Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.8995 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 46
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.8996 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 46
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. LEGAL AUTHORITY ..................................................................................... 1
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY ............................. 3
`A. The Asserted Patents .................................................................................. 3
`B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 4
`IV. AGREED CLAIM TERMS .............................................................................. 4
`V. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ........................................................................... 4
`A. ’366 Patent Terms ....................................................................................... 5
`1. “the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in
`the time domain” ................................................................................... 5
`2. “a ranging sequence selected from a set of ranging sequences” ........... 9
`B. ’908 Patent Terms ..................................................................................... 12
`1. “wherein the portion of the frequency band used for transmission
`of the random access signal does not include control channels” ........ 12
`2. “associated with” ................................................................................. 15
`3. “random access signal” ....................................................................... 18
`C. ’450 Patent Terms ..................................................................................... 21
`1. “time-frequency resource unit” ........................................................... 21
`D. ’941 Patent Terms ..................................................................................... 24
`1. “the antenna transmission scheme comprising a transmission
`diversity scheme or a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)
`scheme” ............................................................................................... 24
`2. “the mobile station-specific transmission parameters indicate … a
`corresponding subchannel configuration … the corresponding
`subchannel configuration characterized by distributed subcarriers
`or localized subcarriers in the frequency domain” .............................. 28
`E. ’302 Patent Terms ..................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.8997 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 46
`
`1. “probing signal” .................................................................................. 29
`2. “the probing signal is configured to occupy a portion of spectrum
`in the uplink frequency band not designated for transmission of
`uplink control signals in the system” .................................................. 32
`3. “a receiver configured to receive a request for a probing signal
`from a base station in the system” ....................................................... 34
`4. the probing signal is configured to overlap, in the time domain,
`with uplink signals transmitted over an uplink frequency band by
`other mobile devices in the system” .................................................... 34
`F. ’512 Patent Terms ..................................................................................... 35
`1. “wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second plurality
`of subcarriers are received in at least one of the time slots” ............... 35
`2. “second pilots of a second type” ......................................................... 36
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.8998 Filed 02/16/23 Page 4 of 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.
` 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 24
`
`All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc.
` 309 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 3
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.
` 749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 8
`
`Comark Comms., Inc. v. Harris Corp.
` 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.
` 915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 32, 36
`
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC
` IPR2021-01486 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2021) .............................................................. 23
`
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC
` IPR2022-00277 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2021) ........................................................ 17, 18
`
`ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC
` 629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 23
`
`Flypsi, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc.
` No. 6:21-cv-00642, 2022 WL 3593131 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) ................... 16
`
`Fractus, S.A. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
` No. 2:18-CV-00135, 2019 WL 1641357 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2019) ..................... 7
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
` 355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 24
`
`H–WTech., L.C v. Overstock.com, Inc.
` 758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.8999 Filed 02/16/23 Page 5 of 46
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.
` 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 12
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc.
` 319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
` 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................5, 8
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.
` 424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................... 3, 27
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.
` No. 1-14-cv-134, 2015 WL 4937464 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) ...................... 16
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.
` 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 37
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
` 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
` 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.
` No. 1:22-CV-00060-DAE (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2021) .................................. 26, 27
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.
` 514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.
` 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.
` 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Packaging Specialties, Inc. v. Anchor Bay Packaging Corp.
` 2010 WL 5146423 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2010) ................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9000 Filed 02/16/23 Page 6 of 46
`
`Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.
` 66 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... passim
`
`Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc.
` No. 2:15-cv-1554, 2017 WL 2537580 (E.D. Tex. June 12, 2017) ....................... 16
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
` 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 32
`
`Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc.
` 492 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 23
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.
` 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC
` 8 F.4th 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 11
`
`SightSounds Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.
` 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 23
`
`St. Lawrence Comms., LLC v. ZTE Corp.
` No. 2:15-CV-00349, 2016 WL 6275390 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016) ..................... 7
`
`Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB
` 680 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .................................................................. 16
`
`Tecnomatic S.p.A. v. ATOP S.p.A.
` No. 2:18-cv-12869, 2021 WL 1410036 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2021)
` adopted by 2021 WL 2309933 (E.D. Mich. June 7, 2021) ........................... 6, 7, 8
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
` 574 U.S. 318 (2015) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC
` 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9001 Filed 02/16/23 Page 7 of 46
`
`Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc.
