Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 10374
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`TRACBEAM, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC. AND
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CAUSE NO. 6:14-CV-678
`LEAD CASE
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent
`
`Nos. 7,298,327 (“the ’327 Patent”); 7,525,484 (“the ’484 Patent”); 7,764,231 (“the ’231
`
`Patent”); and 8,032,153 (“the ’153 Patent) asserted by Plaintiff TracBeam L.L.C. (“TracBeam”)
`
`against Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) and Apple, Inc.
`
`(“Apple”). On December 18, 2015, the parties presented oral arguments on the disputed claim
`
`terms at a Markman hearing. Apple has since settled and many of the disputes are now moot.
`
`The Court construes what it understands to be the remaining live disputes between TracBeam
`
`and T-Mobile based on the Joint Claim Construction Chart, T-Mobile’s arguments at the hearing,
`
`and TracBeam’s Notice of Disputed Claim Constructions, see Docket No. 254. For the reasons
`
`stated below, the Court ADOPTS the following constructions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The specifications of the four patents are substantially similar. All patents claim priority
`
`to three provisional applications filed in 1996 and 1997. Though not issued first, the ’231 Patent
`
`was the immediate parent application for the other three patents. To be consistent with the
`
`
`
`
`
`TracBeam Exhibit 2005
`T-Mobile et al. v. TracBeam, LLC
`IPR2015-01687
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 10375
`
`parties’ briefing, unless otherwise noted citations are made to the ’231 Patent specification (in
`
`the col:line form xx:yy).
`
`The ’484 Patent and ’231 Patent were the subject of a prior litigation: TracBeam, LLC v.
`
`AT&T, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-96 (E.D. Tex.). A claim construction order issued in that case at
`
`Docket No. 352, Jan. 23, 2013 (“TracBeam I Order”). A number of follow-on orders that
`
`touched on claim construction in some manner were issued in the TracBeam v. AT&T case and in
`
`the severed action, TracBeam, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-93 (E.D. Tex.). See Docket
`
`Nos. 517, 551, and 583 (TracBeam v. AT&T) and 226 (TracBeam v. Google).
`
`In general, the patents relate to methods and systems for determining the location of
`
`mobile devices (or mobile stations), such as cell phones. In the Background of the Invention, the
`
`patents identify a wide range of prior art techniques for locating mobile devices including, for
`
`example, signal strength and triangulation, time of arrival and triangulation, GPS, differential
`
`GPS, etc. 1:25–7:58.
`
`The patents provide for the use of multiple location techniques for locating a mobile
`
`device. The techniques may be activated in combination for outputting a mobile device estimate.
`
`’231 Patent Abstract. Utilizing the plurality of techniques in combination alleviates some of the
`
`drawbacks of the prior art systems. ‘484 Patent Abstract. The systems are useful for a variety of
`
`applications such as 911 emergency locating, tracking, routing, and people and animal location.
`
`Abstract.
`
`The patents cite to various location techniques for using measurements of the wireless
`
`signals communicated between mobile devices and a network of base stations. 8:1–4. The
`
`techniques include, for example, time of arrival, triangulation, angle of arrival, pattern matching
`
`and GPS techniques. 8:37–51. Figure 4 illustrates a high level system overview in which a
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 10376
`
`plurality of mobile stations 140 and a plurality of base stations 122 and 152 are provided. 24:36-
`
`65.
`
`Fig. 4 (highlighting added). A location center 142 is used for determining the location of a
`
`mobile station 140 using signal characteristics for the particular mobile station. 25:6–10.
`
`Location applications may request mobile station locations through use of the location center.
`
`
`
`26:59–60.
`
`The disputed terms are referred to herein generally with regard to the Term Groups (A, B,
`
`C…) provided in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction chart: Docket No. 162-1. Within each
`
`group, the parties’ final claim chart refers to individual terms by number, for example, E1, E2,
`
`E3, E4.
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 10377
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
` “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. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
`
`F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
`
`the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–14; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
`
`claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. Phillips , 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
`
`Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
`
`normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
`
`additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ ” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “[T]he
`
`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.’ ” Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 10378
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
`
`disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes
`
`terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear
`
`disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
`
`1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own
`
`lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004).
