Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!2!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6412
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-030 (RGA) (SRF)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`))))))))))
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
`@62??. D6?282@@ .92?60.& 6;0(d@ .;1 @62??. D6?282@@ 6;0(d@
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Thomas C. Grimm (#1098)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`tgrimm@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendants Sierra Wireless
`America, Inc and Sierra Wireless Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert E. Krebs
`Jennifer Hayes
`Christopher M. Mooney
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`2 Palo Alto Square
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2106
`(650) 320-7700
`
`Ronald F. Lopez
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 984-8200
`
`Confidential Version Filed: July 10, 2015
`
`Public Version Filed: July 23, 2015
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 1
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!3!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6413
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ................................................................................... 1#
`
`I.#
`
`v-.- J;N?HN ;MM?LN?> CLAIMS................................................................................ 1#
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3#
`
`II.#
`
`III.#
`
`IV.#
`
`V.#
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .................................................... 3#
`
`tJLIAL;GG;<F? CHN?L@;=?u CM HIN >?M=LC<?D OR ENABLED BY
`NB? v-.- J;N?HN ............................................................................................................ 3#
`
`INVALIDITY s MIXED APPARATUS AND METHOD ................................................ 7#
`
`INVALIDITY s INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE OF STRUCTURE FOR
`FUNCTIONAL TERMS ................................................................................................... 10#
`
`A.#
`
`B.#
`
`C.#
`
`Federal Circuit in Citrix Overruled Strong Presumption Claims Not
`MjW_ZXi id GZVch Jajh @jcXi^dc LjaZh ^[ tbZVchu ;WhZci+ .................................. 10#
`
`tJgdXZhh^c\ GdYjaZ)u tJgd\gVbbVWaZ CciZg[VXZu VcY tGZbdgn GdYjaZu
`are Subject to § 112 ¶ 6. ........................................................................................ 11#
`
`No Structure Disclosed For Performing Functions Associated With the
`Functional Limitations. ......................................................................................... 13#
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 16#
`
`- i -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 2
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!4!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6414
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac Ugine,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`,RKSTPERCT =GEJS( ,USTM( 9TY 5TF( V( 3OT[M 1CNG =GEJ(,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................14, 15
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................13
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................10
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................10
`
`H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13148 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................8
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................7
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................11
`
`Lizard Tech., Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................4
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................13
`
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................4, 6
`
`O'Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. 62 (1853) .......................................................................................................................3
`
`- ii -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 3
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!5!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6415
`
`PSN Illinois, LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.,
`525 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................3
`
`S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp.,
`1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23218 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .....................................................................10
`
`Tyler v. City of Boston,
`74 U.S. 327 (1868) .....................................................................................................................3
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC,
`No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) ........................................ passim
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ..............................................................................................................................10
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,583,197..............................................................................................................14
`
`- iii -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 4
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!6!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6416
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`This Court issued claim construction orders on November 19, 2013, and January 30, 2014
`
`(D.I. 104, 113), and fact discovery and expert discovery have closed. Defendants Sierra Wireless
`
`Inc. and Sierra Wireless America, Inc. (XdaaZXi^kZan) tM^ZggV Q^gZaZhhu’ cdl bdkZ [dg MjbbVgn
`
`DjY\bZci d[ CckVa^Y^in d[ Oc^iZY MiViZh JViZci Hd+ 5)-61)-.- &ti]Z v-.- JViZciu’) i]Z dcan
`
`remaining Patent-In-Suit.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Sierra Wireless moves for summary judgment for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`WZXVjhZ &.’ cdi V h^c\aZ ZbWdY^bZci d[ V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu ]Vh WZZc YZhXg^WZY ^c i]Z
`
`specificatioc) VcY &/’ i]Z tegdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZu a^b^iVi^dc b^mZh VeeVgVijh VcY bZi]dY ZaZbZcih
`
`and is therefore invalid.
`
`Furthermore, under the new standard of Citrix, i]Z tegdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZ)u tegd\gVbbVWaZ
`
`^ciZg[VXZ)u VcY tbZbdgn bdYjaZu a^b^iVi^dch VgZ bZVch-plus-function claims and are indefinite
`
`for lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification.
