`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-00009-RGA
`
`Civil Action No.: 1: 13-cv-00010-RGA
`
`INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC., a Delaware corporation,
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
`IPR LICENSING, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and INTERDIGIT AL
`HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, a Chinese corporation,
`and ZTE (USA) INC., a New Jersey
`corporation,
`
`Defendants and
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`INTERDIGIT AL COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC., a Delaware corporation,
`INTERDIGIT AL TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
`IPR LICENSING, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and INTERDIGITAL
`HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`NOKIA CORPORATION, NOKIA, INC.,
`AND MICROSOFT MOBILE OY,
`
`Defendants and
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
` Ex. 2022-0001
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc.
`Exhibit 2022
`ZTE Corp v. IPR Licensing, Inc.
`IPR2014-00525
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 40486
`
`Neal C. Belgam, Esq., Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, Wilmington, DE; Maximilian A. Grant,
`Esq., Bert C. Reiser, Esq., Jonathan D. Link, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington D.C.;
`Ron E. Schulman, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Julie M. Holloway, Esq.
`(argued), Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; David S. Steuer, Esq., Michael B. Levin,
`Esq., Maura L. Rees, Esq., Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, attorneys for
`Plaintiffs InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR
`Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
`
`Kelly E. Farnan, Esq., Travis S. Hunter, Esq., Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE;
`Ralph J. Gabric, Esq., Charles M. McMahon, Esq. (argued), Mircea A. Tipescu, Esq., Brian A.
`Jones, Esq., Hersh H. Mehta, Esq., Brinks, Gilson, & Lione, Chicago, IL; Jay H. Reiziss, Esq.,
`Brinks, Gilson, & Lione, Washington D.C., attorneys for Defendants ZTE Corporation and ZTE
`(USA) Inc.
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., Rodger D. Smith II, Esq., Jeremy A. Tigan, Esq., Morris, Nichols,
`Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard A. Cederoth, Esq., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago,
`IL; Brian R. Nester, Esq., Joseph A. Micallef, Esq. (argued), Sidley Austin LLP, Washington,
`DC; Dan K. Webb, Esq., Raymond C. Perkins, Esq., Kevin E. Warner, Esq., Winston & Strawn
`LLP, Chicago, IL; David A. Frist, Esq., Alston & Bird, Atlanta, GA, attorneys for Defendants
`Nokia Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Microsoft Microsoft Mobile Oy.
`
`March _b_, 2015
`
`2
`
` Ex. 2022-0002
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 40487
`
`Pending before this Court is the issue of claim construction of various disputed terms
`
`found in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,380,244 ("the '244 patent") and 7,941,151 ("the '151 patent"). The
`
`Court has considered the Parties' Joint Claim Construction Briefs. (D.I. 407 & 485). The Court
`
`heard oral argument on February 27, 2015. (D.I. 418 [hereinafter "Tr."]).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On January 2, 2013, InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology
`
`Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") filed four patent
`
`infringement actions. (C.A. 13-8-RGA D.I. 1; C.A. 13-9-RGA D.I. 1; C.A. 13-10-RGA D.I. 1;
`
`C.A. 13-11-RGA D.I. 1). 1 The two actions relevant to this opinion are against ZTE Corporation
`
`and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, "ZTE") (C.A. 13-9-RGA) and Nokia Corporation, Nokia,
`
`Inc., and Microsoft Mobile Oy (collectively, "Nokia") (C.A. 13-10-RGA).2
`
`The Court held a six-day jury trial for the ZTE action on October 21, 2014 through
`
`October 27, 2014. InterDigital alleged that ZTE infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966,
`
`7,286,847, the '244 patent, and the '151 patent. The Court declared a mistrial as to the '151
`
`patent on October 22, 2014. (D.I. 444 at 680). The jury found all asserted claims of the
`
`Temaining patents valid and infringed. (D.I. 450).
