Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 2097
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-832-JRG-RSP
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-259-JRG-RSP
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`SPRINT NEXTEL CORP.
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`§ Case No. 2:13-cv-258-JRG-RSP
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2098
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 2 of 32 Page|D #: 2098
`
`
`
`I.
`I.
`
`II.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ .. 1
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`STANDARDS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................... .. 1
`STANDARDS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`III.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT .................................................................... .. 2
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ...................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`D
`D.
`
`E
`E.
`
`F
`F.
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’428 Patent ................................... .. 3
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’428 Patent..................................... 3
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’946 Patent................................... .. 3
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’946 Patent..................................... 3
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’ 891 Patent................................... .. 4
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’891 Patent..................................... 4
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’506 Patent................................... .. 5
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’506 Patent..................................... 5
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’403 Patent................................... .. 6
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’403 Patent..................................... 6
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’2l0 Patent................................... .. 7
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’210 Patent..................................... 7
`
`IV.
`IV.
`
`THE CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE .................................................................................... .. 8
`THE CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE ...................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Most of the Claim Terms Use their Plain and Ordinary Meanings. ....................... 8
`Most of the Claim Terms Use their Plain and Ordinary Meanings. ..................... .. 8
`
`Terms Requiring Construction. ............................................................................. 16
`Terms Requiring Construction............................................................................ .. 16
`
`Terms that Defendants Claim are Indefinite. ...................................................... .. 20
`Terms that Defendants Claim are Indefinite. ........................................................ 20
`
`V.
`V.
`
`CONSTRUCTIONS OF MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION TERMS SHOULD INCLUDE
`CONSTRUCTIONS OF MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION TERMS SHOULD INCLUDE
`“AND EQUIVALENTS.” ................................................................................................. 27
`“AND EQUIVALENTS.” ............................................................................................... .. 27
`
`VI.
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... .. 27
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`MrEL’s OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`i
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 2099
`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASE
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp.,
`732 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................20
`
`Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................13
`
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C.,
`482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................19
`
`CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP,
`112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..........................................................................................21, 22
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Nos. 6:10–cv–0379 ..................................................................................................................26
`
`Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Pixcir Microelectronics Co. Ltd.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76983 (D. Nev. May 30, 2013) ..........................................................23
`
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................16
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Acer America Corp.,
`No. 6:07-cv-125, 2009 WL 68896 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2009) ...................................................15
`
`i2 Techs., Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`2011 WL 209692 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2011) ..............................................................................2
`
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................21
`
`Intellectual Property Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................19
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................13
`
`Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................19
`
`Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co.,
`398 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................19
`
`McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 160 U.S. 110, 116 (U.S. 1895) .............................................13
`
`Micro Chem, Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., Inc.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................20
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 2100
`
`
`
`Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Tivo, Inc.,
`No. 5:11-cv-53-JRG, 2012 WL 6087792 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ....................................................26
`
`MTel, LLC v. Clearwire Corp.,
`No. 2:12-cv-308-JRG-RSP, 2013 WL 3339050 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2013) (the
`“Clearwire Order”) ......................................................................................................13, 14, 15
`
`Nikon Corp. v. ASM Lithography B.V.,
`308 F.Supp.2d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .......................................................................................8
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................8
`
`Software Tree, LLC v. Redhat, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-097, 2010 WL 2232809, at *8 (E.D.
`Tex. June 1, 2010) ....................................................................................................................14
`
`Software Tree, LLC v. Redhat, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-097, 2010 WL 2232809, at *8 (E.D.
`Tex. June 1, 2010) ......................................................................................................................9
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. IBM,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................24
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................23
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................12
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC,
`2012 WL 280657 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...........................................................................................13
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).................................12
`
`United Video Props. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86914 (D. Del. June 22, 2012) ...........................................................23
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..........................14, 19
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................................20, 24, 26
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 2101
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC’s (“MTel’s”) proposed
`
`constructions for the claim terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,428 (the “’428 Patent”), 5,754,946
`
`(the “’946 Patent”), 5,894,506 (the “’506 Patent”), 5,590,403 (the “’403 Patent”), 5,659,891 (the
`
`“’891 Patent”), 5,915,210 (the “’210 Patent”) and 5,786,748 (the “’748 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”) follow the canons prescribed by the Federal Circuit. MTel’s constructions are
`
`consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and provide meanings that the jury will
`
`understand. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time each invention was
`
`made would have understood MTel’s constructions as correct. On the other hand, Defendants’
`
`proposed constructions inject structural limitations into the claims, read preferred embodiments
`
`out of the claims, and contradict the claim language. Defendants’ proposals are contrived to
`
`avoid infringement and are otherwise unsupported by black letter law.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARDS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to
`
`clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in
`
`determination of infringement.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997). The words of a claim are presumed to use their ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`which “provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[a] fundamental maxim is that the
`
`words in a claim should be given their ordinary meaning”). The ordinary and customary
`
`meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.”
