UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00183-JRG-
`RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. JAY P. KESAN
`
`I, Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D. of Champaign, Illinois, make this declaration of expert opinion as an
`independent expert retained by Plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC's
`("MTel") in its lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung") to provide opinion
`regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of U.S. Patent Nos.
`5,590,403; 5,659,891; 5,915,210; 5,809,428; and 5,754,946. I make this declaration either from
`my own personal knowledge, from documents produced by MTel and/or Samsung, from the files
`of REED & SCARDINO LLP kept in the ordinary course of business, or from publicly available
`documents, with which I am familiar, as should be apparent from the context of my statements. I
`declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct to the best of my
`knowledge.
`
`Dated: Sept. 25, 2015
`
`Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D.
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2006, Samsung v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2015-01726
`
`

`
`[01]
`
`This supplemental expert declaration discloses my opinions in light of Samsung’s
`
`responsive claim construction brief, its exhibits, and the supplemental declaration of Dr. Min
`
`attached thereto.
`
`1. Materials Considered
`
`[02]
`
`In addition to the materials listed in my original declaration, I have read and
`
`considered Samsung’s responsive claim construction brief and the exhibits thereto, including the
`
`supplemental expert declaration of Dr. Min.
`
`2.
`
`The ’891 Patent
`
`[03]
`
`One skilled in the art would understand the term “band edge of the mask” to mean
`
`“the innermost frequency at which the mask requires attenuation of the signal.” The inventors of
`
`the ’891 Patent defined the term and provided the chart in Figure 3b of the ’891 Patent as a
`
`description of the invention:
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF JAY P. KESAN, PH.D
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2006, Samsung v. MTel., Page 2, IPR2015-01726
`
`

`
`[04]
`
`The above chart shows that the defined band edge of the mask is the point
`
`wherein the innermost frequency at which the mask requires attenuation of the signal. This is
`
`illustrated in the annotated version of this diagram below.
`
`[05]
`
`I further understand that the Court has previously rejected Samsung’s position
`
`that the ‘band edge of the mask’ is indefinite, and held that “the specification provides sufficient
`
`context for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the ‘band edge’ with reasonable
`
`certainty.” (Exh. B, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Mobile Telecommunications
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Leap Wireless Int’l, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-885-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. May 13,
`
`2015) (Dkt. 114) at 30-37). Specifically, the Court held that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would readily conclude that the ‘band edge’ frequencies are the innermost frequencies at which
`
`the mask requires attenuation of the signal.” ( Id. at 35). The Court further held that “to
`
`whatever extent applying this interpretation to a particular mask may yield multiple relevant
`
`frequency differences, all such frequency differences must satisfy the claim limitations.” (Id. at
`
`37). I agree with the Court’s analysis and conclusion.
`
`[06]
`
`The mask depicted in Fig. 4 of the ’891 Patent is identified as “an exemplary FCC
`
`emissions mask that requires the power spectral density to be attenuated at least 70 dB within 10
`
`kHz from the center frequency.”1 A PHOSITA would know that the mask shown in Fig. 4 is an
`
`exemplary mask (as stated in the description) and would understand that many other masks are
`
`possible.
`
`[07]
`
`There is no indication that the power spectra of the carriers shown in Figs. 5A,
`
`6A, or 7A are intended to operate with the single exemplary mask shown in Fig. 4. In fact, the
`
`power spectrum of the carriers in these figures would in part be outside of the bounds imposed
`
`1
`’891 Patent (Dkt. No. 4-2) at Fig. 4, col. 3, ll. 16-18.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF JAY P. KESAN, PH.D
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`- 2 -
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2006, Samsung v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2015-01726
`
`

`
`by the mask in Fig. 4. That indicates that the mask of Fig. 4 would not be used with the systems
`
`shown in Figs. 5A, 6A, or 7A. I understand that Dr. Vojcic shares my opinion and has testified
`
`that he does not believe that the mask shown in Figure 4 would actually be used with what is
`
`shown in figures 5 – 7 for that reason.2
`
`[08]
`
`A review of the ’891 patent specification supports my conclusion. The
`
`description of Fig. 5A does not refer to the exemplary mask shown in Fig. 4, and instead only
`
`states the conclusion that “the [shown] carriers remained within the FCC mask.” The
`
`descriptions of Figs. 6A and 7A do not reference a mask at all. This is because reference to a
`
`mask is not necessary to understand what is shown in these figures. In my opinion, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply any given mask to the constraints of the carrier
`
`systems shown in Fig2. 5A – 7A, and would be able to determine whether that mask satisfies the
`
`claimed invention or not.
`
`[09]
`
`Samsung took my deposition on Sep. 4, 2015. In my deposition, at the request of
`
`Samsung, I annotated figure 3b of the ’891 Patent. My annotation is correctly reproduced below:
`
`
`2
`Ex. A, Vojcic Depo in MTel v. Cricket at 359:9-360:13.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF JAY P. KESAN, PH.D
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2006, Samsung v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2015-01726
`
`

`
`[10]
`
`Indicated above is the point which corresponds to the innermost frequency at
`
`which the mask requires attenuation of the signal at the maximum signal power (i.e. where no
`
`attenuation is required). Between the center frequency of the channel and that point, the mask
`
`requires no attenuation of the signal. Also indicated is the “band edge of the mask” which is a
`
`line, i.e. the collection of all points along the mask that make up the edge of that mask. As stated
`
`above, I agree with the Court that “to whatever extent applying this interpretation to a particular
`
`mask may yield multiple relevant frequency differences, all such frequency differences must
`
`satisfy the claim limitations.” (Ex. B at 37).
`
`[11]
`
`Samsung’s claim construction response contains a copy of the above diagram that
`
`has been further annotated in what I consider to be a misleading way. The dashed line was
`
`added, in the same color I used in my original annotation, to indicate the “band edge of the
`
`mask.” This is different from my actual annotation reproduced above.
`
`
`
`[12]
`
`I have further reviewed Samsung’s citations regarding the additional annotations.
`
`Samsung’s citation regarding the March 2015 date is based on MTel’s counsel’s statement
`
`repeating for the Court the position advocated by Dr. Acampora, Cricket’s expert for claim
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF JAY P. KESAN, PH.D
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`- 4 -
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2006, Samsung v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2015-01726
`
`

`
`construction. Regarding the October 2014 annotation added by Samsung, that line perfectly
`
`matches my own annotation drawn in my deposition, except that it is shown on the right hand
`
`side of the mask, instead of the left hand side. Further, the flat part on top of the mask should not
`
`be included since the mask does not require any signal attenuation in that range.
`
`3.
`
`The ’210 Patent
`
`[13]
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that implementation of spatial
`
`diversity via different fading channels requires that two transmitters be sufficiently separated to
`
`guarantee two different spatial paths. Although this separation is not very large, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would consider such transmitters to be spatially separated.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF JAY P. KESAN, PH.D
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`- 5 -
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2006, Samsung v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2015-01726