`
`Following the ZTE trial, Nokia moved for leave to file additional claim construction
`
`briefs regarding certain terms in the '244 patent. (D.I. 375). The Court granted the motion in
`
`part. (D.I. 396). The Court gave Nokia leave to make additional arguments for two terms in the
`
`1 Citations to D.I. 485, D.I. 486, and D.I. 488 are to the C.A. 13-9-RGA docket. All other docket citations are to
`C.A. 13-10-RGA.
`2 With respect to the '244 patent, "Defendants" refers to Nokia. With respect to the '151 patent, "Defendants" refers
`to Nokia and ZTE.
`
`3
`
` Ex. 2022-0003
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 40488
`
`'244 patent. (D.I. 396). The Court heard claim construction arguments for the '244 patent at the
`
`Markman hearing originally scheduled for the '151 patent.
`
`II.
`
`LEGALSTANDARD
`
`"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). '"[T]here is no magic formula or
`
`catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate
`
`weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."'
`
`Soft View LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1324). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the
`
`claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these
`
`sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually,
`
`it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1315 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning ....
`
`[Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."
`
`Id. at 1312-13 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a
`
`claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`4
`
` Ex. 2022-0004
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 40489
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314 (internal citations omitted).
`
`When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history-the court's construction is a determination oflaw.
`
`See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The court may also
`
`make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all
`
`evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks and
`
`citations omitted). Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying
`
`technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id.
`
`Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent
`
`and its prosecution history. Id.
`
`"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it
`
`defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa 'per
`
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would
`
`exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GmbH v. Int'! Trade
`
`Comm 'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`The '244 Patent
`
`Claim 1 of the '244 patent is representative and reads:
`
`A subscriber unit comprising:
`
`a cellular transceiver configured to communicate with a cellular wireless network via
`a plurality of assigned physical channels;
`
`an IEEE 802.11 transceiver configured to communicate with an IEEE 802.11
`wireless local area network; and
`
`5
`
` Ex. 2022-0005
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 40490
`
`a processor configured to maintain a communication session with the cellular
`wireless network in an absence of the plurality of assigned physical channels
`while the IEEE 802.11 transceiver communicates packet data with the IEEE
`802.11 wireless local area network.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`1.
`
`"maintain a communication session with the cellular wireless network"
`
`a. Plaintifft 'proposed construction: No construction necessary. If construed,
`"maintain a [horizontal] logical connection with the cellular wireless
`network."
`
`b. Defendants' proposed construction: maintain a connection between two
`layers of the subscriber unit's cellular protocol stack above the physical layer
`
`c. Court's construction: maintain a horizontal logical connection with the
`cellular wireless network
`
`The Court previously construed "maintain a communication session with the cellular
`
`wireless network in an absence of the plurality of assigned physical channels" as "maintain a
`
`logical connection with the cellular wireless network when none of the plurality of assigned
`
`physical channels are in use by the subscriber unit." (D.I. 219 at p. 12). The key dispute with
`
`respect to this term is whether the connection is a horizontal connection between a protocol layer
`
`of a subscriber unit and a peer protocol layer of a wireless network or a vertical connection
`
`between layers of a protocol stack within the subscriber unit.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the term "logical connection" is well understood and does not require
`
`construction. (D.I. 407 at 9). The Court does not agree and will therefore construe the term.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that, if construed, the term should be construed to clarify that the connection is
`
`horizontal. (Id. at 10). They maintain that the surrounding claim language mandates this
`
`construction, as it requires a connection "with the cellular wireless network," and therefore
`
`cannot be a connection within the subscriber unit alone. (Id. at 11 (emphasis in original)).
`
`Plaintiffs further argue that the specification supports a horizontal connection. (Id. at 14). They
`
`6
`
` Ex. 2022-0006
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 40491
`
`note that the specification teaches "establishing a logical connection using a higher layer
`
`protocol, such as the network layer protocol, from a subscriber unit, such as may be connected to
`
`a portable computer node, to an intended peer node .... " (Id. (quoting '244 patent, col. 4, 11. 6-
`
`9)). Plaintiffs also argue that the prosecution history supports their construction. (Id. at 15).