`
`12$2’,’-2!.(!3-&*1/32’&!($%21!
`
`I.
`
`c)*) =.A2;A .@@2?A21 CLAIMS
`
`The v-.- JViZci YZhXg^WZh V YZk^XZ i]Vi ^h XVeVWaZ d[ eZg[dgb^c\ ]^\] aZkZa
`
`communication functions that are essentially relaying information between a sensor device and a
`
`remote monitoring device. See Ex. A, v-.- JViZci) 57/2-9:10. To perform these functions, the
`
`v-.- JViZci WVh^XVaan XaV^bh V XdaaZXi^dc d[ \ZcZg^X ZaZXig^XVa XdbedcZcih dg tbdYjaZhu hjX] Vh V
`
`(1) tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZ)u &/’ V tegdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZ)u VcY di]Zgh i]Vi eZg[dgb i]ZhZ
`
`functions without disclosing any specific devices, interfaces, processors, or even any algorithms
`
`for performing these functions. See Ex. A, v-.- JViZci) 570.-67.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 5
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!7!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6417
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 6
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!8!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6418
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`$0)3,’-2!
`
`Summary judgment is proper in a patent infringement case, as in any other case, when
`
`there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); PSN Illinois, LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., 525 F.3d 1159, 1168
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). There is no material fact dispute and thus summary judgment is appropriate if
`
`ti]Z gZXdgY iV‘Zc Vh V l]daZ XdjaY cdi aZVY V gVi^dcVa ig^Zg d[ [VXi id [^cY [dg i]Z cdc-moving
`
`eVgin+u Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
`
`III.
`
`a=?<4?.99./82 6;A2?3.02b 6@ ;<A 12@0?6/2D OR ENABLED BY
`THE c)*) =.A2;A
`
`;aa d[ i]Z ;hhZgiZY =aV^bh ^cXajYZ V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu a^b^iVi^dc+ BdlZkZg) i]Z
`
`patent does not describe a single embodiment, device, or algorithm that constitutes a
`
`tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu VcY i]ZgZ[dgZ) i]Z eViZciZZ ]Vh [V^aZY id VYZfjViZan YZhXgibe and
`
`enable this limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`N]Z tlg^iiZc YZhXg^ei^dcu XaVjhZ d[ section 112 of the Patent Act has been construed to
`
`mandate that the specification satisfy two closely related requirements. First, it must describe the
`
`manner and process of making and using the invention so as to enable a person of skill in the art
`
`to make and use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation. See Tyler v. City
`
`of Boston, 74 U.S. 327, 330 (1868); AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). Second, it must describe the invention sufficiently to convey to a person of skill in
`
`the art that the patentee had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application,
`
`i.e., that the patentee invented what is claimed. See 8[;GKMMY V( 6PRSG, 56 U.S. 62, 112-13
`
`(1853) (denying a caV^b [dg jhZ d[ tZaZXigd-magnetism, however developed for marking or
`
`eg^ci^c\ ^ciZaa^\^WaZ X]VgVXiZgh + + + Vi Vcn Y^hiVcXZhu WZXVjhZ di]Zgh tbVn Y^hXdkZg V bdYZ d[
`
`- 3 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 7
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!9!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6419
`
`writing or printing at a distance . . . without using any part of the process or combination set forth
`
`^c i]Z eaV^ci^[[wh heZX^[^XVi^dcu’8 Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1320-
`
`21 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`In Lizard Tech., Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, the Federal Circuit held that a claim
`
`term was not enabled or described because the specification did not disclose how to generically
`
`perform a generic software based process when only one specific one was disclosed. 424 F.3d
`
`1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, even though the language of the claim was included in the
`
`claims as originally filed on the priority date, adequate embodiments for performing the full
`
`breath of the claim were not described and/or enabled. Id.