`
`Id. at 1303.
`
`There are only two exceptions to the general rule that claim terms are given their plain
`
`and ordinary meanings: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 2102
`
`
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC , 669 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The purpose of claim construction is to define the proper scope of
`
`the invention and to give meaning to claim language when the jury might otherwise
`
`misunderstand a claim term in the context of the patent and its file history.1 See, e.g., i2 Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 6:09-cv-194, 2011 WL 209692, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2011) (“The
`
`plain language of the term is understandable; therefore, [the disputed terms] do not require
`
`construction.”). If a claim term is non-technical and derives no special meaning from the patent
`
`and its prosecution history, then the Court has no need to function as a thesaurus. See Brown v.
`
`3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding that non-technical terms of art . . . do not
`
`require elaborate interpretation).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`The inventors, Dennis W. Cameron, Walter C. Roehr, Jr., Rade Petrovik, Jai P. Bhagat,
`
`Masood Garahi, William D. Hays, and others, filed these patents between November 12, 1992
`
`and February 28, 1997. Each inventor worked at or with Mobile Telecommunications
`
`Technologies Corp., in Jackson, MS, the predecessor-in-interest of MTel. The company owned
`
`and operated the first commercially available, two-way wireless messaging network in the
`
`country, known as the Skytel paging network. Today, the Skytel paging network is still in
`
`operation and is used by first responders and medical professionals because of its reliability.
`
`The ’428 Patent incorporates by reference the entirety of the ’946 Patent (’428 at [1:39]).
`
`The ’946 Patent is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent. No. 5,590,403.
`
`
`1
`Peter S. Menell et al., Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.4.3. at p. 5-31 (2nd ed.
`2012) (“Not All Terms Require Construction”).
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 2103
`
`
`
`A. The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’428 Patent.
`
`The ’428 Patent teaches a system for reducing the errors that once plagued wireless data
`
`communications: undelivered messages. Previously, a mobile unit could only acknowledge that
`
`it had accurately received a message. The acknowledgment, however, did not tell the network
`
`whether the mobile unit had received: (1) the actual message (“Honey, I’ll be home for dinner”);
`
`or (2) a probe message (a message sent to determine whether an address can be reached). The
`
`’428 Patent enables a mobile unit to distinctively acknowledge whether a successfully delivered
`
`message was a data message or a probe message.
`
`Prior to the ’428 Patent, messages that could not be delivered immediately might be lost,
`
`never to be delivered unless the sender sent the message again. The ’428 Patent allows
`
`undelivered messages to be stored for processing or delivery later.
`
`B.
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’946 Patent.
`
`Mobile units receive messages. Many messages are automatically sent if the mobile unit
`
`does not acknowledge receipt of the complete message. This compounds message traffic on the
`
`network, reducing capacity and decreasing quality of service. Even still, some errors are not
`
`corrected automatically. In addition, sometimes a portion of a message is not received and needs
`
`to be resent, refreshed, completed, or updated. ’946 Patent at [17:20-21] (“message or a partial
`
`message to be retransmitted”)). At times, a user may wish to have additional pages of an article,
`
`or to open photos or attachments, or to have items updated. The ’946 Patent solves these
`
`problems while eliminating network congestion (and increasing capacity) due to unnecessary
`
`automatically sent messages. The ’946 Patent teaches allowing a user to request that the network
`
`send the part of the message not previously received. If the user does not request the rest of the
`
`message, it is not sent. Id. at 17:6-7 (“indicates that the message has not been completely or
`
`properly received”).
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 2104
`
`
`
`The ’946 Patent enables a user to transmit a signal indicating that the mobile unit wants
`
`something sent, typically a part of a message that was not received. The network then sends the
`
`requested part of the message to the mobile unit. The invention increases efficiency and lowers
`
`costs by allowing the user the flexibility to elect not to request transmission of unneeded portions
`
`of messages. Id. at 17:24-27.
`
`C.