`
`The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
`
`the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
`
`example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
`
`claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’ ” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc.,
`
`362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But,
`
`“[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language
`
`in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not
`
`generally be read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
`
`the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`
`treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
`
`skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
`
`definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`Page 5 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 10379
`
`expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
`
`pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
`
`term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
`
`I.
`
`Claim Construction of Disputed Terms
`
`1. Group A: “mobile station” terms. “mobile station” (’231 Claims 1, 6, 7, 17, 18, 20,
`24, 25, 36, 82, 155, 162; ’484 Claims 1, 25, 45, 49, 51, 56, 57, 63; ’153 Claims 1, 3, 7,
`15, 17, 35) and “wireless mobile station” (’231 Claims 17, 18, 20, 25; ’484 Claims 1,
`45, 49, 51; ’153 Claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 35)
`
`TracBeam’s Proposed Construction
`“mobile wireless device that is at least a
`transmitting device and may include a
`receiving device”
`
`[same for both terms]
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“portable wireless device, such as a portable
`radio telephony handset”
`
`[same for both terms]
`
`
`The parties treat both the “mobile station” and “wireless mobile station” terms the same.
`
`Docket No. 174 at 6:24–7:2.
`
`
`
`
`
`“Mobile station” is defined in the specification:
`
`(3.2) As used herein, the term “mobile station” (equivalently, MS) refers to a
`wireless device that is at least a transmitting device, and in most cases is also a
`wireless receiving device, such as a portable radio telephony handset. Note that in
`some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also
`used: “personal station” (PS), and “location unit” (LU). In general, these terms
`may be considered synonymous. However, the later two terms may be used when
`referring to reduced functionality communication devices in comparison to a
`typical digital wireless mobile telephone.
`
`9:45–55. Both parties agree with the TracBeam I court that this definition is somewhat
`
`cumbersome. Docket No. 174 at 8:8–10, 19:8–9. However, the parties present three disputes on
`
`how to improve it. First, Defendants want to eliminate the phrase “at least a transmitting device,
`
`and in most cases is also a wireless receiving device” while TracBeam wants to reword this
`
`phrase to make it more readily understandable (i.e., “at least a transmitting device and may
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 10380
`
`include a receiving device.”) Docket No. 148 at 2–3. Second, Defendants want to expressly
`
`include the example “such as a portable radio telephony handset” where TracBeam wants to
`
`either exclude that specific example or include all the examples from the definition. Id. at 4.
`
`Finally, while both sides also agree the construction should indicate that a mobile station must be
`
`non-stationary, Defendants want do so by using the word “portable” while TracBeam wants to
`
`use the word “mobile.” See Docket No. 148 at 3; Docket No. 174 at 23:9–13. TracBeam
`
`proposes “mobile” because “there is no ambiguity in the term ‘mobile’ .” Docket No. 156 at 3.
`
`Defendants propose “portable” because “[c]onstruing a claim term using the words of the claim
`
`term itself (i.e., construing ‘mobile station’ using the word ‘mobile’) defeats the purpose of claim
`
`construction as it provides no further clarity on the meaning of the term.” Docket No. 148 at 3.
`
`
`
`Defendants have not provided a sufficient reason to exclude the phrase “at least a
`
`transmitting device, and in most cases is also a wireless receiving device.” A jury can readily
`
`understand that a mobile station must be a transmitting device and may also be a receiving
`
`device—as TracBeam’s language makes clear. Likewise, including the single example of a
`
`“portable radio telephony handset” at the exclusion of the other examples places undue emphasis
`
`on that particular example. The Court is more inclined to present a clear, succinct construction
`
`to the jury and the parties are of course free to focus on the relevant examples as they see fit
`
`during trial. Finally, the Court understands the mobile vs. portable dispute has more to do with a
`
`forthcoming written description argument than a genuine claim construction dispute. See e.g.,
`
`Docket No. 174 at 11:16–14:19; TracBeam L.L.C., v. AT&T Inc., Cause. No. 6:11cv96, No. 551
`
`at 4–6. Such validity concerns are generally not a proper basis for a claim construction. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1327–28. The parties do not generally dispute the meaning of “mobile” and the jury
`
`can readily understand its meaning, so there is no need to construe it.
