Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 10198
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 6:11-CV-96
`
`§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§
`
`TRACBEAM, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AT&T, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,525,484 (“the ‘484 Patent”) and 7,764,231 (“the ‘231 Patent”). Additionally, Defendants’
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness (Docket No. 316) is DENIED.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Plaintiff TracBeam, L.L.C. (“TracBeam”) sued the following defendants for
`
`infringement of the ‘231 and ‘484 Patents: AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility, L.L.C. (“AT&T”);
`
`MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. (“MetroPCS”); Cellco
`
`Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Cellco”); TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (“TCS”);
`
`Google, Inc. (“Google”); Skyhook Wireless, Inc. (“Skyhook”); and WaveMarket, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Location Labs (“Location Labs”).1 The Patents relate to methods and systems for determining
`
`the location of mobile devices using multiple location techniques. Even though it issued first, the
`
`‘484 Patent is a continuation of the ‘231 Patent.
`
`1 This order refers to all defendants collectively as “Defendants,” and it refers to AT&T, MetroPCS, Cellco, and
`TCS as the “Carrier Defendants.”
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 39
`
`TracBeam Exhibit 2001
`Apple, Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC
`IPR2015-01696
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 10199
`
`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) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s
`
`intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention’s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes
`
`the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the
`
`context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[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) (en banc)).
`
`“[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
`2
`
`Page 2 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 10200
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v.
`
`Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may
`
`define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise
`
`possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations,
`
`the inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. Also, the specification may 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. But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in
`
`interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns,
`
`Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced
`
`Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics,
`
`Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification,
`
`a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 10201
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition is entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`Defendants also contend that some claims at issue are invalid for indefiniteness. A claim
`
`is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 if it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
`
`subject matter that the applicant regards as the invention. The party seeking to invalidate a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as indefinite must show by clear and convincing evidence that one
`
`skilled in the art would not understand the scope of the claim when read in light of the
`
`specification. Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc., 336
`
`F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`“mobile station”
`
`CLAIM TERMS
`
`“Mobile station” is “a mobile wireless device that is at least a transmitting device and
`
`may include a receiving device.” The parties agreed to this construction at oral argument. Tr.
`
`Markman Hr’g 80–81, Nov. 8, 2012.
`
`“communication station”
`
`
`
`TracBeam argues no construction is necessary. Defendant Google proposes “networked
`
`cellular telephony base stations.”
`
`The parties dispute whether a communication station is a networked cellular telephony
`
`base station, or whether a networked cellular telephony base station is merely one embodiment of
`
`a communication station. Google contends that communication stations are called base stations
`
`in the specification, so the term “communication station” should be construed using a reference
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 10202
`
`to “base stations” in the Definition section of the ‘231 Patent.2 See Docket No. 317 (“Response”)
`
`at 3 (noting the phrase “base station” appears over 400 times in the specification, while the
`
`phrase “communication station” does not appear in the specification). The ‘231 Patent defines
`
`“infrastructure” as:
`
`…the network of telephony communication services, and more particularly, that
`portion of such a network that receives and possesses wireless communications
`with wireless mobile stations. In particular, this infrastructure includes telephony
`wireless base stations (BS) such as those for radio mobile communication
`systems based on CDMA, AMPS, NAMPS, TDMA, and GSM wherein the base
`stations provide a network or cooperative communication channels with an air
`interface with the MS….
`
`‘231 Patent, at 9:56–64 (emphasis added). Google contends its construction is proper because it
`
`is taken directly from the ‘231 Patent’s Definition section. Response at 4. Google also contends
`
`that TracBeam’s proposed construction in non-enabling because the specification does not
`
`disclose a communication system. See id. (quoting Magsil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage
`
`Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The scope of the claims must be less than or
`
`equal to the scope of enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent
`
`specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.”)).
`
`TracBeam argues that “communication station” and “networked cellular telephony base
`
`station” are not interchangeable; rather, a networked cellular telephony base station is one
`
`embodiment of a communication station. See Docket No. 315 (“Brief”) at 4. (“‘Communication’
`
`is not limited to ‘cellular telephony’ communication and ‘station’ is not limited to a ‘base
`
`station.’”). In support, TracBeam notes that the ‘231 Patent discloses a mobile base station that
`
`can be “incorporated into a vehicle.” ‘231 Patent, at 18:6–7. TracBeam contends it would be
`
`improper to limit the Claims to a particular embodiment absent an express disavowal of claim
`
`2 During prosecution, the phrase “base station” was changed to “communication station.” Response at 3 n.11.