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’891 Patent.
`
`The ’891 Patent describes and claims methods for operating more than one carrier in a
`
`channel to achieve higher capacity at a range of operating parameters, without undue interference
`
`protection. ’891 at [2:15-25]. Transmissions occur in channels, and multicarrier modulation
`
`enables efficient use of limited frequency bandwidth available. To avoid interference caused by
`
`signals straying between channels, signals are confined by emissions masks.
`
`The ’891 Patent discloses a method that includes operating multiple carriers in a channel
`
`using inventive parameters. Specifically, the difference between the center frequency of the
`
`outer most carriers within the channel and the edge of the mask that defines the channel has to be
`
`more than half the frequency difference between the center frequencies of each adjacent carrier.
`
`Id. at [4:12-34].
`
`Below, Fig. 3B illustrates a channel defined by a mask. 32a and 32b are overlapping
`
`carriers within the channel. The frequency differences between the center frequency of carrier
`
`32a and 32b (the dashed lines) and the nearest band edge of the mask is greater than half the
`
`frequency difference between the center frequencies of carriers 32a and 32b. Id. at [4:24-34].
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 2105
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3B
`
`D.
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’506 Patent.
`
`The inventions of the ’506 Patent save time for users and save capacity for networks.
`
`’506 at [1:40]. The ’506 teaches a way to use symbols, thoughts, and phrases as canned
`
`messages. Emoticons are an example: when a smartphone user types a colon and a closed
`
`parenthesis (or “:)”) the recipient message recipient sees a happy face: .
`
`The ’506 Patent teaches the use of a file of canned messages and a corresponding file of
`
`message codes. Each canned message is retrievable using its corresponding code. Id. at [1:55-
`
`57]. The network and the mobile units can each have a file of canned messages and a
`
`corresponding file of message codes.
`
`The canned message or code files on a mobile unit may be updated from files stored on
`
`the network. That way updated canned message files on the network can be used by all the
`
`network users. But files on a network may also be updated from the subscriber terminal (mobile
`
`unit). For example, interest groups may have their own customized canned messages. Id. at
`
`[2:1-6].
`
`Canned messages can accommodate multiple response options. Id. at [2:13-27]. For
`
`example, a “Calendar” invite is a canned message that can accommodate multiple optional
`
`responses; the recipient of a calendar invite can optionally respond with: “accept,” “decline,”
`
`“tentative,” or the recipient may be allowed to suggest a time or date. In addition, the canned
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`5
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 2106
`
`
`
`messages may be phrased to accept the addition of one or more parameters, which may be filled
`
`in by the sender. A canned message with parameters might be, for example, “Call me at _:__ at
`
`(___) ___-_____.” The sending party may want the receiving party to call at “4:00 p.m.” at
`
`phone number (512) 512-1212. Thus, the canned message prompts the sending party to fill-in
`
`two parameters: time and phone number.
`
`E.
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’403 Patent.
`
`The ’403 Patent describes and claims methods for transmitting information and
`
`communicating messages in a two-way wireless data communication network. ’403 at [1:9-14;
`
`33:10-34:63]. One method is to transmit information to a mobile device using two or more sets
`
`of transmitters during two or more time periods. Id. at [33:10-34: 34]. During the first period,
`
`the sets of transmitters transmit in simulcast a block of information, which means they transmit
`
`the same information at the same time. Simulcast transmission increases the chances that the
`
`information will be received by a mobile device. Id. at [4:54-58]. During a second time period,
`
`the sets of transmitters transmit different blocks of information. Id. at [5:11-28]. The techniques
`
`of the ’403 Patent increase coverage and throughput. Id. at 4:44-48].
`
`The ’403 Patent also describes and claims “zone dithering.” Transmitters cover an area
`
`called a “zone.” Fig. 25 (right) shows a blue
`
`Zone 1 and a red Zone 2. The transmitters
`
`(the Xs 2512, 2514, and 2516) are normally
`
`in Zone 1 (shown by the solid blue line), but
`
`can instead be assigned to an expanded Zone
`
`2 (dashed red line). Zone dithering is the
`
`process of assigning transmitters either to Zone 1 or to Zone 2 dynamically to meet the demands
`
`for network services. Id. at [10-11, 4:60-5:3]. Zone dithering assigns transmitters into zones in
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 2107
`
`
`
`response to the level of mobile data traffic, or in response to interference. Id. at [5:65-6:23]. In
`
`Fig. 25, the mobile devices (the Rs) that had previously been in an area of interference are shown
`
`in purple.