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 10381
`
`Accordingly, the Court adopts the prior construction and construes the “mobile station”
`
`terms as “mobile wireless device that is at least a transmitting device and may include a
`
`receiving device.”
`
`2. Group D: “location information” terms. “location information” (’231 Claims 17, 18,
`20, 25, 36, 81, 82, 155, 162; ’484 Claims 1, 25, 45, 51, 57, 63; ’327 Claims 1, 2, 60).
`
`TracBeam’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`
`T-Mobile’s Proposed Construction
`information that itself can be used to identify a
`location of a mobile station
`
`The primary dispute concerns T-Mobile’s use of the word “itself.” T-Mobile asserts that
`
`
`
`its construction is based on a statement made by the Court in the TracBeam I Order: “Location
`
`information itself is something that can be used to identify a location.” TracBeam I Order at 14.
`
`T-Mobile argues that the surrounding claim language clarifies that “the ‘location information’ is
`
`‘for locating the mobile station’ (’231 at 179:55, 179:58) and is ‘us[ed]’ to determine the
`
`‘resulting location estimate[]’ (id. at 179:53–58). Docket No. 148 at 14. T-Mobile also relies on
`
`the specification, which states that “location information may be obtained from . . . location
`
`techniques for locating a mobile station and it is ‘used for deriving therefrom an enhanced
`
`location estimate.’ ” Docket No. 148 at 14–15 (quoting 12:7–16 and citing 13:28–36, 55:5–10,
`
`60:45–51, and 110:35–41).
`
`The analysis in the TracBeam I Order applies to this dispute. The context in that order
`
`clarifies that the location information alone does not have to identify a particular location, but
`
`rather is just information that is used in the process of determining a location.
`
`This implies that “location information” is broader than merely identifying a
`location. Instead, obtaining location information is just part of the process of
`obtaining an actual location identification or estimate. Obtaining location
`information occurs before analyzing the information obtained from multiple
`sources. See ’231 Patent, Claim 1, at 171:29–35. The output of that analysis is the
`actual identification of a location. Location information itself is something that
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 10382
`
`can be used to identify a location. ’231 Patent, at 27:46–53; id. at 110:35–41. The
`actual identification of a location occurs in later steps. Thus, location information
`does not have to identify a location.
`
`TracBeam I Order at 14 (emphasis added). The use of “itself” was in reference to the prior
`
`sentence which discussed that the “output of the analysis” is the actual identification of a
`
`location. This was contrasted to the information “itself” which is an input to the analysis.
`
`Further, the sentence that forms the basis for T-Mobile’s argument does not fully support T-
`
`Mobile’s construction. The sentence does not state location information “itself can be used…”
`
`Rather, the sentence states “location information itself” is something that is “used” to identify a
`
`location. This understanding comports with T-Mobile’s cited intrinsic evidence. Finally, there is
`
`no special meaning with the phrase “location information,” which can easily be understood by a
`
`jury.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that no construction is needed for the “location
`
`information” terms.
`
`3. Group E: “mobile station location estimator, . . . evaluator, . . . determiner, and . . .
`source terms” terms. “mobile station location estimator” (’153 Claims 1, 3); “mobile
`station location evaluator” (’484 Claim 25); “location determiner” (’327 Claims 1, 2,
`6, 44, 47, 60, 62, 67, 69); “location estimating source” (’484 Claim 1).
`
`Disputed Terms
`
`(E1) “mobile station location
`estimator”
`[’153 Claims 1, 3]
`
`TracBeam’s Proposed
`Construction
`machine executed process for
`providing mobile station
`location estimates
`
`(E2) “mobile station location
`evaluator”
`[’484 Claim 25]
`
`machine executed process for
`evaluating mobile station
`location information
`
`(E3) “location determiner”
`[’327 Claims 1, 2, 6, 44, 47,
`60, 62, 67, 69]
`
`machine executed process for
`providing mobile station
`location estimates
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`T-Mobile: subject to
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`
`Claimed Function(s):1
`(E1): estimating mobile
`station locations
`(E2): evaluating mobile
`station location
`(E3): determining mobile
`
`
`1 T-Mobile proposed these functions at the hearing. Docket No. 174 at 110:18–22.