`5
`
`Page 5 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 10203
`
`scope. Docket No. 326 (“Reply”) at 2. It cites several cases asserting that a specification can be
`
`enabling even if it does not disclose every possible variant of an invention. Id.
`
`TracBeam also argues Google’s construction is too narrow. The infrastructure definition
`
`cited by Google references base stations, not communication stations. See ‘231 Patent, at 9:56–
`
`64. TracBeam argues that because a communication station is merely one embodiment of a base
`
`station, Google’s construction improperly narrows the claim language. Reply at 2–3.
`
`Google did not identify any language of disavowal in the specification, nor did it identify
`
`any other language indicating a communication station must be limited to a networked cellular
`
`telephony base station. On the contrary, there are multiple disclosed embodiments where a
`
`communication station is something other than a telephony base station. For example, there are
`
`references to “base stations of a commercial radio service provider,”3 indoor location techniques
`
`using a “distributed antenna system,”4 and “low power, low functionality base stations.”5 These
`
`are all non-telephony embodiments of a communication station. There are also embodiments of a
`
`non-networked base station. The specification discloses a mobile base station that “may not be in
`
`constant communication with the fixed location BS network (and indeed may be off-line for
`
`substantial periods of time).” ‘231 Patent, at 100:65–68. These mobile base stations are not part
`
`of a fixed network. For these reasons, a communication station is not limited to a networked
`
`cellular telephony base station.
`
`Google’s enablement arguments are unpersuasive. A specification is enabling when one
`
`skilled in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. ALZA Corp. v.
`
`Andrx Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Google did not present any evidence
`
`3 ‘231 Patent, at 11:20–24.
`4 ‘231 Patent, at 11:48–49.
`5 ‘231 Patent, at 11:56–58.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 10204
`
`that one skilled in the art could not practice the patented invention.6 Further, even if Google was
`
`correct that the Patents disclosed only one embodiment, it would not necessarily follow that the
`
`claims must be limited to that embodiment. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. A specification may
`
`be enabling even if it does not describe how to make every possible variant of the claimed
`
`invention. See AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, Google’s
`
`enablement argument fails.
`
`“Communication station” requires no construction.
`
`“communication stations at terrestrial locations,” “terrestrial communication stations,”
`and “terrestrial stations”
`
`TracBeam proposed “communication stations located on or supported (directly or
`
`indirectly) by the surface of the Earth.” Google proposed “networked cellular telephony base
`
`stations,” its same proposed construction as for “communication stations.”
`
`
`
`Under Google’s proposed constructions, there is no difference between “communication
`
`stations” and “communication stations at terrestrial locations.” This renders the modifying clause
`
`“at terrestrial locations” superfluous. The Federal Circuit has cautioned against constructions that
`
`turn claim language into “excess verbiage”—exactly what Google’s construction would do here.
`
`See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The
`
`Patents separately refer to communication stations and communication stations at terrestrial
`
`locations; the terms are not used interchangeably. See, e.g., ‘231 Patent, Claim 36, at 186:51–52;
`
`187:2, 11–12. Thus, Google’s construction is improper. See Merck & Co., 395 F.3d at 1372 (“A
`
`claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does
`
`not do so.”); Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“While not an absolute rule, all claim terms are presumed to have a meaning in
`
`6 Google’s only evidence of non-enablement was a single sentence of attorney argument. See Response at 4 (“If
`Plaintiff’s non-construction is adopted, the claims are not enabled and are thus invalid.”).
`7
`
`Page 7 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 10205
`
`a claim.”). Further, TracBeam’s proposed construction follows the ordinary meaning of the word
`
`“terrestrial.” See AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1400 (3d ed. 1997) (defining
`
`terrestrial as “of or relating to Earth or its inhabitants”); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (acknowledging the heavy presumption that claim terms
`
`carry their ordinary and customary meaning).
`
`
`
`Among the other parties, there is no dispute over the construction of these terms. The
`
`remaining Defendants concede that if even Google’s construction is adopted, Google’s
`
`construction would encompass TracBeam’s construction. See Response at 3 n.10 (“Defendants
`
`agree with Plaintiff
`
`that ‘communication stations at
`
`terrestrial
`
`locations,’ ‘terrestrial
`
`communication stations,’ and ‘terrestrial stations’ must be ‘located on or supported (directly or
`
`indirectly) by the surface of the earth.’”). Thus, it is agreed by all parties except Google that
`
`“communication stations at terrestrial locations,” “terrestrial communication stations,” and
`
`“terrestrial stations” must be located on or supported (directly or indirectly) by the surface of the
`
`earth. These terms require no further construction.