`
`Furthermore, the v-.- JViZci YdZh cdi egdk^YZ Vcn lg^iiZc YZhXg^ei^dc hjeedgi [dg i]Z
`
`tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu i]Vi eZg[dgbh i]Z [jcXi^dc heZX^[^XVaan gZX^iZY ^c i]Z XaV^b+ Although
`
`the v-.- JViZci specification discloses a so-XVaaZY tprogrammable interfaceu &?m+ ;) v-.- JViZci
`
`at 8:54-62), such disclosure does not provide any written description support for the
`
`tprogrammable interfaceu heZX^[^XVaan gZX^iZY ^c i]^h XaV^b ZaZbZci) dg bdgZ eVgi^XjaVgan) [dg i]Z
`
`- 4 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 8
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!;!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!641;
`
`tprogrammable interfaceu i]Vi eZg[dgbh i]Z [jcXi^dc heZX^[^XVaan gZX^iZY ^c i]^h XaV^b ZaZbZci+
`
`For example, the v-.- eViZci merely discloses:
`
`a programmable interface means 140 to generate alarm messages in
`response to changes in status conditions. Said programmable interface
`means may be attached to all manner of sensor devices for the purpose of
`relaying data from external devices and sensors either automatically or in
`response to a request for information from a remote device
`
`See Ex. A,v-.- JViZci at 8:56-62. At most, the v-.- JViZci specification describes that the
`
`[jcXi^dch d[ V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu bVn WZ id t\ZcZgViZ VaVgb bZhhV\Zhu VcY id eZg[dgb
`
`tgZaVn^c\ YViV [gdb ZmiZgcVa YZk^XZh VcY hZchdgh)u+ BdlZkZg) i]Z heZX^[^XVi^dc d[ i]Z v-.-
`
`Patent egdk^YZh cd lg^iiZc YZhXg^ei^dc hjeedgi d[ V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu i]Vi eZg[dgbh i]Z
`
`gZX^iZY [jcXi^dc d[ testablishing a communication link with at least one monitored technical
`
`device.u ; eZghdc d[ dgY^cVgn hkill in the art (POSITA) would understand that an interface that
`
`eZg[dgbh tgZaVn^c\ YViV [gdb ZmiZgcVa YZk^XZh VcY hZchdghu XdjaY _jhi Vh ZVh^an Yd hd l]Zc i]Z
`
`tZmiZgcVa YZk^XZu dg thZchdgu eZg[dgbh i]Z gZX^iZY [jcXi^dc d[ testablishing a communication
`
`linku ^c i]^h XaV^b ZaZbZci gVi]Zg i]Vc l]Zc hdbZ tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu l^i]^c V
`
`tegd\gVbbVWaZ Xdbbjc^XVidg YZk^XZu eZg[dgbh i]Z gZX^iZY [jcXi^dc d[ testablishing a
`
`communication link.u+
`
`The v-.- JViZci fails to describe any specific type of circuit, structure, algorithm or
`
`component (or combination thereof) known at or before the alleged priority date of the v-.-
`
`Patent i]Vi XdjaY gZVa^oZ Vcn tprogrammable interface for establishing a communication link
`
`with at least one monitored technical device,u) l]Zi]Zg hjX] tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu ]Vh
`
`written description support within the v-.- JViZci specification or otherwise. Thus, it is not clear
`
`l]Vi XdjaY Xdchi^ijiZ V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZ+u ;XXdgY^c\an) ^[ Vcn egd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZh
`
`Zm^hi) i]Zn VgZ XZgiV^can cdi Y^hXadhZY Wn bZgZan gZX^i^c\ i]Z ldgYh tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZ+u
`
`- 5 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 9
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!21!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6421
`
`Because the specification does not describe any structure(s) that perform the recited functions
`
`VcY dcan bZci^dch tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu \ZcZgVaan) i]Z ^ckZcidgh Y^Y cdi egdk^YZ V hj[[^X^Zci
`
`Y^hXadhjgZ i]Vi i]Zn ]VY edhhZhh^dc d[ V egd\gVbbVWaZ Xdbbjc^XVidg l^i] V tegd\gVbbVWaZ
`
`interfacZu VcY Y^Y cdi ZcVWaZ dcZ d[ h‘^aa ^c i]Z Vgi id XdchigjXi V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZ+u
`
`Therefore, unlike Lizard Tech., where the patent at least described one embodiment s