`
`Page 9 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 10383
`
`(E4) “location estimating
`source”
`[’484 Claim 1]
`
`source (such as a computer
`system, device, or component)
`for estimating mobile station
`locations
`
`station location
`(E4): estimating mobile
`station locations
`
`Specification Structure:2
`(E1), (E3), & (E4): a location
`center running location
`hypothesizing models (FOMs)
`(E2): a location center running
`a hypothesis evaluator
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties dispute whether these terms must be construed as means-plus-function terms
`
`according to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. T-Mobile asserts that the claim terms are all “self-descriptive
`
`terms” that describe an associated function without reciting structure for performing the
`
`structure. Docket No. 148 at 16–17. T-Mobile asserts that the claim terms use generic nonce
`
`terms “source,” “evaluators,” “estimators,” and “determiners” and the prefixes used in the terms
`
`before these nonce words merely identify function performed by the nonce word without
`
`specifying structure. Id. at 17. T-Mobile argues that the terms do not have a sufficiently definite
`
`structure, as evidenced by the fact that TracBeam’s expert, Dr. Christopher Rose, admits he does
`
`not recognize the terms. Docket No. 164-2 at 1–2. T-Mobile argues that TracBeam
`
`acknowledges these terms need structure by construing the terms to have “computational
`
`machinery” or similar phrases, but T-Mobile contends that “ ‘computational machinery’ and
`
`related variations are equivalent to other similar ‘nonce’ terms deemed to be subject to means-
`
`plus-function interpretation.” Id. at 2.
`
`T-Mobile argues that once the terms are established as means-plus-function terms, the
`
`terms are then limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. Docket No.
`
`
`2 T-Mobile modified their proposed structure for the “evaluator” term to harmonize with T-Mobile’s newly proposed
`functions, see Docket No. 174 at 112:10–14; see also n.2 supra.
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 10384
`
`148 at 18. T-Mobile asserts that the corresponding structure for the Group E terms (“sources,”
`
`“evaluators,” “estimators,” and “determiners”) are the location hypothesizing models of the
`
`location center. T-Mobile quotes several passages which link these terms to the “location
`
`hypothesizing models” (also called “first order models” or FOMs). Id. at 19 (citing 24:43–48,
`
`37:15–33, 50:7, 50:37–45). T-Mobile cites to its expert to assert that the location center
`
`implementing location hypothesizing models is the only structure disclosed for performing the
`
`claimed functions. Id. (citing declaration of Scott Andrews).
`
`
`
`TracBeam asserts that merely because a term itself is self-descriptive or functional does
`
`not mean the term is a means-plus-function term. Docket No. 156 at 12. TracBeam notes that
`
`none of the words are “nonce” words, but rather each term itself has meaning. Id. (citing its
`
`expert, Dr. Christopher Rose). TracBeam cites to Dr. Rose ’s declaration to assert that one
`
`skilled in the art would understand the various terms describe structure corresponding with
`
`TracBeam’s proposed constructions. Id. at 12–13. As to T-Mobile’s argument that all the claims
`
`follow the means-plus-function format, TracBeam disagrees. TracBeam notes that merely
`
`substituting “means” into the claims and striking the disputed terms shows the claims are not in
`
`the traditional format: “initiating a plurality of requests for information related to the location of
`
`said mobile station M, the requests provided to each of at least two [means] mobile station
`
`location evaluators” (‘484 Patent Claim 25). Id . at 13. TracBeam asserts the claims are not
`
`drafted in a manner in which the term is listed with associated function, as even T-Mobile admits
`
`the terms are self-descriptive. Id.
`
`
`
`TracBeam argues that in the event the Court finds that § 112 ¶ 6 applies, T-Mobile’s
`
`proposed function and corresponding structure are incorrect. Id. at 14. T-Mobile proposed new
`
`functions at the hearing in response to this criticism. See Docket No. 174 at 110:18–22. As to
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 10385
`
`the corresponding structure, TracBeam asserts that for each term, T-Mobile points to the same
`
`structure: (1) location hypothesizing models (2) on a “location center.” Id. TracBeam asserts
`
`that the terms are not limited to hypothesizing models but encompass models that evaluate and
`
`adjust location hypotheses, and some terms encompass computer hardware and software that
`
`implements or performs the models. Id. (citing Dr. Rose decl. ¶¶ 24–26). TracBeam further
`
`asserts that the “location hypothesizing models” are not found only “on a location center.” Id.