`
`Defendants argue that maintaining a communication session is limited to spoofing; in
`
`other words, tricking higher layers of a protocol stack into thinking there is a physical connection
`
`between the subscriber unit and the cellular network when there is not. They note that the
`
`specification states that "certain physical layer connections may expect to receive a continuous
`
`stream of synchronous data bits" even in the absence of a physical connection. (Id. (quoting
`
`'244 patent, col. 6, 11. 34-35)). This is achieved by looping back data bits to spoof the equipment
`
`into thinking that a physical connection has been maintained. (Id.) Defendants argue that these
`
`looped data bits sent over a vertical connection between two layers of the subscriber unit's
`
`protocol stack maintain the communication session. (Id. at 20).
`
`Defendants further argue that the communication session is not a logical connection. (Id.
`
`at 22). Therefore, Plaintiffs' argument that the claim language supports Plaintiffs' construction
`
`is unfounded. (Id.). Defendants argue that the specification does not teach maintaining a logical
`
`connection in the absence of a physical connection. (Id. at 21 ). Rather, it describes maintaining
`
`the appearance of a logical connection. (Id.).
`
`Defendants also argue that the prosecution history supports their construction. (Id. at 23).
`
`They note that the examiner originally rejected the relevant claim because the specification failed
`
`to enable "maintaining a communication session, above a physical layer, in the absence of
`
`assigned physical channels." (Id. at 23 (quoting D.I. 410, Ex. Q at p. 8)). The applicants
`
`responded by stating that "the communication session may be maintained via the logical
`
`7
`
` Ex. 2022-0007
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 40492
`
`connection (for example, a higher layer protocol) even as one or more of the physical wireless
`
`channels are released." (D.I. 410, Ex. Q at p. 9). In support of this argument, the applicants
`
`pointed to portions of the application that discuss the use of spoofing. (Id.) The examiner
`
`responded to this argument in the Final Office Action by stating:
`
`The Examiner notes that Applicants have defined "a processor configured to
`maintain a communication session, with the first wireless network in the absence
`of the plurality of assigned physical layer channels while communicating packet
`data with the IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network via the second transceiver."
`For example, Applicants generally point to paragraphs 0023 and 0078 (see paper
`dated 1128/2011 at page 9[),] which basically indicates some sort of spoofing (i.e.
`spoof the terminal into believing that a sufficient wide wireless communication link
`is continuously available).
`
`(Id., Ex U at pp. 11-12).
`
`The Court finds that the claim language and specification support Plaintiffs' proposed
`
`construction.3 The Court previously construed "communication session" in this context to mean
`
`"logical connection." (D.I. 219 at p. 12). The surrounding claim language therefore compels the
`
`conclusion that the connection is between the subscriber unit and the cellular wireless network.
`
`A connection within the subscriber unit itself cannot be a connection "with the cellular wireless
`
`network." In addition, the specification describes a logical connection as a connection between
`
`peer nodes at the network layer. ('244 patent, col. 4, IL 5-18).
`
`The Court does not agree that the prosecution history limited the claim as Defendants
`
`suggest. Defendants made the same argument at the original claim construction proceeding. My
`
`response now is the same: "The examiner's statement provides only a possible example for the
`
`definition of the disputed phrase. This is not sufficient to put the inventor on notice that the
`
`invention had been limited to only spoofing, nor is it specific enough to restrict the claim." (D.I.
`
`219 at pp. 13-14).
`
`3 In reaching this conclusion, the Court does not rely on the definitions proposed in the parallel IPR proceeding.
`
`8
`
` Ex. 2022-0008
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 40493
`
`2.
`
`"assigned physical channels"
`
`a. Plaintiffs' proposed construction: channels available for the subscriber unit
`to select for use
`
`b. Defendants' proposed construction: physical channels available for the
`subscriber unit to use
`
`c. Court's construction: channels available for the subscriber unit to select a
`subset for use
`
`The Court previously construed "assigned physical channels" as "physical channels
`
`available for the subscriber unit to select for use." (D.I. 219 at p. 14). Defendants proposed the
`
`construction the Court adopted. (Id.). Defendants now argue that the construction is confusing.