`
`here, no embodiments are described, and one of skill in the art would not know or understand the
`
`^ckZcidg edhhZhhZY V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZ+u N]Z ;hhZgiZY =aV^bh VgZ i]ZgZ[dgZ ^ckVa^Y+
`
`Furthermore, dependent claims 2 and 54 add the requirement that the programmable
`
`interface be programmable by wireless transmissions. Ex. A, v-.- JViZci) XaV^bh / VcY 21+
`
`Other than the recitation of this claim element in the claims of the v-.- JViZci) i]Z e]gVhZ ti]Z
`
`programmable interface is programmable viV l^gZaZhh igVchb^hh^dchu YdZh cdi VeeZVg ^c i]Z
`
`specification of the v-.- JViZci+ Id. The v-.- JViZci YdZh cdi egdk^YZ Vcn written description
`
`hjeedgi [dg i]Z tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu gZX^iZY ^c i]^h XaV^b ZaZbZci) dg bdgZ heZX^[^XVaan) [dg
`
`i]Z tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu i]Vi ^h tegd\gVbbVWaZ k^V l^gZaZhh igVchb^hh^dchu Vh heZX^[^XVaan
`
`recited in this claim element. Thus, asserted dependent claims 2 and 54 of the v-.- JViZci VgZ
`
`invalid for failure to provide written description support of this claim element, and similarly by
`
`extension, invalid for failure to provide an enabling disclosure of this claim element. At most,
`
`the v-.- JViZci heZX^[^XVi^dc YZhXg^WZh i]Vi i]Z [jcXi^dch d[ V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu bVn WZ
`
`id t\ZcZgViZ VaVgb bZhhV\Zhu VcY id eZg[dgb tgZaVn^c\ YViV [gdb ZmiZgcVa YZk^XZh VcY hZchdghu
`
`VcY i]Vi hjX] [jcXi^dch bVn WZ t^c gZhedchZ id V gZfjZhi [dg ^c[dgbVi^dc [gdb V gZbdiZ YZk^XZu+
`
`Ex. A, v-.- JViZci Vi 8:56-62. ; JIMCN; ldjaY gZXd\c^oZ i]Vi ZkZc ^[ tV gZfjZhi [dg
`
`in[dgbVi^dc [gdb V gZbdiZ YZk^XZu lZgZ Xdch^YZgZY id WZ V tl^gZaZhh igVchb^hh^dcu i]Vi tV
`
`gZfjZhi [dg ^c[dgbVi^dcu ^h cdi V Y^hXadhjgZ d[ tegd\gVbb^c\)u) l]Zi]Zg k^V tl^gZaZhh
`
`- 6 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 10
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!22!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6422
`
`igVchb^hh^dcu dg di]Zgl^hZ+ MZZ >ZXaVgVi^dc d[ >g+ EZk^c HZ\jh &tHZ\jh >ZXaVgVi^dcu’ Vi q 4.
`
`; JIMCN; ldjaY jcYZghiVcY i]Vi V tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZ)u VagZVYn a^b^iZY ^c i]Z
`
`^cYZeZcYZci XaV^b Vh WZ^c\ [dg tZhiVWa^h]^c\ V Xdbbjc^XVi^dc a^c‘ l^i] Vi aZVhi dcZ bdc^idgZY
`
`iZX]c^XVa YZk^XZ)u XdjaY ZVh^an WZ tegd\gVbbVWaZu dcan tk^V i]Z bdcitored technical device or
`
`hdbZ di]Zg ZmiZgcVa YZk^XZu jh^c\ Xdbbjc^XVi^dch i]Vi Yd cdi Xdbeg^hZ Vcn tl^gZaZhh
`
`igVchb^hh^dch)u gVi]Zg i]Vc WZ^c\ tegd\gVbbVWaZ k^V l^gZaZhh igVchb^hh^dchu Vh heZX^[^XVaan
`
`required by this claim element. Negus Declaration at ¶ 5. Additionally, the v-.- JViZci YdZh cdi
`
`heZX^[^XVaan iZVX] V JIMCN; ]dl id egVXi^XZ Vcn VaaZ\ZY ^ckZci^dc l]ZgZ^c ti]Z egd\gVbbable
`
`^ciZg[VXZ ^h egd\gVbbVWaZ k^V l^gZaZhh igVchb^hh^dch+u N]Z v-.- JViZci [V^ah id YZhXg^WZ Vcn
`
`specific type of circuit, structure, algorithm or component (or combination thereof) known at or
`
`before the alleged priority date of the v-.- JViZci i]Vi XdjaY gZVa^oZ Vcn tegd\gVbbVWaZ
`
`^ciZg[VXZu i]Vi ^h tegd\gVbbVWaZ k^V l^gZaZhh igVchb^hh^dch+u N]jh) YZeZcYZci XaV^bh / VcY 21
`
`of the v-.- JViZci VgZ Vahd ^ckVa^Y+
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY ‘ MIXED APPARATUS AND METHOD
`
`N]Z ;hhZgiZY =aV^bh VgZ ^ckVa^Y WZXVjhZ i]Zn b^m Vc VeeVgVijh ZaZbZci) tV egdXZhh^c\
`
`module for authenticating)u l^i] i]Z gZfj^gZbZci i]Vi i]Z VeeVgVijh WZ jhZY &tl]Zgein the
`
`processing module authenticates + + + T[jcXi^dcU+u’ ;XXdgY^c\an) h^cXZ i]Z XaV^bh ejgedgi id WZ
`
`apparatus claims while simultaneously requiring that a method step actually be performed (i.e.
