Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1119
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`(lead case)
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-912- JRG-RSP
`(consolidated)
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
`S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Google_LG Exhibit 1010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 6 PagelD #: 1120
`
`Plaintiff Core Wireless Licensing, S.a.r.l. (Core Wireless) and Defendants LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LG”) submit this
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement pursuant to Patent Rule 4-3 and the Cour1’s
`
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 70).
`
`I.
`
`AGREED UPON CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS (P.R. 4-3(A))
`
`The parties have agreed upon the constructions of the following claim terms or phrases
`
`that were originally proposed for construction by one of the parties. The agreed-upon claim
`
`constructions are as follows:
`
`Patent and Claims
`
`Claim Term or Phrase
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`’823: claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 17,
`20
`
`’634: claims 1, 20, 23, 25
`
`first audio signal
`
`low level signal format
`protocol (claims 1, 20)
`
`lower level protocols (claim 1)
`
`low level signalling protocols
`(claims 23, 25)
`
`’8l8: claims 30, 41
`
`radio network controller
`
`’049: claims 11, 13, 28
`
`radio part
`
`’049: claims 15, 28, 29
`’398: claim 11
`
`audio signal from a far-end
`terminal
`
`protocol[s] for performing
`radio interface dependent parts
`of the signal processing,
`signaling and control
`protocols, corresponding to
`layers 1 and 2 (in terms of the
`OSI reference model) and the
`RR subla er
`
`a controller that controls the
`radio access and decides
`
`which support node to use for
`a connection
`
`receiver and transmitter of
`messages over a wireless
`network
`
`a category describing the
`electronic information
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAHVI TERMS AND PHRASES (P.R. 4-3(B))
`
`Plaintiff Core Wireless originally asserted 200 patent claims against LG. As part of the
`
`meet and confer process, Core Wireless has withdrawn its assertion of 8 claims and is now
`
`asserting 192 patent claims. From those 192 asserted claims, the parties have identified 91 claim
`
`Page 2 of 64
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1121
`
`
`
`terms or phrases in dispute, as set forth in the chart attached as Exhibit 1. During the meet-and-
`
`confer process, the parties reduced the original number of terms and phrases proposed for
`
`construction from 123 to the current 92 or by about 25%. Still at issue are nine claim
`
`terms/phrases the parties agree are subject to construction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), 14
`
`claim terms/phrases which LG contends should not be construed in view of Core Wireless v.
`
`Apple (No. 12-cv-100 (E.D. Tex.)), and 35 claim terms/phrases that LG contends are indefinite
`
`(which includes means-plus-function elements).
`
`III. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TIME FOR THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`HEARING (P.R. 4-3(C))
`
`The Court has set the claim construction hearing for August 18, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Core
`
`Wireless expects that the hearing will take no more than 90 minutes per side for a total of three
`
`hours.
`
`In view of the 192 claims across 18 patents asserted by Core Wireless, and the 91
`
`terms/phrases currently involved in claim construction, LG expects that the hearing set for
`
`August 18, 2015 will take most, if not all, of the day. LG expects that the hearing will take at
`
`least six hours (three hours a side).
`
`IV. WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AT THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`(P.R. 4-3(D))
`
`Core Wireless currently intends to rely upon at least declarations of experts. While Core
`
`Wireless does not believe that calling experts as witnesses during the claim construction hearing
`
`is necessary, Core Wireless reserves its right to do should LG decide that it will call expert
`
`witnesses during the hearing.
`
`LG currently intends to rely upon at least declarations of experts and may call two
`
`experts as witnesses during the claim construction hearing.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1122
`
`
`
`V.
`
`OTHER ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED AT PREHEARING CONFERENCE (P.R.
`4-3(E))
`
`Core Wireless’s Statement
`
`A.