`
`“computational machinery,” “computational machinery performing first and second
`mobile station
`location estimation determiners,” “computational machine
`location
`providing sources,” “mobile station location estimation determiners,” “mobile station
`location determining sources,” “mobile station location estimation sources,” and “mobile
`station location techniques”
`
`
`
`While this is a diverse collection of claims terms, the parties agree that resolution of a
`
`single dispute governs them all. See Reply at 5 n.12. For ease of analysis, the Court will use
`
`“computational machinery” and “mobile station location techniques” to explain its constructions.
`
`For “computational machinery,” TracBeam proposes “one or more machines (such as a computer
`
`or hardware device) that performs computations.” Skyhook proposes “one or more computers
`
`not located in a mobile station.” For “mobile station location techniques,” TracBeam proposes
`
`“technique for determining mobile station locations.” The Carrier Defendants propose “a
`8
`
`Page 8 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 10206
`
`technique performed by centralized computer equipment for determining mobile station
`
`locations.”
`
`
`
`The parties have two disputes regarding these terms: (1) whether “computational
`
`machinery” and “mobile station location techniques” should be limited to “computers;” and (2)
`
`whether computational machinery and mobile station location techniques must be “centralized,”
`
`or whether they may be “located in a mobile station.” At oral argument, Defendants consented to
`
`TracBeam’s hardware device construction that the terms are not limited to computers.7 Tr.
`
`Markman Hr’g 53, Nov. 8, 2012. Thus, the sole remaining issue is whether computational
`
`machinery and mobile station location techniques must be “centralized” and must not be located
`
`in a mobile station.
`
`
`
`TracBeam argues that computational machinery does not have to be centralized and can
`
`exist in a mobile station. Brief at 7. TracBeam argues that the ‘231 Patent describes multiple
`
`location centers that are “geographically dispersed” and notes that system components may be
`
`“distributed” on a network. Brief at 8; ‘231 Patent, at 20:45–46. TracBeam contends that because
`
`system components are distributed throughout the network, their location need not be
`
`centralized. Brief at 8. Defendants counter that computational machinery must be located at a
`
`“location center.” Reply at 6; ‘231 Patent, at 24:46. Defendants note that Figure 4 of the ‘231
`
`Patent discloses a centralized network node that is separate and distinct from the mobile stations.
`
`Reply at 6. Further, Defendants assert that the specification does not disclose an embodiment
`
`where computational machinery located on one mobile station performs steps for another mobile
`
`station. Id. at 7. Thus, Defendants argue the computational machinery cannot be located at a
`
`mobile station. Id.
`
`7 Defendants made similar statements in their briefing. See Reply at 8 n.19 (“[Defendants] do not dispute that
`switches, routers, and the like are computer equipment.”).
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 10207
`
`Defendants’ arguments rest on one particular passage in the specification:
`
`Added to this wireless network, the present invention provides the following
`additional components: (10.1) a location center 142 which is required for
`determining a location of a target MS 140 using signal characteristic values for
`this target MS.
`
`‘231 Patent, at 24:43–48 (emphasis added). Defendants argue this “location center” limitation
`
`must be applied to the entire patent because the sentence describes “the present invention.”
`
`Reply at 6; See Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (“When a patent thus describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this
`
`description limits the scope of the invention.”). However, use of the phrase “the present
`
`invention” does not automatically limit the entire patent. Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth
`
`Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1211, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The phrase is not limiting when other
`
`intrinsic evidence does not support applying the limitation to the entire patent. Id.; see DSW, Inc.
`
`v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cautioning against importing
`
`limitations from the specification).