`
`authenticate), the claims are invalid.
`
`The Patent Act designates four classes of invention: (1) process; (2) machine;
`
`(3) manufacture; and (4) composition of matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. In IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit held that a patent
`
`claim combining two classes of invention is invalid for indefiniteness. See also In re Katz
`
`Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
`- 7 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 11
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!23!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6423
`
`claim indefinite for combining two classes of invention); H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`
`2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13148, *15 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same holding). The Federal Circuit
`
`ZmeaV^cZY i]Vi i]Z gZVhdc [dg i]^h gjaZ ^h i]Vi tVh V gZhjai d[ i]Z XdbW^cVi^dc d[ ild hZeVgViZ
`
`statutory classes of invention, a manufacturer or seller of the claimed apparatus would not know
`
`from the claim whether it might also be liable for contributory infringement because a buyer or
`
`jhZg d[ i]Z VeeVgVijh aViZg eZg[dgbh i]Z XaV^bZY bZi]dY d[ jh^c\ i]Z VeeVgVijh+u IPXL, 430 F.3d
`
`at 1384. MjX] V XaV^b t^h cdi hj[[^X^Zcian egZX^hZ id egdk^YZ XdbeZi^idgh l^i] Vc VXXjgViZ
`
`YZiZgb^cVi^dc d[ i]Z vbZiZh VcY WdjcYhw d[ egdiZXi^dc ^ckdakZYu VcY ^h tVbW^\jdjh VcY egdeZgan
`
`gZ_ZXiZYu jcYZg Section 112, Paragraph 2. Id.
`
`The claim at issue in IPXL read:
`
`The system of claim 2 [including an input means] wherein the predicted
`transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction
`parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the
`input means to either change the predicted transaction information or
`accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.
`
`Id. &Zbe]Vh^h ^c dg^\^cVa’+ N]Z @ZYZgVa =^gXj^i gZVhdcZY i]Vi t^i ^h jcXaZVg l]Zi]Zg ^c[g^c\ZbZci
`
`of [the claim] occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted
`
`transaction information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs when
`
`the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means
`
`to accept a displayed transaction.u Id. As a result, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim
`
`did not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and thus was invalid under
`
`Section 112. Id.
