`
`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
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 151, PageID.10736 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`The Court ordered briefing to “address arguments made in IPR proceedings
`
`since the claim construction briefing was originally filed” related to three claim
`
`terms. 6/6/23 Order (emphasis added). This Order was in response to a letter from
`
`Defendants, in which Defendants identify two IPR proceedings and claim that,
`
`“[a]s part of these IPR proceedings, Neo and the PTAB have made statements that
`
`are relevant to the claim construction analysis.” 6/6/23 P. Steadman Ltr. at 1.
`
`
`
`However, contrary to Defendants’ claim, there have been no new arguments
`
`made in the identified IPR proceedings since the claim construction briefing was
`
`originally filed in this case. In both IPR proceedings, Neo submitted a Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response on February 8, 2023—this was before the filing of
`
`Neo’s claim construction brief. It was also well over a month before the filing of
`
`Defendants’ brief. This means there have been no new arguments in these IPRs to
`
`address. This also means that Defendants had ample time to address any IPR
`
`statements in their claim construction briefing—they, in fact, purported to do so.
`
`See Dkt. 131 at 30. It is unclear why Defendants’ letter insists that there were new
`
`statements made by Neo in these proceedings. There have been none—the intrinsic
`
`record for these claim terms has not changed since the parties’ briefing.
`
`
`
`The only new development is that the PTAB has issued two institution
`
`decisions, in which it made preliminary claim construction determinations. Yet,
`
`despite Defendants’ claims that these statements “impact the scope and meaning of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 151, PageID.10737 Filed 06/13/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`the claim terms” or are “directly relevant to the disputed constructions,” 6/6/23 P.
`
`Steadman Ltr. at 2, statements made by the PTAB are not binding on the Court.
`
`See, e.g., XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 18-1810, 2022 WL 2904308 (D. Del. July
`
`22, 2022). This is especially true for preliminary PTAB decisions, which the PTAB
`
`itself can change after institution.1 Nor can the PTAB’s characterizations of Neo’s
`
`patent claims disclaim or alter their scope.2 Regardless, Neo addresses the PTAB
`
`statements for the claim terms highlighted by the Court’s Order.
`
`A. ’941 Patent—“antenna transmission scheme” term.
`
`With regard to this term, the PTAB stated only that “at a minimum . . . the
`
`
`
`
`antenna transmission scheme indicated by the mobile station-specific transmission
`
`parameters is capable of supporting, as alternatives, a transmission diversity
`
`scheme and a MIMO scheme.” IPR2022-01537, Paper 8 at 29. However, as the
`
`PTAB noted, “[t]he positions taken by the plaintiff and defendants (including
`
`
`1 “[T]he Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision[,] . . .
`is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and
`should do so if convinced its initial inclinations were wrong.” TriVascular, Inc. v.
`Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original); see also In
`re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he
`Board has an obligation to assess the question anew after trial based on the totality
`of the record.”).
`2 Cf. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111,
`1124 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“It is well settled, however, that it is the applicant, not the
`examiner, who must give up or disclaim subject matter that would otherwise fall
`within the scope of the claims.”); 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison
`Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 151, PageID.10738 Filed 06/13/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`Petitioner) in the NEO Wireless litigation also support this understanding.” Id. at
`
`28. Both proposed constructions in this Court, just like the PTAB’s construction,
`
`explicitly “require[e] supporting both MIMO and non-MIMO transmission
`
`diversity systems.” See Dkt. 114-2 at 4. In other words, the PTAB’s preliminary
`
`construction merely addresses the undisputed portion of the parties’ competing
`
`constructions in this Court; it does not touch on the actual dispute between the
`
`parties (whether those are the only schemes that can be supported), and thus is not
`
`relevant to the Court’s resolution of this dispute.
`
`B. ’941 Patent—“corresponding subchannel configuration” term.
`
`With respect to this term, the PTAB’s recent institution decision adopts the
`
`
`
`
`same preliminary construction it adopted in Dell’s prior, unsuccessful IPR of this
`
`patent. See IPR2022-01537, Paper 8 at 26–27. First, that decision denying
`
`institution in Dell’s IPR was published over a year ago, so the recent decision
`
`provided nothing new that the parties did not already have before briefing in this
`
`case. In fact, Defendants’ briefing discusses the Dell decision for this very term.
`
`
`
`In any case, Defendants’ conclusion—that the PTAB’s statements in the Dell
`
`IPR support their position here—is wrong. See Dkt. 133 at 11–12. As with the
`
`“antenna transmission scheme” term, here the PTAB again determined only that, at
`
`a minimum, the construction of this term requires the capability to indicate both
`
`distributed subcarriers and localized subcarriers as subchannel configurations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 151, PageID.10739 Filed 06/13/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`IPR2021-01468, Paper 12 at 19. The PTAB specifically “decline[d] to speculate”
`
`on the dispute here—whether the term requires an explicit “parameter” that
`
`indicates “localized” or “distributed.” See id. at 18–19; Dkt. 114-2 at 5.
`
`C. ’512 Patent—“at least one of the time slots” term.
`
`In IPR2022-01539, the PTAB declined to expressly interpret this term as a
`
`
`
`
`preliminary decision, stating that “[o]n the present record,” the PTAB saw “no
`
`reason” to interpret the term “at this stage because Patent Owner has not yet
`
`presented its support for adopting its proposed interpretation.” IPR2022-01539,
`
`Paper 7 at 12 (emphasis added). The PTAB even invited Neo to “explai[n] how the
`
`language of the claims, the Specification, prosecution history, and possibly other
`
`evidence support its proposed interpretation” during the IPR proceeding. Id. at 12–
`
`13; see also id. at 50 (citing the same analysis when discussing an unasserted
`
`claim). At that point, the PTAB will have to reassess the construction of this term.
`
`See Magnum, 829 F.3d at 1377. Neo, however, has provided its more developed
`
`analyses before this Court. And for this claim term in particular, Neo has
`
`developed the factual record with unrebutted testimony of a technical expert
`
`repeatedly found credible by the PTAB. See IPR2021-01468, Paper 12 at 31–32,
`
`45; IPR2022-00277, Paper 10 at 23–24, 33. The Court should construe this term
`
`using the developed record and arguments made before it, which the PTAB did not
`
`have when making its preliminary determination.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 151, PageID.10740 Filed 06/13/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`DATED: June 13, 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 June 13, 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
`
`5
`
`