`
`Here, there are multiple references in the specification disclosing de-centralized
`
`computational machinery and location centers. For example, the specification teaches that a
`
`mobile location unit may be located onboard a mobile base station. ‘231 Patent, at 99:55–60. It
`
`also teaches that a mobile location unit can use a GPS receiver to determine the location of a
`
`target mobile station. ‘231 Patent, at 99:63–67. It further teaches that there may be multiple
`
`location centers that are “geographically dispersed.” ‘231 Patent, at 20:44–46. Lastly, the
`
`Background of the Invention implies that GPS computations may be performed “at or near the
`
`object to be located.” ‘231 Patent, at 1:64–66. These references indicate that computational
`
`machinery need not be “centralized” or “not located in a mobile station.” It would be improper to
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 10208
`
`import this limitation to the entire patent when there are multiple embodiments teaching de-
`
`centralized computational machinery and mobile station location techniques.8
`
`“Computational machinery” is “one or more machines (such as a computer or hardware
`
`device) that performs computations.” “Computational machinery performing first and second
`
`mobile station location estimation determiners” requires no construction. “Computational
`
`machine location providing sources” is “computational machinery for providing location
`
`information.” “Mobile station location estimation determiners” is “machine executed process for
`
`providing mobile station location estimates.” “Mobile station location determining sources” is
`
`“source (such as a computer system, device, or component) for determining mobile station
`
`locations.” “Mobile station location estimating sources” is “source (such as a computer system,
`
`device, or component) for estimating mobile station locations.” “Mobile station location
`
`techniques” is “technique for determining mobile station locations.”
`
`“location information,” “location related information,” and “location related response
`information”
`
`
`
`The parties agree a single dispute governs these three terms—whether location
`
`information must identify a location or merely be related to a location. Tr. Markman Hr’g 14, 18,
`
`Nov. 8, 2012. For simplicity, the Court uses the first term, “location information,” to explain its
`
`construction.
`
`TracBeam argues no construction is necessary. In the alternative, TracBeam proposes
`
`“information related to a location.” The Carrier Defendants and Google propose “information
`
`identifying a location.” Skyhook proposes “information indicating a determined location of a
`
`mobile station.”
`
`8 The parties’ remaining claim disputes are non-substantive—the only issue addressed at oral argument was whether
`computational machinery must be centralized. See Tr. Markman Hr’g 53, Nov. 8, 2012.
`11
`
`Page 11 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 10209
`
`TracBeam argues that Defendants’ proposed constructions unnecessarily limit the claim
`
`term. Brief at 13. Its first argument is grammatical. TracBeam argues that when two nouns are
`
`used consecutively, the second noun does not identify an instance of the first. Id. at 14. For
`
`example, TracBeam notes that a “mountain bike” is not a “bike that identifies a mountain.” Id.
`
`Similarly, TracBeam argues that “location information” cannot logically be interpreted as
`
`“information that identifies a location.” Id. Second, TracBeam argues that location information is
`
`not limited to a “determined location.” Id. at 15. Instead, location information can include data,
`
`measurements, and estimates. Id. TracBeam contends that when location information relates to a
`
`determined location in the claims, it is emphasized by further limiting language. Id. (citing ‘231
`
`Patent Claim 10, at 174:61–67).
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that “location information” must include an estimate of the location of
`
`a mobile station. Response at 10. In Claim 25 of the ‘231 Patent, location information is obtained
`
`using corresponding location techniques that “determine a location for the mobile station.” ‘231
`
`Patent, Claim 25, at 180:30–32. A different claim in the ‘231 Patent (Claim 1) states that location
`
`related information is obtained from location estimation determiners that “provide different
`
`geographical indications of an unknown location.” ‘231 Patent, Claim 1, at 171: 6–11.
`
`Defendants contend that, while the particular claim language varies, location information “is
`
`obtained from wireless location technologies…that provide an estimate of a mobile station’s
`
`location.” Response at 11. Additionally, Defendants argue that TracBeam’s grammatical
`
`arguments are unpersuasive. Id. at 13. Defendants contend that unlike “mountain bike,” the
`
`phrase “location information” does not have a commonly understood meaning. Id. Since location
`
`information does not have a commonly understood meaning, it cannot be defined in isolation. Id.
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 10210
`
`
`
`The specification discloses multiple instances where location information is only used to
`
`identify a location instead of actually identifying a location. For example, location information
`
`may be “measurement results related to signals” that are “used to locate” the target mobile
`
`station. ‘231 Patent, at 27:46–53. Location information may also be “used in deriving” a location
`
`estimate. ‘231 Patent, at 110:35–41. Because the specification teaches using location information
`
`to identify a location, “location information” itself cannot be construed to require an identified
`
`location.
`
`
`
`None of the four specification passages cited by Defendants compel a different
`
`construction.9 Defendants assert that the specification refers to location information as a
`
`“location hypotheses.” Reply at 11. Defendants contend that a location hypothesis includes at
`
`least a location estimate. Id. Since a location hypothesis includes a location estimate, Defendants
`
`contend location information must also include a location estimate. Id.