` No. 20-cv-10857, 2023 WL 349922 (D. Mass. Jan. 20, 2023) ............................ 20
`
`Visteon Global Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.
` No 2:10-cv-10578, 2011 WL 13103572 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2011) ................... 16
`
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC
` IPR2022-01567 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2022) .............................................................. 21
`
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.
` 778 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Zak v. Facebook, Inc.
` No. 4:14-cv-13437, 2020 WL 589433 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2020) ....................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9002 Filed 02/16/23 Page 8 of 46
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As the Court noted in its order regarding claim narrowing, “The Court fully
`
`expects the parties and their attorneys to limit the terms they submit [for
`
`construction] to those that might be unfamiliar to the jury, confusing to the jury, or
`
`affected by the specification or the prosecution history.” Dkt. 99 at 8. Neo has tried
`
`to adhere to that guidance, proposing constructions only where clarification of a
`
`claim term is genuinely warranted to clarify the patentee’s meaning. Defendants,
`
`on the other hand, repeatedly seek to add limitations to the plain language of the
`
`claims that are not called for by the plain meaning of the terms or the intrinsic
`
`record, and in many cases would only add more confusion to the claims. For the
`
`reasons set forth below, the Court should reject Defendants’ proposed
`
`constructions.
`
`II. LEGAL AUTHORITY
`
`Claim construction is a question of law for the Court, see Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996), although it may involve
`
`subsidiary factual questions. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S.
`
`318, 324–28 (2015). In construing the claims of a patent, the words comprising the
`
`claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood
`
`by “a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9003 Filed 02/16/23 Page 9 of 46
`
`(cleaned up); see also Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim construction begins with the language of the claims, as
`
`“the claims provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim
`
`terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The claims “do not stand alone” and are read in
`
`light of the accompanying specification, id. at 1315, but Courts must “avoid the
`
`danger or reading limitations from the specification into the claim[.]” E.g., id. at
`
`1323. Finally, Courts “should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is
`
`in evidence[,]” id. at 1317, but prosecution history is often “less useful for claim
`
`construction purposes.” Id. As such, prosecution disclaimer only applies to claim
`
`language when “the alleged disavowing actions or statements made during
`
`prosecution [are] both clear and unmistakable.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek
`
`Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Prosecution statements that are “too
`
`vague or ambiguous” fail to “qualify as a disavowal of claim scope.” Id. at 1325.
`
`Indefiniteness is a question of law for the court to evaluate from the
`
`perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`H–WTech., L.C v. Overstock.com, Inc., 758 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As
`
`the parties challenging validity, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that a
`
`claim is indefinite. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, “[a]ny fact critical to a holding on indefiniteness . .
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9004 Filed 02/16/23 Page 10 of 46
`
`. must be proven by [Defendants] by clear and convincing evidence.” Intel Corp. v.
`
`VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`“A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the
`
`patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
`
`certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v.
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). But “a patentee need not define
`
`his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness
`
`requirement.” Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1384 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement
`
`is to ensure that patent claims are written in such a way that they give reasonable
`
`notice to the public of what falls within the claims. All Dental Prodx, LLC v.
`
`Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779–80 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY
`
`A. The Asserted Patents
`Neo Wireless has asserted six patents in this case (collectively the Asserted
`
`Patents): U.S. Pat. No. 8,467, 366 (’366 Patent); U.S. Pat. No. 10,833,908 (’908
`
`Patent); U.S. Pat. No. 10,447,450 (’450 Patent); U.S. Pat. No. 10,075,941 (’941
`
`Patent; U.S. Pat. No. 10,771,302 (’302 Patent); and U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512 (’512
`
`Patent). As discussed in Neo Wireless’s first and second technology tutorials, the
`
`Asserted Patents all relate to improvements in Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9005 Filed 02/16/23 Page 11 of 46
`
`Multiple Access (OFDMA) cellular networks, and particularly in mobile devices
`
`for use in those networks.
`
`B.
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`For the asserted patents, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`
`the time of the invention would have a Bachelor of Science degree or higher in
`
`Electrical Engineering with 2 or more years of experience designing or
`
`implementing wireless telecommunications systems or transceivers. Declaration of
`
`Bill Alberth (“Alberth Decl.”) ¶ 18.
`
`IV. AGREED CLAIM TERMS
`
`In addition to the agreed claim terms set out in Exhibit B to the parties’ Joint
`
`Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 114-2), the parties have also agreed that the
`
`term “configured to,” as used in all six asserted patents, should be construed as
`
`“designed to.”
