Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11731 Filed 12/11/23 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIGATION.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S MOTION
`FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S INDEFINITENESS
`DETERMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIGATION.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S MOTION
`FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S INDEFINITENESS
`DETERMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11732 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 17
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`1. Whether Neo has established that the Court committed a legal error.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11733 Filed 12/11/23 Page 3 of 17
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court properly found that the term “low peak-to-average power ratio” is
`
`indefinite based on a thorough review of the relevant case law, the intrinsic record,
`
`and the extrinsic evidence. Neo seeks reconsideration of the Court’s well-reasoned
`
`opinion. But Neo has not met, and cannot meet, the exacting requirements for
`
`reconsideration of the Court’s order, because it offers no arguments based on
`
`precedent, intrinsic evidence, or extrinsic evidence that were not already fully
`
`argued by the parties and considered by the Court. The Court should reject Neo’s
`
`improper effort to relitigate this finding.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Neo’s Rehashing of Previously Considered Arguments Should Be
`Rejected
`
`The Court should deny Neo’s motion because it is an improper attempt at re-
`
`arguing its rejected claim construction arguments. Indeed, Neo’s motion relies
`
`entirely on the same intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence, and case law that the
`
`Court already considered and rejected. Neo merely repackages and repeats its
`
`arguments, while incorrectly alleging that the Court “misapprehended the
`
`controlling law regarding indefiniteness” (it did not) and that the Court failed to
`
`consider certain extrinsic evidence (even though it did). Neo’s repackaging and
`
`repeating of the same previously rejected arguments are routinely rejected in this
`
`district. See, e.g., Evans v. City of Ann Arbor, No. 21-10575, 2022 WL 2988168,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11734 Filed 12/11/23 Page 4 of 17
`
`*1 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2022) (rejecting attempt to “re-argue [its] case, present
`
`new arguments, [and] otherwise relitigate issues that the court previously
`
`considered”); Estate of Larlham v. Dazzo, Case No. 12-cv-11377, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`Lexis 156790, *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2012) (denying motion for reconsideration
`
`which “presents the same issue already ruled on by the Court” in violation of Rule
`
`7.1(h)(3).). The Court should deny Neo’s motion for this reason alone.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Applied The Correct Legal Standard And Did Not
`Commit Any Error
`
`Even if the Court were to entertain the merit of Neo’s motion, the Court
`
`should nonetheless deny the motion because there was no error. Arguing
`
`otherwise, Neo misrepresents the legal standard for indefiniteness and alleges that
`
`the Court erred by requiring objective boundaries for those of skill in the art to
`
`determine what constitutes a low peak-to-average power ratio. Dkt. 201 at 2-5.
`
`Neo was given every opportunity to show any criteria at all for what constitutes a
`
`“low” peak-to-average power ratio and failed to do so. The Court did not commit
`
`any error.
`
`The Court considered all the evidence before it and applied the law
`
`correctly, as reflected by its thorough analysis of the disputed term. Because the
`
`disputed term is a term of degree, the Court correctly articulated the legal standard
`
`for indefiniteness and required the patent to provide some standard for measuring
`
`that degree:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11735 Filed 12/11/23 Page 5 of 17
`
`[T]he claims must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`invention with reasonable certainty,” in light of the specification and
`prosecution history. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. This standard requires
`that a patent must “be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is
`claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them.” Id.
`at 909 (cleaned up). In other words, “[t]he claims, when read in light of
`the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective
`boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d
`at 1371.
`
`Dkt. 198 at 31-32 (emphasis added). Contrary to Neo’s arguments, the Court then
`
`properly applied this precedent by ruling that the specification both “fails to
`
`provide any guidance on what qualifies as a ‘relatively low’ or ‘low’ PAPR” and
`
`“injects more uncertainty by introducing the phrases ‘relatively’ low PAPR, and
`
`‘improve[d]’ power efficiency, without specifying any standard against which
`
`these parameters are measured.” Id. at 36 (brackets in original). The Court also
`
`analyzed the prosecution history and correctly found that, during the prosecution of
`
`two related applications, the PTO rejected the same argument that Neo presented
`
`during claim construction here and in its current motion for reconsideration. Dkt.
`
`198 at 36-37. The Court, like the PTO, applied the controlling law and determined
`
`that there is no objective boundary for determining how low the ratio should be to
`
`meet the claim language. Under the correct legal standard, the Court correctly
`
`concluded that “neither the intrinsic [n]or extrinsic evidence provides objective
`
`boundaries for the term ‘low peak-to-average power ratio.’” Dkt. 198 at 35.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11736 Filed 12/11/23 Page 6 of 17
`
`Neo’s argument simply regurgitates its incorrect position that the patent does
`
`not need to provide a standard for measuring a term of degree. Dkt. 201 at 2
`
`(“[T]he Court erred when it required the specification to expressly state a specific
`
`threshold or comparator for evaluating a term of degree for that term to be
`
`definite.”). Neo’s position is contrary to precedent, which requires that the patent
`
`provide some standard for measuring that degree. See Biosig Instr., Inc. v.
`
`Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Interval Licensing
`
`LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (ruling that the patent
`
`“must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.”).
`
`At base, Neo’s motion proffers the same attorney argument, case law, and
`
`extrinsic evidence that it previously presented as supporting its position, all
`
`without addressing the ’366 patent’s failure to provide a “point of comparison for
`
`skilled artisans to determine an objective boundary” for what constitutes a low
`
`peak-to-average power ratio. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1363-64
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). By doing so, Neo has not presented “[a]n intervening change in
`
`controlling law,” “new facts warrant[ing] a different outcome,” or a “mistake” as
`
`required by the Local Rules to justify reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(2)(A-C).
