subcarriers are all orthogonal to one another, and the time domain is divided into
`
`symbols. In both schemes, one subcarrier and one OFDM symbol define a resource
`
`element, which is the smallest unit used for transmission of information. In short,
`
`standard OFDMA and SC-FDMA (LP-OFDMA) are two versions of OFDM
`
`networks, and SC-FDMA is a modified form of standard OFDMA.
`
`This dispute need not be resolved by the Court now, but Neo simply notes
`
`that, contrary to the suggestions in Defendants’ tutorial, the relationship between
`
`OFDMA and SC-FDMA is in dispute.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 124, PageID.8947 Filed 01/30/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`DATED: January 30, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on January 30, 2023, the foregoing document
`
`was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which
`
`will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Christopher S. Stewart
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