`Core Wireless does not believe that a pre-hearing conference prior to the August 18 claim
`
`construction is necessary so long as an issue concerning page limitations relating to claim
`
`construction briefing is resolved sufficiently in advance of July 7 when Core Wireless’s opening
`
`claim construction brief is due. Core Wireless believes that all briefing related to claim
`
`construction issues should be contained in a single brief (e.g., including indefiniteness). In view
`
`of the nine claim phrases the parties agree are subject to construction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(6) and that must be construed by the Court, the 35 claim phrases or terms LG contends are
`
`indefinite, and the other 34 terms for which the parties will need to present their positions and
`
`support for them, the parties recognize that it is neither fair to the parties nor the Court to try to
`
`summarize the technologies of the 18 patents at issue for claim construction purposes, where in
`
`most cases the technologies are disparate, and present claim construction positions and responses
`
`in a 25-page brief. Accordingly, LG proposed and the parties have discussed seeking an increase
`
`in the page limits for briefing. The parties further discussed seeking 50 pages for Core
`
`Wireless’s opening brief, 50 pages for LG’s responsive brief, and 30 pages for Core Wireless’s
`
`reply brief. The parties intend to file a joint motion requesting these increases in page limits next
`
`week.
`
`As to the other issues raised by LG below concerning application of a Phase Limits Order
`
`and claim construction in Case No. 12-cv-100, Core Wireless understands that LG intends to file
`
`motions and briefs on those issues shortly. Pursuant to LG’s proposal for a pre-hearing
`
`conference the week of June 22, the parties briefing on these issues would not be completed by
`
`that week, which is another reason by Core Wireless believes a pre-hearing conference is
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 06/05/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1123
`
`
`
`unnecessary. Nonetheless, if the Court decides that a pre-hearing conference would be beneficial
`
`in this case, Core Wireless is prepared to meaningfully participate at the Court’s convenience.
`
`LG’s Statement
`
`B.
`LG believes that a pre-hearing conference prior to the August 18 claim construction
`
`hearing would be beneficial. During the pre-hearing conference, LG would like to address the
`
`following issues:
`
`1) The Court’s institution of the Model Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to
`Reduce Costs;
`
`2) The Court’s adoption of the constructions rendered and agreed to during Core
`Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-cv-00100 (Apple 1);
`and
`
`3) Increasing the page limitations relative to claim construction briefing under P.R. 4-5.
`
`LG will file motions addressing these issues shortly, together with a request for expedited
`
`briefing and suggests a pre-hearing conference during the week of June 22, 2015, if the Court is
`
`available.
`
`Dated: June 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Henry C. Bunsow
`
`
`
`
`
`Henry Bunsow (California Bar # 60707)
`Brian A.E. Smith (California Bar # 188147)
`Matthew F. Greinert (California Bar # 239492)
`Dino Hadzibegovic (California Bar # 267489)
`Robin Curtis (California Bar # 271702)
`BUNSOW, DE MORY, SMITH & ALLISON LLP
`351 California Street, Suite 200
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 426-4747
`Facsimile: (415) 426-4744
`Email: hbunsow@bdiplaw.com
`Email: bsmith@bdiplaw.com
`Email: mgreinert@bdiplaw.com
`Email: dhazibegovic@bdiplaw.com
`Email: rcurtis@bdiplaw.com
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Herbert H. Finn
`
`Richard D. Harris (IL Bar # 1137913)
`Herbert H. Finn (IL Bar # 6205685)
`Cameron Nelson (IL Bar # 6275585)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 456-8400
`Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
`Email: HarrisR@gtlaw.com
`Email: FinnH@gtlaw.com
`Email: NelsonC@gtlaw.com
`
`Kevin S. Kudlack (TX Bar # 00790089)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 06/05/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1124
`
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512-320-7200
`Facsimile: 512-320-7210
`Email: KudlacK@gtlaw.com
`
`Rene Trevino (TX Bar # 24051447)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-374-3551
`Facsimile: 713-754-7502
`Email: TrevinoR@gtlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS LG
`ELECTRONICS AND LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.SA., INC.
`
`
`Denise M. De Mory (California Bar #168076)
`Craig Y. Allison (California Bar # 161175)
`Cliff Win (California Bar # 270517)
`BUNSOW, DE MORY, SMITH & ALLISON LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 351-7248
`Facsimile: (650) 351-7259
`Email: ddemory@bdiplaw.com
`Email: callison@bdiplaw.com
`Email: cwin@bdiplaw.com
`
`S. Calvin Capshaw, III (Texas Bar # 03783900)
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Texas Bar # 05770585)
`D. Jeffrey Rambin (Texas Bar # 00791478)
`CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP
`114 E. Commerce Ave.
`Gladewater, TX 75647
`Telephone: (903) 236-9800
`Facsimile: (903) 236-8787
`E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
`E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com
`E-mail: jrambin@capshawlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Therefore, this document was served on all counsel who
`
`are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of this document via
`
`email, facsimile and/or U.S. First Class Mail.