`
`
`
` The flaw in Defendants’ argument is that a location estimate is not equivalent to a
`
`location hypothesis. A patentee may impliedly redefine a claim term by using a second term as
`
`an alternative. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). However, the “implied redefinition must be so clear that it equates to an explicit one.” Id.
`
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`Both the express and implied redefinition arguments fail here. Defendants did not cite
`
`any language in the specification or claims expressly stating that hypothesis is synonymous with
`
`information. None of the passages cited by Defendant even contain the phrase “location
`
`information.” See id. (using two terms in similar fashion is not sufficient to redefine a claim
`
`term). Further, there is no clear implied redefinition. The words hypothesis and information have
`
`very different ordinary meanings. “Hypothesis” implies some sort of prediction; “information”
`
`9 Defendants cite ‘231 Patent, at 13:7–33; id. at 37:31–36; id. at 13:37–41; id. at 68:2–8. Reply at 11–12.
`13
`
`Page 13 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 10211
`
`does not. Thus, the patents do not redefine location hypothesis to mean location information.
`
`Accordingly, it would be improper to limit “location information” based on specification
`
`references to “location hypotheses.” See Computer Docket Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d
`
`1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This court will not countenance the importation of claim
`
`limitations from a few specification statements or figures in the claims.”).
`
`Defendants’ construction is improper for a second reason—it seeks to import the final
`
`result of the claims into an intermediate step. Defendants argue that location information must
`
`identify a location because identifying a location is the fundamental purpose of the patent.
`
`Response at 10–11. However, the concept of identifying a location is found in other clauses in
`
`the claims.10 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 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.
`
`“Location information,” “location related information,” and “location related response
`
`information” do not require construction.
`
`10 For example: “the first location related information includes a geographical indication for a location of the mobile
`station,” ‘231 Patent, Claim 1, at 171:17–19; “location techniques uses the first collection to determine a location for
`the mobile station,” ‘231 Patent, Claim 25, at 180:31–32; “first location technique estimates a location of the mobile
`station,” ‘231 Patent, Claim 162, at 205:43–44; “data indicative of a likelihood of the mobile station being at a
`location represented by said resulting location information,” ‘231 Patent, Claim 162, at 206:5–7; “providing one or
`more location requests for location information, related to a location of one of said mobile stations,” ‘484 Patent,
`Claim 27, at 175:9–11; “first location related information representing one or more of: a first range of locations for
`the first mobile station,” ‘484 Patent, Claim 44, at 177:59–61.
`14
`
`Page 14 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 10212
`
`“an unknown location of said mobile station M”
`
`
`
`The parties agreed not to seek construction of the phrase “geographical indications” and
`
`request that the Court only construe “of an unknown location of said mobile station M.”
`
`TracBeam proposes “a location of the mobile station for which a resulting location estimate is to
`
`be determined.” Defendants propose “a location that has not been determined.”
`
`The dispute is whether an “unknown location” is a location that has “not been
`
`determined” or a location for which “a resulting location estimate is to be determined.”
`
`TracBeam argues that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly requires an unknown
`
`location to be categorically unknown. Brief at 16. TracBeam argues this is improperly broad;
`
`TracBeam contends the location is only unknown to the extent that it is not yet known to the
`
`source or structure that requested the location. Id. The location may be known to the location
`
`determiners, which TracBeam argues may have themselves determined the location of the
`
`mobile station. Id. at 17.
`
`Defendants argue the location is “unknown” up to and including the time the location
`
`estimator determiners are supplied with input data. Response at 14. Defendants contend that
`
`TracBeam’s construction is illogical because a known location cannot exist before the location
`
`estimation determiners provide their output. Id. Second, Defendants dispute TracBeam’s
`
`interpretation of their proposed construction. Defendants contend their construction does not
`
`require the location to be categorically unknown. Id. at 14 n.28. Rather, Defendants argue their
`
`construction clarifies that “the location must be unknown to the determiner at least at the time
`
`when that determiner is supplied with input information.” Id.
`
`TracBeam proposes the more reasonable construction. The Claim recites that “location
`
`estimation determiners provide different geographical indications of an unknown location” of the
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 39
`
`

`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 352 Filed 01/23/13 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 10213
`
`mobile station M when the determiners are supplied with input da