`
`F.
`
`The Inventions Described and Claimed in the ’210 Patent.
`
`The ’210 Patent is a continuation of the ’403 Patent. The ’210 Patent describes and
`
`claims transmitting information and communicating messages in a multi-carrier simulcast
`
`system. ’210 at [5:25-40; 33:45-34:44]. Multi-carrier simultaneous transmission allows for high
`
`transmission rates because multiple unique data streams are sent at the same time. Id. at [13:3-
`
`14; 48-49]. The ’210 Patent discloses a system in which a second transmitter simulcasts with a
`
`first transmitter, but is spatially separated from the first. Id . at [33:56]. Both transmitters
`
`generate multiple carrier signals within the selected frequency band—at substantially the same
`
`frequencies as each other. Id. at [5:25-40].
`
`The ’210 Patent Fig. 9 (below) illustrates eight multiple carriers 904 . . . 932, each of
`
`which can be modulated to carry a data stream. Id. at [13:3-14, 48-49].
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 2108
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THE CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE2
`
`A. Most of the Claim Terms Use their Plain and Ordinary Meanings.
`
`1.
`
` “probe message”
`
`Term/Claim MTel’s Proposal
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`
`“probe
`message”
`
`No construction necessary;
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`’428 Patent,
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`A message sent by
`the network
`operation center to
`locate a mobile unit
`
`
`
`Same as Apple
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “probe message” is clear from the context of the
`
`Claim, which is a message that is sent to determine whether an address can be reached. See Exh.
`
`1, Newton’s TeleCom Dictionary, 11th Ed., 481 (1996) (defining “Probe” as “an empty message
`
`that is sent to reach a particular address to determine if an address can be reached”). Defendants
`
`propose adding “locate,” which improperly imports a limitation from the Specification into the
`
`Claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]lthough the
`
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
`
`warned against confining the claims to those embodiments”); See Nikon Corp. v. ASM
`
`Lithography B.V., 308 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“A ‘cardinal sin of claim
`
`construction,’ the Federal Circuit has observed, is to import limitations into claims where claim
`
`language permits a construction broader than the embodiments.”). By including “locate,”
`
`Defendants improperly combine the functions of the “probe message” and the “probe
`
`acknowledge message,” which are parts of separate claim elements and together determine
`
`whether the address in the network can be reached. See ’428 at [9: 26, 29-31] (“means for
`
`
`2 The parties have agreed to the constructions for the terms listed in Appendix A.
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 2109
`
`
`
`transmitting a probe message . . . means for determining whether an acknowledgement message
`
`is an acknowledgement to a data message or an acknowledgement to a probe message”).
`
`Further, Defendants’ proposed construction unnecessarily limits the origin of a message
`
`(e.g., “sent by the network operation center”). Where appropriate, the Claims already discloses
`
`from where the messages originate. See ’428 at [9:16-19, 26-28] (“a network operations center
`
`. . . comprising . . . means for transmitting a probe message to the mobile unit if, after
`
`transmitting a data message to the mobile unit, no data acknowledgment message is received”);
`
`See Software Tree, LLC v. Redhat, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-097, 2010 WL 2232809, at *8 (E.D. Tex.
`
`June 1, 2010) (finding claim term clearly understandable to a jury where context explains what it
`
`is and what it does); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he context in which a term is used .
`
`. . can be highly instructive.”). Accordingly, construing “probe message” as Defendants request
`
`would be an “exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp. , 103 F.3d at 1568 (“Claim
`
`construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and
`
`when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims. . . . It is not an obligatory
`
`exercise in redundancy.”).
`
`2.
`
`“only upon the actuation of the switch” / “only upon receipt of the
`indication”
`
`Term/Claim
`
`MTel’s Proposal
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`
`“only upon actuation
`of the switch”
`
`
`
`No construction
`necessary; plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`’946 Patent, Claim 1
`
`
`
`Only upon user
`actuation of the switch,
`as opposed to
`automatically
`
`“only upon receipt of
`the indication”
`
`
`
`No construction
`necessary; plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`Only upon receipt of
`the indication, as
`opposed to
`automatically
`
`Samsung’s
`Proposal
`
`
`
`Same as Apple.
`
`Same as Apple.