`
`Dated: June 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Henry C. Bunsow
`Henry C. Bunsow
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 1125
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
`
`Case Nos. 2:14-cv—9ll & 2:14-cv-912 (JRG-RSP)
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`I.
`
`5,907,823
`
`CLAIM TERM
`on PHRASE
`
`5,907,823
`CORE WIRELEss’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`LG’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`the sound pressure
`(claim 4)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Indefinite (antecedent basis)
`
`means for
`measuring the level
`of the first audio
`signal to obtain a
`first measured
`value
`(claim 20)
`
`means for
`measuring the noise
`level in the first
`audio signal to
`obtain a second
`measured value
`(claim 20)
`
`Function: measuring the level of the first audio
`signal to obtain a first measured value‘
`
`Structure: power measuring unit 303 as shown in
`Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents thereof
`
`Function: measuring the level of the first audio
`signal (sla) to obtain a first measured value
`(pl)
`
`Structure: Power measuring unit 303 (FIG. 3)
`and description in 4:50-5:9.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Fig. 3
`0
`0 Claim 20
`
`Function: measuring the noise level in the first
`audio signal to obtain a second measured value
`
`Structure: power measuring unit 303 as shown in
`Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents thereof
`
`Function: measuring the noise level in the first
`audio signal (sla) to obtain a second measured
`value (p2)
`
`Structure: Power measuring unit 303 (FIG. 3)
`and description in 4:50-5:9.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`0 Fi . 3
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`1 The parties have agreed on the language of the function for term numbers 4 and 5. however. LG believes the parenthetical references are also
`
`Page 7 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 1126
`
`5,907,823
`
`0
`
`Fig. 3
`Claim 20
`
`4:50-5:9
`
`means for
`
`measuring the noise
`level in said space
`to obtain a third
`
`measured value
`
`(clann 20)
`
`means for adjusting
`the level and/or
`
`dynamic range of
`the first audio
`
`signal in
`accordance with
`
`said first, second
`and third measured
`
`values
`
`(claim 20)
`
`signal power
`measuring means
`(claim 21)
`
`Function: measuring the noise level in said space
`to obtain a third measured val11e
`
`Function: measuring the noise level in said
`space to obtain a third measured value (p3)
`
`Structure: power measuring unit 313 as shown in
`Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents thereof
`
`Structure: Weighting unit 312, power
`measming unit 313 and VAD unit 311 (FIG. 3)
`and description in 5: 10-20.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Fig. 3
`0
`0 Claim 20
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Fig. 3
`0
`0 Claim 20
`
`0
`
`5: 10-20
`
`Function: adjusting the level and/or dynamic range
`of the first audio signal in accordance with said first,
`second and third measured values
`
`Function: adjusting the level and/or dynamic
`range of the first audio signal (sla) in
`accordance with said first, second and third
`measured values
`
`Structure: adjusting unit 304 and multiplier 306 as
`shown in Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents thereof
`
`Structure: Indefinite
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Fig. 3
`0
`0 Claim 20
`
` : measuring signal power
`
`Structure: power measuring units 303 and 313 as
`shown in Fig. 3, and statutory equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Alternatively, Adjusting unit 304, Delay imit
`305, Multiplier 306 (FIG. 3) and description in
`5: 1 6-48.
`
`Page 8 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 1127
`
`5,907,823
`2- - Claim 21
`
`Page 9 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG—RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 58 PagelD #: 1128
`
`II.
`
`7,072,667
`
`- CLAINI TERM
`
`on PHRASE
`
`Conn WmELEss’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`LG’s CONSTRUCTIONAND EVIDENCE
`
`7,072,667
`
`The preamble is not limiting.
`
`No construction necessary [beyond
`constructions of components], but preamble is
`limiting.
`
`A method of
`operating a mobile
`station to receive
`location
`
`information from a
`
`location finding
`service in a cellular
`
`communications
`
`the location finding
`infonnation
`claim 12
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`location finding
`information (claim necessary.
`1 3
`
`antecedent basis — location infonnation
`
`antecedent basis — location finding information
`(in preamble)
`
`Order of steps of
`claim 12.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Construction:
`The sending step occurs before the receiving
`
`To the extent the Court finds a construction is
`
`necessary, Core Wireless proposes the following:
`
`step.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract
`
`Construction:
`In the mobile station, the sending step occurs before
`the receiving step.