`
`(D.I. 407 at 44). Defendants maintain that the confusing construction opened the door for
`
`Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Cooklev, to make claim construction arguments to the jury at the ZTE trial.
`
`(Id. at 42-43). They note that Dr. Cooklev redefined the claim by testifying that "select for use"
`
`means selecting some but not all channels. (Id. at 42). ZTE objected to Dr. Cooklev arguing
`
`claim construction-an issue of law-to the jury. (Id.). The Court sustained the objection and
`
`struck the testimony. 4 (Id.). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed construction is just as
`
`objectionable now as it was when Dr. Cooklev argued it to the jury. (Id. at 45). Defendants
`
`propose removing "select for" in order to simplify the construction. (Id. at 44). They contend
`
`that such an alteration would have no effect on the meaning. (Id.). Defendants also maintain
`
`that the specification does not require that the subscriber unit select a subset of channels from a
`
`larger set. (Id. at 46).
`
`Defendants further request that the Court re-construe the claim language surrounding
`
`"assigned physical channels." (Id. at 43-44). The Court construed "maintain a communication
`
`4 Counsel should advise their experts that giving testimony about what a claim construction "means" is improper.
`Counsel should be aware that if this happens again, I will give due consideration to the possibility of sanctions.
`
`9
`
` Ex. 2022-0009
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 40494
`
`session with the cellular wireless network in an absence of the plurality of assigned physical
`
`channels" as "maintain a logical connection with the wireless network when none of the plurality
`
`of [physical channels available for the subscriber unit to select for use] are in use by the
`
`subscriber unit." (D.I. 219 at p. 12). Defendants propose that "when none of ... are in use" be
`
`replaced with the original claim language, "in an absence of." (D.I. 407 at 44). They argue that
`
`"absence" is an ordinary word any juror would understand, and reverting to the claim language
`
`would simplify the construction. (Id.).
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should not be allowed to argue for a new construction
`
`when the Court adopted the construction Defendants proposed. (Id. at 38). Plaintiffs further
`
`argue that Defendants' new construction would eliminate the requirement that the subscriber unit
`
`select the channels, as it would permit the network to dictate the selection. (Id. at 39). Plaintiffs
`
`note that in the IPR proceeding, Plaintiffs expressly disclaimed systems in which the subscriber
`
`unit does not select the channels for use. (Id. at 46).
`
`Plaintiffs also argue that the subscriber unit selects a subset of available channels. (Id. at
`
`40). They note that the specification describes a bandwidth management function that allocates
`
`and deallocates radio channels "as required." (Id. at 39). The specification also states that the
`
`"bandwidth management function may make only a certain number of channels 30 available at
`
`any time. A subset of the available channels 30 is selected."5 (Id. at 40 (quoting '244 patent,
`
`col. 7, 11. 24-27)). Plaintiffs also note that Defendants argued that "a subset of those available
`
`channels are selected for use" in the original claim construction briefing. (Id. at 40 (quoting D.I.
`
`122 at 85)).
`
`5 Defendants argue that this language is not in the section describing Figure 6, to which Plaintiffs limited the
`invention during the IPR. (D.1. 407 at 49 n.8). However, the description of Figure 6 includes the "bandwidth
`management 134 as described earlier." ('244 patent, col. 9, 11. 38-39). The quoted language is an earlier description
`of the bandwidth management function.
`
`10
`
` Ex. 2022-0010
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 40495
`
`The Court agrees that Defendants' construction would eliminate the requirement that the
`
`subscriber unit, and not the network, select channels for use. The specification describes a
`
`subscriber unit "of the present invention" which selects channels for use. For example, it
`
`describes the subscriber unit's bandwidth management function "dynamically assigning" radio
`
`channels. ('244 patent, col. 10, I. 1 ). It also notes that the bandwidth management function
`
`deallocates channels when no data is present. ('244 patent, col. 10, 11. 34-43). Plaintiffs
`
`confirmed in the IPR that they disavowed any embodiments where the subscriber unit did not
`
`select the channels for use. (D.I. 410, Ex. Vat p. 15).