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`9
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 2110
`
`
`
`
`
`’946 Patent, Claim 8
`
`
`
`These claims do not require construction as there is no material claim construction
`
`dispute. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). MTel does not contend that retransmission occurs automatically without any user
`
`involvement. Furthermore, the terms plain and ordinary meanings are clear. “Only upon
`
`actuation of the switch” means “not until the switch is put into action.” This meaning is clear
`
`from the Claim, which would be easily understandable to the jury without construction. Further,
`
`extrinsic evidence supports this plain and ordinary meaning. See Exh. 2, Random House
`
`Dictionary (1987) (defining “actuate” as “to put into action; start a process; turn on: to actuate a
`
`machine.”).
`
`Defendants inject a requirement that “actuation” be “user actuation.” While it is clear
`
`that the user must “desire[] retransmission from the communications network” (’946 at [32:2-4]),
`
`the patent does not require the user directly actuate the switch. Rather, the user may direct the
`
`switch to actuate through a physical (e.g., keyboard, touchscreen, etc.) and/or software (e.g.,
`
`operating system) based interface. ’946 at [17:38-40] (“The request retransmission button 1622
`
`could also be configured in a variety of ways and could be located anywhere on the mobile
`
`unit.”). If the patentees wanted to restrict “actuation” to the user actuation, they could have done
`
`so in either clause of Claim 1.3 Defendants’ “as opposed to automatically” limitation is also
`
`unnecessary as the claim language makes clear that transmission occurs “only upon” the
`
`“actuation of the switch” or the “receipt of the indication.”
`
`
`3
`Indeed, after many negotiations between the applicant and the USPTO, the applicant proposed the third and
`final amendment to Claim 1. Applicant added “actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for
`which a user desires retransmission” and deleted “allowing a user to selectively request retransmission of a
`portion of said message.” Thus, Defendants propose including a limitation specifically withdrawn by the
`patentees during prosecution. Exh. 3 at 1-2.
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`10
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 2111
`
`
`
`3.
`
` “canned message”/ “canned multiple response options”
`
`Term/Claim
`
`MTel’s Proposal
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`
`“canned message”
`
`’506 Patent, Claim 8
`
`No construction
`necessary; plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`In the alternative: a
`predefined message
`
`
`
`Samsung’s
`Proposal
`
`
`
`Previously stored
`textual word or phrase
`
`Same as Apple.
`
`“canned multiple
`response option”
`
`’506 Patent, Claims 12
`
`No construction
`necessary; plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`Previously stored
`response to canned
`message
`
`
`
`Same as Apple.
`
`In the alternative:
`predefined response
`messages available for
`user selection
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “canned” to be
`
`“predefined” and “message” to be “a sequence of characters used to convey information or data.”
`
`Exh. 1, Newton’s TeleCom Dictionary, 11th Ed., 373 (1996) (defining “message”). “Response”
`
`simply means “an answer to an inquiry.” Id . at 510 (1996) (defining “response”). A “canned
`
`message” is described in the Specification as “certain messages with an improved degree of
`
`message compression.” ’506 at [1:40-41].
`
`Defendants limit a “canned message” to a “textual word or phrase,” but the ’506 Patent
`
`does not prohibit a message from being expressed by characters or symbols. Also, by inserting
`
`the limitation “previously stored,” Defendants create confusion because the Specification
`
`contemplates the canned messages being “updated.” See, e.g., ’506 at [2:1-6] (“In accordance
`
`with a feature of the present invention, the . . . canned message files may be updated . . . in order
`
`to customize the canned messages according to the needs of a particular group or organization of
`
`subscribers.”). The purpose of claim construction is “to clarify, and when necessary to explain
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`11
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-JRG-RSP Document 103 Filed 02/06/14 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 2112
`
`
`
`what the patentee covered by the claims,” not introduce unhelpful or confusing language). U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Network
`
`Appliance Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL, 2008 WL 4193049, at *35-36
`
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2008) (rejecting proposed construction that added confusing language).
`
`Finally, the storage of responses and canned messages is clear from the claim language itself.
`
`See, e.g., ’506 at [9:58-61] (“maintaining at a network operation center a first file of canned
`
`messages and message codes respectively assigned to the canned messages”); ’506 at [10:53-56]
`
`(“maintaining at the network operation center . . . canned multiple response options”).
`
`4.
`
`“code” as used in “message code”/ “response code”
`
`Term/Claim
`
`MTel’s Proposal
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`
`“message code”
`
`’506 Patent, Claim 8
`
`No construction
`necessary; plain and