`
`Figs 1-7
`131.535
`Claims 1_11
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Page 10 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 1129
`
`7,072,667
`
`Figs. 3-6
`2 : 3- 10
`
`2: 19-29
`
`3:36-4:14
`
`Claim 12
`
`message
`(claims 12, 13)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Construction:
`an SMS text message
`
`To the extent the Court finds a construction is
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`necessary, Core Wireless proposes the following:
`
`Abstract
`
`C01|5"'“¢ti°|13
`data organized in a form that can be processed by
`the recipient
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Figs. 1-7
`1:44-45, 1:52-65, 2:17-32, 2:62-3:16,
`3336.43, 356.5323, 5; 39-5; 3 5
`o Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 111
`2005-04-08 Office Action
`
`Figs. 3-6
`1:8-1 1
`
`2:3-5
`
`2:19-29
`
`3:44-48
`
`3:67-4:10
`
`4:40-45
`
`4:58-61
`
`5:2-7
`
`5:13-15
`
`5:21-23
`
`6:4-13
`
`Claims 12-15
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`o CORE L-00631321
`
`Page 11 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 6 of 58 PagelD #: 1130
`
`A mobile station for
`
`receiving location
`finding information
`from a location
`
`fmding service in a
`cellular
`
`telecommunications
`
`network
`
`(claim 13)
`
`location finding
`information
`
`(claim 12, 13)
`
`location finding
`infonnation based
`
`on the cell occupied
`by at least one
`mobile station
`
`(claims 12, 13)
`
`7,072,667
`
`0 Core Wireless may offer expert testimony of
`Alexander Bayen concerning the meaning of
`the term “message” to one of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`The preamble is not limiting.
`
`No construction necessary [beyond
`constructions of components], b11t preamble is
`limiting
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Construction:
`
`the location of the mobile station
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`o
`
`1:13-21, 1:31-49, 2:3-32, 4:15-5:23,
`5:28-6:30
`
`0 Claims 1-7, 10, ll
`0
`2005-09-08 Amendment
`
`Construction:
`
`Construction:
`
`location finding information determined using cell
`information (e.g., cell identity) that corresponds to a
`geographical area where at least one mobile station
`is located
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`Fig. 2
`226-10
`
`2:19-29
`
`2:43-44
`
`location finding information based on the
`geographical area within the usable range of the
`cellular base station that includes at least one
`
`mobile station
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0 Abstract
`
`0 Figs 1, 2, 7
`
`0
`
`1:8-30, 1:52-65, 2:6-13, 2:62-3:35,
`
`3:4l—4:8, 4:24-28, 4:35-39, 4:64-5:7,
`
`Page 12 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 1131
`
`7,072,667
`
`3:49-4:14
`
`4:24-27
`4:35-45
`
`4:64—5:7
`
`5:13-23
`
`location message
`server
`(claims 12, 13)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`5:27-55
`
`0 Claims 1, 3, 10
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`“cell” - Harry Newton, Newton’s
`Telecom Dictionary, 11"‘ Ed., Telecom
`Books, Feb. 2000.
`
`Construction:
`server that generates a message containing
`location finding information
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`0 Abstract
`
`0 Figs 1-7
`
`0
`
`1:52-65, 2:6-32, 2:62-3:16, 3:36-4:8,
`4:35-39, 5:38-6:35
`
`0 Claims 1, 10
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`antecedent basis — a mobile station (in
`preamble)
`
`Construction:
`provision of the
`location finding information being provided to the
`location finding
`information (claim user
`13)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`4: 12-17
`
`4:43-45
`
`Indefinite — method step within a system claim
`
`Page 13 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 8 of 58 PagelD #2 1132
`
`7,072,667
`— o 5:19-23 I
`
`circuitry operable
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`This element is governed by 35 U.S.C . §
`to send a request
`necessary.
`112(6).
`for location finding
`infonnation from a
`mobile station as a
`message through
`the network to a
`location message
`server
`
`Function: send a request for location finding
`infonnation from a mobile station as a message
`through the network to a location message
`server.
`
`Structure: Indefmite.