`
`Therefore, Neo’s motion should be rejected since no legal error occurred.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11737 Filed 12/11/23 Page 7 of 17
`
`C. Neo’s Expert’s Testimony Was Rebutted By Defendants And
`Considered And Rejected By The Court
`
`Neo is also wrong when it claims that the Court failed to properly consider
`
`Neo’s expert’s testimony. Dkt. 201 at 6-9.
`
`Indeed, the Court fully considered Mr. Alberth’s testimony using the proper
`
`legal standard for indefiniteness. See Dkt. 198 at 37-38. As the Court noted, Mr.
`
`Alberth acknowledged that different specific implementations of OFDM/OFDMA
`
`networks could have different baseline PAPRs,” which indicates “that there is no
`
`industry standard for a ‘low’ PAPR.” Dkt. 198 at 37. In other words, Neo’s
`
`extrinsic evidence merely showed that there is a methodology for lowering PAPR,
`
`without indicating what constitutes “low” PAPR. Id. The Court further
`
`considered, and rejected, Mr. Alberth’s use of additional extrinsic evidence to
`
`arbitrarily select a baseline, because this evidence was just “one interpretation of
`
`one set of data and could not serve as an objective boundary for what qualifies as a
`
`low PAPR.” Id. at 38. Thus, Neo cannot credibly allege that the Court failed to
`
`give full consideration to Mr. Alberth’s testimony.
`
`Neo’s argument that Defendants’ expert, Dr. Akl, did not rebut some
`
`testimony from Neo’s expert is also meritless. Dkt. 201 at 7. As the record shows,
`
`Dr. Akl clearly and fully rebutted all of Mr. Alberth’s testimony. Dkt. 131 at 5-7;
`
`see also Dkt. 131-2 (Decl. of Dr. Robert Akl) ¶¶ 35-55. In any event, Neo’s
`
`allegedly unrebutted testimony does not even establish that there are objective
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11738 Filed 12/11/23 Page 8 of 17
`
`boundaries for determining what constitutes a “low” PAPR. See Interval
`
`Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371.
`
`Neo’s continued reliance on the same rebutted expert testimony, case law,
`
`and attorney argument that the Court already considered and rejected demonstrates
`
`that Neo simply disagrees with the Court. But Neo’s disagreement with the ruling
`
`does not mean the Court committed an error that warrants reconsideration. See
`
`Rouse v. Washington, No. 20-CV-11409, 2022 WL 1444437, at *2 (E.D. Mich.
`
`May 6, 2022) (“Ultimately, all of these ‘mistakes’ are just Plaintiffs’ old arguments
`
`repackaged. The Court has already rejected these arguments, and a motion for
`
`reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to rehash such arguments.”). The Court
`
`should reject Neo’s motion.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Neo’s motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11739 Filed 12/11/23 Page 9 of 17
`
`Dated: December 11, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /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
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`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
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`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 Parkway
`Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`Fax: (734) 418-4255
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants General Motors
`Company and General Motors LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11740 Filed 12/11/23 Page 10 of 17
`
`By: /s/ Thomas H. Reger II (with consent)
`
`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, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 892-5005
`
`Elizabeth G.H. Ranks
`Mass Bar No. 693679
`ranks@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Parkway
`Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`Fax: (734) 418-4255
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11741 Filed 12/11/23 Page 11 of 17
`
`By: /s/ Paul R. Steadman (with consent)
`
`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 NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
`INC. AND TOYOTA MOTOR
`ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING
`NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND TOYOTA
`MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11742 Filed 12/11/23 Page 12 of 17
`
`By: /s/ Robert C. Tapparo (with consent)
`
`Patrick G. Seyferth (P47575)
`Susan M. McKeever (P73533)
`BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-780
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`
`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
`
`Counsel for FCA US LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11743 Filed 12/11/23 Page 13 of 17
`
`By: /s/ John S. Leroy (with consent)
`
`John S. LeRoy (P61964)
`Christopher C. Smith (P73936) Kyle G.
`Konz (P79452)
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Telephone: (248) 358-4400
`Fax: (248) 358-3351
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`kkonz@brookskushman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11744 Filed 12/11/23 Page 14 of 17
`
`By: /s/ Peter J. Brennan (with consent)
`
`Reginald J. Hill (IL Bar #6225173)
`Peter J. Brennan (IL Bar #6190873)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark St.
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11745 Filed 12/11/23 Page 15 of 17
`
`By: /s/ John T. Johnson (with consent)
`
`John T. Johnson
`Jeffrey Mok
`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
`Benjamin J Christoff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`E-mail: cordell@fr.com
`
`Thomas Branigan (P41774)
`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
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`AND HONDA DEVELOPMENT &
`MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11746 Filed 12/11/23 Page 16 of 17
`
`By: /s/ Susan M. McKeever (with consent)
`
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 West Big Beaver Road
`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
`Robert E. Niemeier
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C
`1101 K Street NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`rrichardson@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`aphillips@sternekessler.com
`rniemeier@sternekessler.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
`INC. AND VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS,
`INC.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 202, PageID.11747 Filed 12/11/23 Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that on December 11, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
`
`send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record.
`
`
`
` /s/ Joseph A. Herriges
`Joseph A. Herriges
`
`
`
`17
`
`
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