`
`V. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`The parties have outstanding disputes about fourteen claim terms across the
`
`six asserted patents. The Court asked the parties to “prioritize and list the terms in
`
`order of most importance.” Dkt. 99 at 8. Because the terms span multiple patents,
`
`Neo has grouped them by patent to keep related terms together. But where multiple
`
`terms have been proposed for a given patent, Neo has ordered them according to
`
`Neo’s assessment of the overall impact of the dispute.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9006 Filed 02/16/23 Page 12 of 46
`
`A.
`
`’366 Patent Terms
`1.
`“the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power
`ratio in the time domain”
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Indefinite.
`
`Defendants allege that this term is indefinite simply by virtue of the fact that
`
`
`
`it employs a term of degree—requiring a “low peak-to-average power ratio” or
`
`PAPR. But “[c]laim language employing terms of degree has long been found
`
`definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in
`
`the context of the invention.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364,
`
`1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because a POSITA would understand how to compare this
`
`claim term to real-world products and systems using the description of the patent
`
`and other aspects of the intrinsic record, Defendants have not shown by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that this term is indefinite—indeed, a POSITA would, with
`
`reasonable certainty, understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the
`
`context of the patented claims and specification.
`
`In evaluating a term of degree, “absolute or mathematical precision is not
`
`required[.]” Id. “Where intrinsic evidence provides some guidance as to the scope
`
`of such terms, the Federal Circuit has held they satisfy the definiteness requirement
`
`under Section 112.” Tecnomatic S.p.A. v. ATOP S.p.A., No. 2:18-cv-12869, 2021
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9007 Filed 02/16/23 Page 13 of 46
`
`WL 1410036, at *20 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2021), adopted by 2021 WL 2309933
`
`(E.D. Mich. June 7, 2021). The ’366 Patent contains ample guidance.
`
`One type of guidance consulted by the Special Master in Tecnomatic was the
`
`surrounding claim language. There, the Special Master observed that the term of
`
`degree “in a process suitable for mass production” could be reasonably understood
`
`by reference to other claim language which specified that the process involved
`
`“automatic” (rather than manual) machinery. 2021 WL 1410036, at *20. Other
`
`claim elements can provide objective criteria for how to accomplish a claimed term
`
`of degree. In this case, using claim 1 as an example, the claims of the ’366 Patent
`
`specify that the ranging signal at issue exists “[i]n a multi-cell orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) wireless communication system.”
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would not have to subjectively judge how “low” a PAPR
`
`is in a vacuum; by contrast, he or she would know to evaluate the PAPR relative to
`
`the PAPRs typically found in that specific subset of systems encompassed by the
`
`claims and the specific OFDMA system being implemented. A POSITA would
`
`know that a “low” PAPR is one that falls below the baseline for a given system, so
`
`that the transmitter does not have to be designed for the special case of this one
`
`signal. Alberth Decl. ¶¶ 24–25. As one example, in a cellular system using
`
`conventional OFDMA at the time of the invention, a POSITA would have known
`
`that the baseline PAPR of that form of OFDMA system was approximately 12dBs.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9008 Filed 02/16/23 Page 14 of 46
`
`Id. ¶ 25. Thus, as explained in more detail below, a POSITA would recognize that
`
`a reduction of 3dBs or more would result in a “low” PAPR of 9 dBs. Id. ¶¶ 25–26.
`
`Courts have found that this type of “implementation-specific” meaning is
`
`appropriate and does not render a claim term indefinite. See St. Lawrence Comms.,
`
`LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-CV-00349, 2016 WL 6275390, at *57–59 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Oct. 25, 2016) (finding the term “low frequency portion” definite since “the use of
`
`the word ‘low’ is appropriate because the relative bandwidths and the precise
`
`manner of filtering are implementation-specific details” (citing Orthokinetics, Inc.