`
`This element is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`To the extent the Court finds this element to be
`govemed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Core Wireless
`proposes the following:
`
`(claim 13)
`
`Alternative Function: sending a request for
`location finding infonnation from a mobile station
`as a message through the network to a location
`message server
`
`Alternative Structure: mobile station OVIS)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Figs. 1-7
`Abstract
`
`2:40-57
`
`2:62-64
`
`3 :66-5: 1 8
`
`Claim 13
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`circuitry operable
`to receive from the
`location message
`server, a message
`containing location
`finding information To the extent the Court finds this element to be
`based on the cell
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), Core Wireless
`occupied by at least
`proposes the following:
`
`This element is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`This element is governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).
`
`Function: receive from the location message
`server, a message containing location finding
`information based on the cell occupied by at
`least one mobile station
`
`Page 14 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 1133
`
`(claim 13)
`
`7,072,667
`
`Alternative Function: receiving from the location
`message server, a message containing location
`fmding information based on the cell occupied by at
`least one mobile station
`
`Alternative Structure: mobile station (MS)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Figs. 1-7
`Abstract
`
`2:40-57
`
`2:62-64
`
`3 :66-5: 1 8
`
`Claim 13
`
`mobile station
`(claims 12, 13, 14,
`1 5)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Construction:
`mobile handset
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Figs. 1, 2, 7
`
`118-21, 1:52-65, 2:17-32, 2:40-44, 2:55-
`
`57. 2:62-3:7
`
`3:17-40
`
`5:56-6:3
`
`Claims 1-11
`
`the message
`(claim 14)
`
`the received
`message
`claim 15
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`antecedent basis — a message containing
`location finding information
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`antecedent basis — a message containing
`location finding information
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`circuitry operable
`to send the received necess
`.
`
`This element is governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112 6 .
`
`Page 15 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 10 of 58 Page|D #:
`1134
`
`message to another
`mobile station
`(claim 15)
`
`This element is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: send the received message to another
`mobile station.
`
`To the extent the Court finds this element to be
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), Core Wireless
`proposes the following:
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`Alternative Function: sending the received
`message to another mobile station
`
`Alternative Structure: mobile station (MS)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`Figs. 1-7
`Abstract
`
`2:40-57
`
`2:62-64
`
`3 :66-5: 1 8
`
`Claim 13
`
`Page 16 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 11 of 58 Page|D #:
`1135
`
`III.
`
`8,434,020 / 8,713,476
`
`8,434 020I8,7l3,476
`Coma: WIRELESS’S CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`LG’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`additionally being
`configured to
`display on the
`screen an
`application
`summary window
`that can be reached
`directly from the
`main menu
`
`additionally being
`configured to
`display on the
`
`Screen all
`application
`summary that can
`be reached directly
`from the menu
`.
`(’020: clann 1;
`’476: claims 1, 20)
`
`Construction:
`additionally being configured to display an
`application sub-menu together with the main
`menu by designating an application in the main
`menu
`
`additionally being configured to display an
`application sub-menu together with the menu
`by designating an application in the menu
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Figs. 1-3 (‘020 and ‘476)
`
`3:5-21 (‘020)
`3:23-61 (‘020)
`2:55_67 (‘020)
`2:653:16 (.476)
`3,] 5_3_55 (.476)
`3:68-4:5 '476
`(
`)
`
`Page 17 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 12 of 58 Page|D #:
`1136
`
`IV.
`
`8,498,671
`
`8,498,671
`Com: WIRELESS’S CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`LG’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`idle screen
`(claims 1, 3, 5, 11,
`12, 15, 16)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`To the extent the Court finds a construction is
`necessary, Core Wireless proposes the following:
`
`Construction:
`The screen which is displayed on a mobile telephone
`device when the user is not navigating to a particular
`fimction, nor actively using a particular application,
`such as a contacts application, or a messaging
`application. Personal computers have no equivalent
`to an idle screen.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`0
`
`0
`
`Figs. 7—10B
`1:31-35
`
`2:23-26
`
`priority setting
`(claim 9)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Construction:
`The default screen which is displayed when a
`mobile telephone is switched on, and when the
`user is not navigating to a particular function,
`nor actively using a particular application, such
`as a contacts application, or a messaging
`application.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`0
`1:28-34
`1:57-66
`2;25-25
`3;20-29
`
`Construction:
`setting which changes the positioning, ordering,
`or other display attribute of the data on the idle
`screen
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`4: 1-8
`
`Page 18 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 13 of 58 Page|D #:
`1137
`
`V.
