Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10787 Filed 06/19/23 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10788 Filed 06/19/23 Page 2 of 7
`
`Neo’s position that the PTAB’s constructions used for purposes of validity
`
`are not relevant to Neo in this litigation is wrong. “It is axiomatic that claims are
`
`construed the same way for both invalidity and infringement.” Amgen Inc. v.
`
`Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To the
`
`extent Neo contends that the PTAB may alter its constructions from those in the
`
`institution decisions,1 then that would further counsel staying this litigation until
`
`Neo’s position with respect to the PTAB’s constructions is finalized. While the
`
`PTAB’s constructions may not be binding on a district court, district courts do look
`
`to them to inform their reasoning.2 Thus, Neo’s attempt to distance itself from the
`
`PTAB’s constructions and introduce disparity between how the claims are treated
`
`in different forums should not be permitted.
`
`’512 Patent. Neo neither mentions nor rebuts the PTAB’s statement that
`
`“the plain language of the claims is broader” than Neo’s narrowing amendment
`
`adding the word “same.” ECF No. 145-2, PageID.10507. Instead, Neo cites its
`
`
`1 Neo’s cases are inapposite. In both, the Federal Circuit explained that the Board
`was free to change its decision on patentability, not claim construction.
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Magnum
`Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`2 Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1112, 2015 WL
`8073722, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2015) (“On balance, Plaintiff has failed to
`justify departing from the PTAB’s construction, which is entitled to ‘reasoned
`deference.’”); Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. C-13-
`04513, 2014 WL 4802426, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) (“While the PTAB’s
`constructions will not be binding on this court, the IPR will inform this court’s
`ultimate reasoning.”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10789 Filed 06/19/23 Page 3 of 7
`
`expert’s opinion, which is secondary to the intrinsic record. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neo’s expert ignores
`
`Figure 2, in which the two pilot signal types are not shown transmitted together.
`
`He also ignores dependent claim 19, which recites the “same” limitation, giving
`
`rise to a presumption that the independent claim is broader—as the PTAB recently
`
`found. Id. at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`
`limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present
`
`in the independent claim.”) The Court should reject Neo’s narrowing amendment.
`
`’941 Patent. With regard to the “antenna transmission scheme” term, Neo
`
`previously agreed to a construction reflecting what the PTAB preliminarily
`
`adopted in the IPR2022-01537 Institution Decision. ECF No. 131-16 (Dell JCCS),
`
`PageID.9875. Neo told this Court that it “stands fully behind [that] agreed
`
`construction,” so it should be held to that construction in this proceeding. ECF No.
`
`127, PageID.9027. Likewise, with regard to the “corresponding subchannel
`
`configuration” term, Neo admitted that the construction it agreed to from the prior
`
`Dell IPR is binding. ECF No. 131-20 (Neo POPR), PageID.9982. That
`
`construction, requiring alternatively indicating distributed or localized subcarriers,
`
`has now been preliminarily adopted in the PTAB’s Institution Decision. ECF No.
`
`145-1, PageID.10458. Neo should be held to these constructions adopted by the
`
`PTAB for which Neo previously advocated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10790 Filed 06/19/23 Page 4 of 7
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: June 19, 2023
`
`
`
`/s/ Joseph A. Herriges
`
`
`Joseph A. Herriges, MN Bar No.
`390350
`Conrad A. Gosen, MN Bar No.
`0395381
`James Huguenin-Love, MN Bar No.
`0398706
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`herriges@fr.com, gosen@fr.com,
`huguein-love@fr.com
`
`Michael J. McKeon, DC Bar No.
`459780
`Christian Chu, DC Bar No. 483948
`Jared Hartzman, DC Bar No. 1034255
`Joshua Carrigan, VA Bar No. 96911
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`mckeon@fr.com, chu@fr.com,
`hartzman@fr.com, carrigan@fr.com
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Prkwy., Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Thomas H. Reger II
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Texas Bar No. 24032992
`reger@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`
`Lawrence Jarvis
`Georgia Bar No. 102116
`jarvis@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Telephone: (404) 892-5005
`
`Elizabeth Ranks
`Massachusetts Bar No. 693679
`ranks@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Prkwy., Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`mhuget@honigman.com
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10791 Filed 06/19/23 Page 5 of 7
`
`Counsel for Defendants General
`Motors Company and General Motors
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Megan S. Woodworth
`Jonathan L. Falkler
`Robert C. Tapparo
`VENABLE LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 344-4569
`FCCimino@Venable.com
`MSWoodworth@Venable.com
`JLFalkler@Venable.com
`RCTapparo@Venable.com
`
`Patrick G. Seyferth (P47575)
`Susan M. McKeever (P73533)
`BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-7800
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`
`Attorneys for FCA US LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Deirdre M. Wells
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-7851
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`weiner@bsplaw.com
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Ryan C. Richardson
`William H. Milliken
`Anna G. Phillips
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C
`1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`rrichardson@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`aphillips@sternekessler.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Volkswagen
`Group of America, Inc. and
`Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, Inc. 3
`
`
`3 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, Inc. do not take a position on the claim constructions, but
`agreed to be bound by and will not challenge the Court’s claim constructions. See
`Dkt. 120 (Notice of Stipulation Regarding Claim Construction).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10792 Filed 06/19/23 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`/s/ Peter J. Brennan
`
`Reginald J. Hill (IL Bar #6225173)
`Peter J. Brennan (IL Bar
`#6190873)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark St.
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 222-9350
`rhill@jenner.com
`pbrennan@jenner.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA
`INC. AND NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE
`CORPORATION a/k/a NISSAN
`MOTOR ACCEPTANCE
`COMPANY LLC
`
`/s/ John T. Johnson
`
`
`John T. Johnson (New York Bar
`No.2589182)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`7 Times Square, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 765-5070
`Facsimile: (212) 258-2291
`E-mail: jjohnson@fr.com
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (New York Bar No.
`2589182)
`Benjamin J Christoff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave., S.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`E-mail: Cordell@fr.com
`
`Thomas Branigan (P41774)
`Matin Fallahi (P84524)
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`41000 Woodard Avenue, 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: (248) 205-3300
`Facsimile: (248) 205-3399
`thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
`matin.fallahi@browmanandbrook.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC. AND HONDA DEVELOPMENT
`& MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA,
`LLC
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 154, PageID.10793 Filed 06/19/23 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ John S. LeRoy
`
`John S. LeRoy (P61964)
`Christopher C. Smith (P73936)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Telephone: (248) 358-4400
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Ford Motor
`Company
`
`/s/ Paul R. Steadman
`
`
`Paul R. Steadman (Illinois Bar No.
`6238160)
`Matthew Satchwell (Illinois Bar No.
`6290672)
`Shuzo Maruyama (Illinois Bar No.
`6313434)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606-0089
`Tel: 312.368.2135
`Fax: 312.251.2850
`paul.steadman@us.dlapiper.com
`matthew.satchwell@us.dlapiper.com
`shuzo.maruyama@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Brian Erickson (Texas Bar No.
`24012594)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000
`Austin, Texas 78701-4653
`Tel: 512.457.7059
`Fax: 512.721.2263
`brian.erickson@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Toyota Motor
`Corporation, Toyota Motor North
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales,
`U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor
`Engineering & Manufacturing North
`America, Inc. and Toyota Motor
`Credit Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