`
`v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986))).1
`
`Furthermore, the patent’s specification provides additional objective criteria
`
`when it explains that a “relatively low peak-to-average power ratio . . . improves
`
`the power efficiency of the mobile station transmission power amplifier.” ’366
`
`Patent 4:34–38. There is a practical amount of reduction in PAPR that a POSITA
`
`would consider an improvement of the efficiency of the mobile station’s
`
`transmitter. Alberth Decl. ¶¶ 24–26. This, again, is just like Tecnomatic, where the
`
`Special Master credited language in that specification which described the claimed
`
`
`1 See also Fractus, S.A. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00135, 2019 WL
`1641357, at *24 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2019) (“Defendants have not shown, however,
`that the possibility of different frequency bands being defined in different ways or
`with different bandwidths gives rise to any lack of reasonable certainty as to the
`meaning of the present disputed terms. Instead, these are implementation-specific
`details.”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9009 Filed 02/16/23 Page 15 of 46
`
`process as less “labor intensive.” 2021 WL 1410036, at *20. Just as that language
`
`provided reasonable certainty, here the specification’s discussion of improving
`
`power efficiency provides guidance as to the meaning of “low PAPR.” And as in
`
`Tecnomatic, “neither the recited claim phrase . . . nor the guidance described in the
`
`specification . . . draw bright lines, but that is not the test.” Id. (emphasis added). It
`
`is entirely appropriate for a patent to use language designed not to employ a strict
`
`numerical boundary. See Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349,
`
`1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Descriptive words like ‘copious’ are commonly used in
`
`patent claims, to ‘avoid[] a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’”
`
`(quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995))).
`
`In sum, the plain language of the ’366 Patent’s claims and specification
`
`provide sufficient objective criteria from which a POSITA would understand the
`
`scope of the disputed term. This is not like the cases where the Federal Circuit has
`
`found terms “purely subjective,” or where the intrinsic record “fails to provide any
`
`guidance.” See Tecnomatic, 2021 WL 1410036, at *20 (citing Interval Licensing,
`
`766 F.3d at 1368) (emphasis in original). By contrast, in light of the intrinsic
`
`evidence, the ranging signal which “exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in
`
`the time domain” would be understood in the objective, technical context of the
`
`implementation of a certain wireless system, not merely the subjective personal
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9010 Filed 02/16/23 Page 16 of 46
`
`preference of a user. For at least these reasons, the Court should reject Defendants’
`
`indefiniteness argument and give the term its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Finally, while Neo believes a precise numerical boundary is inappropriate
`
`for this term given the intentionally implementation-specific nature of the term, if
`
`the Court is inclined to give an affirmative construction with a precise numerical
`
`boundary, Neo would propose the construction “exhibits a peak-to-average power
`
`ratio in the time domain of 9dBs or less.” Though other types of OFDMA systems
`
`are contemplated by the claims, the most common conventional OFDMA cellular
`
`system at the time of the patent would have a baseline PAPR of approximately
`
`12dBs, as alluded to above. Alberth Decl. ¶¶ 26–27. Accordingly, to the extent a
`
`POSITA would ascribe a specific numerical boundary to the term, a “low” PAPR
`
`would be a PAPR of 9dBs or less—corresponding to a marked reduction of the
`
`PAPR that practically impacts the transmission efficiency and does not require
`
`special attention in designing the transmitter in that conventional OFDMA system.
`
`See id. ¶¶ 22–28.
`
`2.
`“a ranging sequence selected from a set of ranging
`sequences”
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a ranging sequence selected by said
`apparatus from a set of ranging
`sequences”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9011 Filed 02/16/23 Page 17 of 46
`
` Claims 1 and 17 of the ’366 Patent describe, in pertinent part, a mobile
`
`station that sends a ranging signal to a base station. That ranging signal is “formed
`
`from a ranging sequence selected from a set of ranging sequences associated with
`
`the cell for identifying the mobile station.” The plain meaning of this phrase, read
`
`as a whole, is clear: the purpose of a ranging signal is to allow a mobile station and
`
`base station to initiate communication with one another, and thus the ranging
`
`sequence used by the mobile station to form the ranging signal cannot be just any
`
`sequence; rather it must be from a particular set so that the sequence can identify
`
`the mobile station to the base station. See ’366 Patent 3:43–47 (explaining how
`
`“multiple ranging sequences are permitted in a cell” and how the mobile station
`
`“uses the sequence to identify itself in the initial communication with a base
`
`station”).
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction seeks to complicate this plain claim
`
`language by improperly limiting the claim to a particular embodiment from the
`
`specification: one where the mobile station itself “selects” the ranging sequence.