`
`5,946,634
`
`CLAIM TERM
`
`on PHRASE
`
`5,946,634
`CORE WmELEss’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`LG’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`formatting device
`(claim 1)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`Function: applying a low level signal format
`protocol to a signal for transmission over said
`wireless interface
`
`This element is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`To the extent the Court finds this element to be
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the term that
`should be construed is “fomiatting device for
`applying low level signal format protocol to a signal
`for transmission over said wireless interface” and
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`0 Figs. 2 and 5
`o
`3:58-4:8
`o
`5:23-30
`
`Core Wireless proposes the following:
`
` = applying low level signal
`format protocol to a signal for transmission over said
`wireless interface
`
`Alternative Structure: a digital signal processor
`device as shown in Figure 2 and described in the
`patent at 4:4-6 (through “. . .st1ucture)”), 5:25-29,
`and statutory equivalents thereof
`
`high level
`signalling protocols
`(claims 1, 23 25)
`
`high level protocols
`(claims 4,23)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`To the extent the Court finds a construction is
`necessary, Core Wireless proposes the following:
`
`Construction:
`communication protocols used by separate and
`incompatible backbone networks at the network
`layer (layer 3) or above in the OSI reference
`model
`
`high level protocol
`
`stack[s] of communications protocols at the network
`
`0 Fi_ 6
`
`Construction:
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Page 19 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 14 of 58 Page|D #:
`1138
`
`(claims 20, 25)
`
`layer and above in terms of the OSI reference model
`
`5,946,634
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Figs. 6 and 7
`1:57-2:17
`
`4:47-54
`
`5:21-6:7
`
`Function: Agreed
`
`Structure: control device or processor or SIM as
`described, for example, in Fig. 2, 2:15-17; 8:24-34
`and/or 7:39-51 of the ’634 specification, and
`statutory equivalents thereof
`
`means for selecting
`a backbone network
`based on said
`received type signal
`(claim 22)
`
`backbone
`network(s)
`(claims 22, 23, 25)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning / no construction
`necessary.
`
`To the extent the Court finds a construction is
`necessary, Core Wireless proposes the following:
`
`Construction:
`
`network(s) comprising a core network element or
`elements through which voice calls, fax calls, or data
`exchanges (collectively termed “sessions” are
`routed after leaving the air interface at the base
`station, and associated signaling and
`communications protocols
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`1:19-35
`
`Function: selecting a backbone network based
`on said received type signal
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`0
`5:23-30
`
`0
`
`0
`
`6:15-7:14
`
`8224-34
`
`Construction:
`A network comprised of mobile switching
`centers and the physical links (e.g. fibre optic
`cables) that interconnect them
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`0
`
`1:26-28
`
`Page 20 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 15 of 58 Page|D #:
`1139
`
`0
`
`0
`
`2: 10-18
`
`2:38-45
`
`5,946,634
`
`CORE L-00631383
`
`o CORE L-00655327 (3GPP TS 23.002 version
`12.6.0 Release 12 including specifically §3.2;
`§3.3.1; §4.l; §4.l.2; §4.1.2.l; Figure 0-a; Figure
`1; Figure lb)
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`CORE_L-00655315
`
`CORE_L-00655321
`
`Page 21 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 16 of 58 Page|D #:
`1140
`
`VI.
`
`6,266,321
`
`- CLAIM TERM
`
`on PHRASE
`
`CORE WiRELEss’s CONSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE
`
`LG’s CONSTRUCTIONAND EVIDENCE
`
`spreading
`(claims 8, 9, 14)
`
`Construction:
`spreading or scrambling
`
`Core Wireless should be estopped and
`precluded from arguing for a claim construction
`other than that issued in Core Wireless
`
`6,266,321
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`0
`Figs_ 2a and 2b
`o
`4:18-31
`.
`4351-535
`0 CORE_L-00002785 at CORE_L-00002884-
`892
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L. vs. Apple, Inc., Case No.