`
`(citing Rose decl. ¶ 30). TracBeam asserts that a mobile base station, Internet server sites, and
`
`Internet user nodes are structures that can perform location hypothesizing models, Docket No.
`
`174 at 103:12–16, and that even T-Mobile’s expert, Mr. Scott Andrews, acknowledges that they
`
`are also found on a mobile base station, Docket No. 156 at 14 (citing Andrews decl. and
`
`deposition).
`
`
`
`T-Mobile evidence and arguments show these terms invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`TracBeam’s proposed construction implicitly admits these terms are purely functional. Though
`
`TracBeam correctly states that purely functional terms do not necessarily invoke § 112 ¶ 6, such
`
`terms generally avoid § 112 ¶ 6 by conveying a meaning to people skilled in the art, such as
`
`“ ‘filter,’ ‘brake,’ ‘clamp,’ ‘screwdriver,’ or ‘lock.’ ” See Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery,
`
`Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, though, TracBeam’s expert acknowledges that
`
`the terms do not inherently provide meaning of a structure to one skilled in the art. Docket No.
`
`164-2 at 1–2. TracBeam and its expert have not identified any particular meaning to one skilled
`
`in the art to the term beyond a software process, collection of processes or a model that has the
`
`function of the word. See, e.g., Docket No. 164-4, Dr. Rose dep. at 54:16–60:20. Thus,
`
`TracBeam has not established that the terms carry meaning to one skilled in the art other than
`
`just the purely functional description.
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 10386
`
`The TracBeam I court has previously found similar terms not subject to § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`TracBeam I Order at 11. However, TracBeam I was issued prior to Williamson which clarified
`
`that that lack of traditional means-plus-function language only creates an ordinary presumption.
`
`See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (quotations omitted). Additionally,
`
`the fact that the disputed terms have not been previously identified as “nonce” words is not
`
`controlling. The mere use of a previously-known nonce word is not the ultimate test.
`
`Williamson 792 at F.3d at 1350. The question before the Court is whether the written description
`
`would “impart any structural significance” “that might lead us to construe that expression as the
`
`name of a sufficiently definite structure.” Id. at 1351. The parties agree that the terms relate to
`
`some type of software related processes: TracBeam seeking “machine executed process” and T-
`
`Mobile pointing the specifications reference to “models” and “first order models” which are
`
`“computational models” “wireless location techniques.” See Abstract, 11:64.
`
`In the context of the asserted claims, the disputed terms “estimator,” “evaluator,”
`
`“determiner,” and “source” do not provide meaning to one skilled in the art being some specific
`
`hardware or software structure beyond the mere recited function. Thus, T-Mobile has rebutted
`
`the presumption against finding these as means-plus-function terms. The Court notes that the
`
`experts (Dr. Rose and Andrews) provide some conflicting testimony. Even accepting Dr. Rose’s
`
`testimony, TracBeam’s evidence is lacking. Despite being deposed on this very topic,
`
`TracBeam’s expert never clearly states that these terms convey a well understood meaning to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. Docket No. 164-2 (citing Dr. Rose dep.). On balance, T-Mobile’s
`
`interpretation of the extrinsic evidence is persuasive. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`
`135 S. Ct. 831, 843 (2015) (reviewing District Court’s factual findings under the clearly
`
`erroneous standard). In viewing the totality of the intrinsic evidence and weighing the extrinsic
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 10387
`
`evidence, TracBeam has not established that the terms have some reasonably well understood
`
`meaning in the art beyond the pure function.
`
`Finally, TracBeam has not shown that this is a case in which the surrounding claim
`
`language provides sufficient descriptions of the inputs, outputs, structural coupling details on the
`
`results are achieved, etc. which would take the purely functional terms out of the realm of a
`
`means-plus-function interpretation. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1301 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). TracBeam shows that the claims are not written in the standard means-plus-function
`
`format—that is, replacing the disputed terms with the word “means” generally makes the claim
`
`difficult to understand. See Docket No. 156 at 13. However, these claims were often drafted in
`
`an atypical format and the fact remains that the disputed terms serve as a functional placeholder.
