`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`