`6:12—cV-00100-JRG-RSP (hereinafter “Apple
`I”), Dkt. Nos. 245 & 263. In addition to relying
`on the Court’s analysis and ultimate claim
`°°nStm°fi°n_S adopted in Apple 1_(Dkt- _Nos- 245
`& 263), LG identifies as suppoitmg evidence
`the complete record from Apple I that relates to
`this claim tenn, including the claim
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`construction hearing transcript (Dkt. 142), the
`. CORE_L_00631339
`statement (Dkt 1,08 & exhibits)’ the 4'5(d)
`0 Expert testimony of Richard Chandler
`Jomt cla,1m collstmchon chain (Dlit 1374)’ and
`offering evidence that a person of ordinary
`the parties claim construction briefs in that
`Skill in the afl would understand that the use
`of the term, spreading, in the asserted claims matte‘ See»_ 33-» 44191919 1, Dkt. NOS. _l22, l27,_
`can also mean scrambling
`134, & 260, see also Dkt. No. 399 (iury verdict
`form indicating non-infringement). LG also
`identifies its motion to adopt the prior claim
`constructions as supporting evidence for
`adoption of the constructions from Apple I.
`
`In addition to the foregoing, LG reserves the
`right to rely on evidence and information
`relating to claim construction in Apple I that has
`not yet been produced to LG.
`
`In light of the above, LG identifies the
`construction ordered in Apple I as follows:
`
`Page 22 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 17 of 58 PageID #:
`1141
`
`6,266,321
`
`first spreading code Construction:
`(claims 8, 9, 14)
`code used i11 spreading or scrambling data, which
`can include the real or the imaginary part of a
`complex spreading or scrambling code
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Figs. 2a and 2b
`4: 18-3 1
`
`4:61-5:36
`
`CORE_L-00002785 at CORE_L-00002884-
`892
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`CORE_L-0063 1368
`
`CORE_L-0063 1 325
`
`CORE_L-0063 13 16
`
`CORE_L-0063 1375
`Expert testimony of Richard Chandler
`offering evidence that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that a first
`
`spreading and second spreading code in the
`asserted claims can include the real or the
`
`imaginary part of a complex valued
`spreading or scrambling code
`See also evidence regarding the definition of
`“spreading” above.
`
`Core Wireless should be estopped and
`precluded from arguing for a claim construction
`other than that issued in Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. vs. Apple, Inc., Case No.
`6: 1 2-cv-001 00-JRG-RSP (hereinafier “Apple
`I”), Dkt. Nos. 245 & 263. In addition to relying
`on the Court’s analysis and ultimate claim
`constructions adopted in Apple I (Dkt. Nos. 245
`& 263), LG identifies as supporting evidence
`the complete record from Apple I that relates to
`this claim term, including the claim
`construction hearing transcript (Dkt. 142), the
`4-3 statement (Dkt. 108 & exhibits), the 4-5(d)
`joint claim construction chart (Dkt. 137-1), and
`the parties’ claim construction briefs in that
`matter. See, e.g., Apple I, Dkt. Nos. 122, 127,
`134, & 260; see also Dkt. No. 399 (jury verdict
`form indicating non-infringement). LG also
`identifies its motion to adopt the prior claim
`constructions as supporting evidence for
`adoption of the constructions from Apple I.
`
`In addition to the foregoing, LG reserves the
`right to rely on evidence and information
`relating to claim construction in Apple I that has
`not yet been produced to LG.
`
`In light of the above, LG identifies the
`construction ordered in Apple I as follows:
`
`No construction necess
`
`Page 23 of 64
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 74-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 18 of 58 PagelD #:
`1142
`
`second spreading
`code
`
`(claims 8, 9, 14)
`
`Construction:
`
`code different from a first spreading code used in
`spreading or scrambling data, which can include the
`real or the imaginary part of a complex spreading or
`scrambling code
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Figs. 2a and 2b
`4: 18-3 1
`
`4:61 -5 : 36
`
`CORE_L-00002785 at CORE_L-00002884-
`892
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`See also expert testimony of Richard
`Chandler regarding the defmition of “first
`spreading code” and “spreading” above.
`See also evidence regarding the definition of
`“first spreading code” and “spreading”
`above.
`
`changing the power
`level of said data
`
`Construction:
`
`chan in the ain factor a lied to data related to a
`
`Core Wireless should be estopped and
`precluded from arguing for a claim construction
`other than that issued in Core Wireless
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L. vs. Apple, Inc., Case No.
`6: l2—cv-00l00—JRG-RSP (hereinafter “Apple
`I”), Dkt. Nos. 245 & 263. In addition to relying
`on the Court’s analysis and ultimate claim
`constructions adopted in Apple I O)kt. Nos. 245
`& 263), LG identifies as supporting evidence
`the complete record from Apple I that relates to
`this claim term, including the claim
`construction hearing transcript 03kt. 142), the
`4-3 statement (Dkt. 108 & exhibits)