`
`The Court finds that the subscriber unit must select a subset of available channels. As
`
`noted above, this requirement is found in the description to which Plaintiffs limited the
`
`invention. ('244 patent, col. 7, 11. 24-27). Plaintiff limited the invention to Figure 6, a subscriber
`
`unit "of the present invention." (D.I. 410, Ex.Vat pp. 14-15). The description of Figure 6
`
`includes the "bandwidth management 134 as described earlier." ('244 patent, col. 9, 11. 38-39).
`
`The earlier description of the bandwidth management function states that "[a] subset of the
`
`available channels 30 is selected .... "
`
`In addition, Defendants in the original claim construction proceeding argued that a subset
`
`of channels must be selected. The specification explains that the bandwidth management
`
`function is responsible for allocating and deallocating channels as required. ('244 patent, col. 9,
`
`11. 64-66). Defendants urged that "allocated" means that "a subset of those available channels is
`
`selected for use." (D.I. 122 at 85). Defendants' argument that this interpretation is
`
`objectionable because the Court struck Dr. Cooklev's testimony at the ZTE trial misunderstands
`
`the Court's ruling. The testimony was improper because Dr. Cooklev was arguing a question of
`
`law to the jury. It was not that the substance of the argument was necessarily objectionable, it
`
`11
`
` Ex. 2022-0011
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 40496
`
`was that the argument was being made at all. The Court finds that the subscriber unit must select
`
`a subset of channels for use, but neither proposed construction captures that requirement. The
`
`Court will therefore define "assigned physical channels" as "channels available for the subscriber
`
`unit to select a subset for use."
`
`The Court will not further construe the claim language surrounding "assigned physical
`
`channels" for two reasons. First, Defendants moved for additional claim construction on three
`
`specific terms, including "assigned physical channels." (D.1. 385). The Court granted the
`
`motion in part, but did not give leave to argue additional claim construction for other terms.
`
`(D.1. 396). Defendants' request to re-construe terms that the Court did not give leave to argue is
`
`procedurally improper.
`
`Second, the Court does not agree that the "when none of the ... are in use" language is
`
`"very complex." (See D.I. 407 at 44). While it is true that "absence" is not a term of art, it has a
`
`specific meaning within the context of the claim. "Absence" in general usage means "[t]he state
`
`of being absent or away from a place."6 The claims do not contemplate that the channels go
`
`away. One of the purposes of maintaining a logical connection is to eliminate "the overhead
`
`associated with having to set up an end to end connection each time that data needs to be
`
`transferred." ('244 patent, col. 4, 11. 20-22). In other words, the purpose is to make it possible to
`
`more efficiently reestablish a physical connection that had previously been dropped. If
`
`"absence" meant that the channels were gone entirely, the subscriber unit could not reconnect.
`
`The Court will therefore not re-construe the "when none of the ... are in use" language.
`
`B.
`
`The '151 Patent
`
`Claim 1 of the '151 patent is representative and reads:
`
`6 "absence, n." OED ONLINE, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/645 (last visited March 02, 2015).
`
`12
`
` Ex. 2022-0012
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 40497
`
`A method for utilizing channel assignment information for an uplink shared channel or a
`downlink shared channel, the method comprising:
`
`a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) receiving downlink control
`information including downlink or uplink channel assignment information
`via a same physical downlink control channel, both downlink channel
`assignment information and uplink channel assignment information being
`received via the same physical downlink control channel;
`
`the WTRU determining whether the downlink control information is intended
`for the WTRU based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic redundancy
`check (CRC) parity bits, and if so determining whether the channel
`assignment information is for assigning radio resources for the uplink
`shared channel or the downlink shared channel; and
`
`the WTRU utilizing the radio resources for the uplink shared channel or the
`downlink shared channel.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`1.