`
`But the plain language of the claim is about how and why the ranging signal is
`
`formed; it is entirely agnostic to who or what “selects” the ranging sequence used
`
`in that formation. Thus, to achieve their construction, Defendants do not alter,
`
`omit, or replace any of the existing claim language; they just add a brand new
`
`limitation from whole cloth. But, other than wanting to reduce the scope of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9012 Filed 02/16/23 Page 18 of 46
`
`claim to avoid infringement, Defendants have no basis to suggest that the plain
`
`language needs such a narrowing. On the contrary, as described in Neo’s second
`
`technology tutorial and reiterated here by Mr. Alberth, it would have been well
`
`known how a base station (rather than the mobile station) could also select the
`
`random access sequence for a mobile station, to avoid contention between mobile
`
`stations that may simultaneously request access to the base station (“non-
`
`contention-based random access”). Alberth Decl. ¶¶ 29–31. In both scenarios—
`
`where a mobile station or the base station selects the ranging sequence—the
`
`mobile station would still use the ranging signal to establish a connection with the
`
`base station.
`
`Further, Defendants cannot justify their improper narrowing of the claims to
`
`a single embodiment with any disavowal or intention by the patentees to limit their
`
`inventions to that embodiment. They may point to the specification’s passing
`
`reference that “a mobile station chooses a ranging sequence.” ’366 Patent 3:45–46.
`
`But there is no disclosure in that portion of the specification (nor anywhere else in
`
`the record) that the claimed mobile station is required to make that selection. See,
`
`e.g., Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (“[S]ilence does not support reading the claims to exclude [an
`
`embodiment].”). Indeed, notwithstanding that preferred embodiment, when
`
`drafting the claims, the patentees chose not to include any affirmative selection
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9013 Filed 02/16/23 Page 19 of 46
`
`step in the claimed method, nor identify a particular selector, and instead merely
`
`required the ranging sequence be “selected from” a set of ranging sequences. A
`
`POSITA would recognize this choice to not limit the claims to selection by the
`
`mobile station, and a POSITA would understand that other entities, including the
`
`recited base station, could make the selection in a variety of circumstances. Alberth
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 29–31; see also i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Had the inventors intended [the selection to be a step performed
`
`by the mobile device], they could have drafted the claims to expressly include it.”).
`
`Thus, Defendants’ proposed construction should be rejected at least because it
`
`narrows the claim beyond the term’s full scope under its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`B.
`
`’908 Patent Terms
`1.
` “wherein the portion of the frequency band used for
`transmission of the random access signal does not include control
`channels”
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`“wherein the portion of the frequency
`band used for transmission of the
`random access signal does not overlap
`with the portions of the frequency
`band used for control channels”
`
`With their proposed constructions, both parties seek very different outcomes
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“wherein the portion of the frequency
`band used for transmission of the
`random access signal does not include
`channels carrying control
`information”
`
`
`
`for this term. Neo’s proposed construction simply clarifies any ambiguity in the
`
`concept of a frequency band “including” or “not including” specific channels, as
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9014 Filed 02/16/23 Page 20 of 46
`
`supported by the ’908 Patent’s specification. The Defendants, however, seek to
`
`redefine “control channels,” without support from intrinsic evidence and despite
`
`the term’s well-understood meaning and widespread use in the art of wireless
`
`communications. The Court should adopt Neo’s proposed construction.
`
`Neo’s proposed construction merely adopts like terms to make the claim
`
`language more readable. It clarifies that the “portion of the frequency band” used
`
`for random access “does not include control channels” when that portion does not
`
`overlap, in the frequency domain, with “the portions of the frequency band” used
`
`for control channels. This understanding is consistent with evidence in the
`
`specification. For example, one portion of the patent describes ways “to have a
`
`better protection” for “the control subcarriers,” ’908 Patent 8:12–14, including
`
`having other signals having null values at the control subchannels “to avoid excess
`
`interference with the uplink control signals.” See id. 8:15–20, Fig. 15. Another
`
`example places the potentially interfering signal in a smaller portion of the overall
`
`frequency spectrum, so as to minimize interference with subcarriers in the non-
`
`overlapping portions of the spectrum. See id. 8:20–29, Fig. 16. Both examples
`
`support Neo’s construction—that the portion used for the random access signal is
`
`separate from (does not overlap) with portions used for control channels. The
`
`Court should adopt Neo’s clarifying construction.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 127, PageID.9015 Filed 02/16/23 Page 21 of 46
`
`Defendants, however, want to replace the term “control channels” with
`
`“channels carrying control information.” This redefinition is unnecessary—a
`
`person skilled in the art of wireless communications would understand the term
`
`“control channe