`
`In viewing the totality of the intrinsic evidence and weighing the extrinsic evidence, TracBeam
`
`has not established that the terms have some reasonably well understood meaning in the art other
`
`than the purely functional meaning of the words themselves.
`
`
`
`Having determine these terms fall within the purview of § 112 ¶ 6, the Court must
`
`identify the claimed function and corresponding structure. As mentioned above, T-Mobile
`
`proposed new functions at the hearing that closely match the functions in TracBeam’s proposed
`
`constructions. The Court finds there is no genuine dispute remaining over the functions and
`
`adopts the functions T-Mobile proposed at the hearing.
`
`
`
`T-Mobile’s proposed corresponding structure is improperly limited, however. T-Mobile
`
`argues that the only structure clearly linked to the claimed functionality is the location center
`
`running hypotheses models (or a location center running a hypothesis evaluator in the case of the
`
`“location evaluator” term). Docket No. 148 at 18–20. TracBeam argues that the structure should
`
`not be limited to a location center, but include a “ ‘mobile base station’ (which is also a type of
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 10388
`
`‘mobile station’) and the ‘Internet server sites’ and ‘Internet user nodes.’ ” Docket No. 156-7,
`
`Rose decl. ¶ 30, see also id. at 15.
`
`At the hearing, T-Mobile conceded that an Internet server site is not excluded from
`
`structure that can perform the claimed functions. Docket No. 174 at 114:7–11. (“[T]he location
`
`center can operate on -- can be a server or a gateway. So I don't think there's a lot of dispute that
`
`the location center, part of that structure can be an Internet server.”). Regarding Internet user
`
`nodes, an Internet user node does not determine a location estimate, rather an Internet user node
`
`processes a location estimate after it is first determined by a first order model (hypotheses
`
`model):
`
`In an alternative embodiment of the present invention, the processing following
`the generation of location hypotheses (each having an initial location estimate) by
`the first order models may be such that this processing can be provided on
`Internet user nodes and the first order models may reside at 25 Internet server
`sites. In this configuration, an Internet user may request hypotheses from such
`remote first order models and perform the remaining processing at his/her node.
`
`20:20–27 (emphasis added). TracBeam never offered an example of an Internet user node
`
`performing the location estimate on its own. Therefore the Court’s construction should not be
`
`read to exclude Internet server sites, but does exclude Internet user nodes to the extent they are
`
`not combined with other structure.
`
`
`
`Regarding mobile base stations, the patents clearly describe mobile base stations as
`
`performing the claimed functions. Column 26 describes mobile base stations for locating itself
`
`and the target mobile stations. 26:55–61 (“[T]he MBS [mobile base station] 148 may further
`
`contain a global positioning system (GPS), distance sensors, deadreckoning electronics, as well
`
`as an on-board computing system and display devices for locating both the MBS 148 itself as
`
`well as tracking and locating the target MS 140.”). T-Mobile’s expert also concedes that “the
`
`location hypothesizing models described in the TracBeam patents can also be implemented on
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00678-RWS Document 256 Filed 07/14/16 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 10389
`
`what's called a mobile base station.” Docket No. 156, Ex. 12 at 55:5–10; see also id. at 59:24–
`
`61:6. “ When multiple embodiments in the specification correspond to the claimed function,
`
`proper application of § 112, ¶ 6 generally reads the claim element to embrace each of those
`
`embodiments.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999). Accordingly, the construed structure must include a mobile base station.
`
`
`
`T-Mobile, however, has not conceded that its proposed structure of a location center
`
`would include mobile base stations, despite the fact that its expert admits that mobile base
`
`stations implement the first-order models. See Docket No. 175-1, Andrews dep. 58:14–59:20.
`
`Therefore, to remove any doubt, the Court specifically identifies a mobile base station as a
`
`structure that can perform the corresponding functions. This issue is closely related to whether a
`
`mobile base station is a type of a mobile station. Nothing in this Order should be read to resol