`
`"a same physical downlink control channel"
`
`a. Plaintifft 'proposed construction: at least one same physical downlink
`control channel
`
`b. Defendants' proposed construction: one particular same physical downlink
`control channel
`
`c. Court's construction: one physical downlink control channel
`
`2.
`
`"both downlink channel assignment information and uplink channel assignment
`information being received via the same physical downlink control channel"
`
`a. Plaintifft 'proposed construction: both downlink channel assignment
`information and uplink channel assignment information will be received via
`the at least one same physical downlink control channel
`
`b. Defendants' proposed construction: the WTRU receiving both downlink
`channel assignment information and uplink channel assignment information
`via that particular same physical downlink control channel
`
`c. Court's construction: both downlink channel assignment information and
`uplink channel assignment information being received via the one physical
`downlink control channel
`
`13
`
` Ex. 2022-0013
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 40498
`
`The claim construction issues with respect to these terms are the same, and the parties
`
`argued them together, so the Court will address them together. The parties argue past each other
`
`on several issues, but ultimately appear to agree that there can be multiple control channels and
`
`that only one is used each time the claimed method is performed. (Tr. 112, 114-15). The dispute
`
`boils down to whether each control channel needs to carry both downlink channel assignment
`
`information and uplink channel assignment information.
`
`Defendants argue that the claim requires that each channel carry both uplink and
`
`downlink channel assignment information. (D.I. 485 at 18). Defendants argue that the claim
`
`language makes clear that "both" types of information must be received by the "same" channel.
`
`(Id. at 19). Defendants also argue that the prosecution history supports their construction. (Id. at
`
`21). Applicants added "via the same physical downlink control channel" to overcome a prior art
`
`rejection. (Id. at 22). The examiner allowed the amended claim in part because "[t]he prior arts
`
`fail to disclose the control data for allocating the uplink resource and the control data for
`
`allocating the downlink resource are transmitted via the same physical downlink control channel
`
`.... " (D.I. 486, Ex.Hat 80). Defendants note that in the ITC, Plaintiffs argued that "whenever
`
`downlink CAI [channel assignment information] is received or uplink CAI is received, both must
`
`be received on the same physical downlink control channel." (D.I. 485 at 24 (quoting D.I. 488,
`
`Ex. M at 10)).
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the control channel carries both downlink assignment information
`
`and uplink assignment information over time, but need only carry one or the other each time the
`
`claimed method step is performed. (Id. at 30). Plaintiffs argue that a "channel" is a "radio
`
`resource," and that a radio resource carries both uplink assignment information and downlink
`
`14
`
` Ex. 2022-0014
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 496 Filed 03/06/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 40499
`
`assignment information over time. 7 (Tr. at 113). The parties agreed to adopt the Court's
`
`previous construction of "same physical downlink control channel" as "channel used only for
`
`transfer of downlink control information that occupies a same radio resource." (D.I. 485 at 12).
`
`Plaintiffs' understanding appears to be that the Court's construction of "same ... channel" is that
`
`"[i]t occupies a same radio resource." (Tr. at 135). Therefore, "there can be more than one such
`
`channel that occupies a same radio resource." (Id.). Plaintiffs argue that multiple channels travel
`
`over the radio resource, each of which need only contain uplink assignment information or
`
`downlink assignment information. (Id. at 136).
`
`In light of these arguments and for the sake of clarity, the Court finds it necessary to
`
`revise its previous construction of "same physical downlink control channel." The revised
`
`construction is "channel used only for transfer of downlink control information and which
`
`occupies one radio resource." The Court notes that a channel occupies a radio resource, but it is
`
`not itself a radio resource.
`
`With respect to the terms at issue, the Court finds that the claim language and prosecution
`
`history support a construction requiring the control channel to carry both uplink channel
`
`assignment information and downlink channel assignment information. Neither proposed
`
`construction captures that requirement or provides guidance to the jury about the crux of the
`
`dispute. The Court will therefore define "a same physical downlink control channel" as "one
`
`physical downlink control channel. "8 The Court will define "both downlink channel assignment
`
`information and uplink channel assignment information being received via the same physical
`
`7 The Court notes that this position is similar to the const