`
`Like the claim in IPXL, Claims 1 and 52 are invalid as indefinite because they
`
`impermissibly combine statutory classes of invention s apparatus and method s and thus one of
`
`- 8 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 12
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!24!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6424
`
`ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. The
`
`relevant limitation of claims 1 and 52 is as follows:
`
`a processing module for authenticating an at least one transmission sent
`from a programming transmitter and received by the programmable
`communicator device, the at least one transmission including a coded
`number and at least one telephone number or Internet Protocol (IP)
`address corresponding to an at least one monitoring device, wherein the
`processing module authenticates the at least one transmission by
`determining if the at least one transmission contains the coded number, the
`processing module authenticating the at least one transmission if the
`transmission includes the coded number;
`
`In IPXL, the Federal Circuit ruled that the claim in IPXL lVh tVbW^\jdjh VcY egdeZgan
`
`gZ_ZXiZYu jcYZg Section 112, paragraph 2, because it combined the input means with a
`
`requirement of actual use. Id. N]Z hVbZ ^h igjZ ]ZgZ7 XaV^bh . VcY 2/ XdbW^cZ V tegdXZhh^c\
`
`module for authenticatingu V igVchb^hh^dc l^i] i]Z gZfj^gZbZci i]Vi i]Z egdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZ
`
`acijVaan Vji]Zci^XViZ i]Z igVchb^hh^dc7 tl]ZgZ^c i]Z egdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZ authenticates.u N]Z
`
`difference in verb usage illustrates that the step of requiring the processing module to
`
`authenticate the transmission is actually required in the second limitation.
`
`Claims 1 and 52 could have been drafted to recite the functional ability rather than
`
`V[[^gbVi^kZan gZfj^g^c\ i]Z igVchb^hh^dc id WZ Vji]Zci^XViZY Vh [daadlh7 tl]ZgZ^c i]Z egdXZhh^c\
`
`module is capable of Vji]Zci^XVi^c\ i]Z Vi aZVhi dcZ igVchb^hh^dc ru However, claims 1 and 52
`
`were instead drafted as a hybrid of machine and process classes of invention, rendering the claim
`
`facially invalid for indefiniteness.
`
`As a result of this combination of an apparatus structural element and a method step, a
`
`manufacturer or seller of a wireless data module cannot know if such a product infringes the
`
`asserted claims of the v-.- JViZci+ Even if such a product had a processing module that was
`
`capable of authenticating the claimed transmission, the claim appears to also limit infringement
`
`- 9 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 13
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!25!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6425
`
`to only the case when the authentication process s that includes both determining if the
`
`transmission contains the coded number and authenticates the transmission if it includes the
`
`coded number s has also already occurred, and this is a method step that the manufacturer or
`
`seller may not perform or know if an eventual customer will ever use the product such that the
`
`step will be performed. In other words, it is completely ambiguous as to whether infringement
`
`occurs when one creates a programmable communicator device having a processing module that
`
`allows the recited transmission to be authenticated or whether infringement occurs when the
`
`recited transmission is actually authenticated by such a device.
`
`Because claims 1 and 52 are indefinite and all the remaining Asserted Claims depend on
`
`it, all the remaining Asserted Claims are indefinite. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software,
`
`Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although the presumption of validity applies
`
`separately to each claim, 35 U.S.C. § 282, that presumption is overcome when the claim
`
`incorporates an indefinite term, which a claim dependent on an indefinite claim does by
`
`definition. See, e.g., S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23218, at *33, *41-42
`
`(N.D. Cal. 1999); Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`V.
`
`INVALIDITY ‘ INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE OF STRUCTURE FOR
`FUNCTIONAL TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Federal Circuit in Citrix Overruled Strong Presumption Claims Not Subject
`YU 9KGTX =RZX 3ZTIYOUT ?ZRKX OL aSKGTXb .HXKTY
`
`This June, the Federal Circuit overruled a long line of cases that imposed a strong
`
`egZhjbei^dc i]Vi V XaV^b iZgb l^i]dji i]Z ldgY tbZVchu ^h cdi V tbZVch-plus-[jcXi^dcu iZgb+
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459 at *7 (Fed. Cir. June 16,
`
`/-.2’+ ;h hZi [dgi] ^c [jgi]Zg YZiV^a ^c >Z[ZcYVcihw Gdi^dc [dg LZXdch^YZgVi^dc d[ i]Z =djgiwh
`
`Claim =dchigjXi^dch d[ tJgdXZhh^c\ GdYjaZu VcY tJgd\gVbbVWaZ CciZg[VXZ)u WVhZY dc i]Z
`
`Federal Circuit en banc decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online &tLZXdch^YZgVi^dc Gdi^dcu) >+C+
`
`- 10 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 14
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!26!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6426
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 15
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!27!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6427
`
`Ex. A, v-.- JViZci) XaV^bh . VcY 20+ The processing module is used in connection with other
`
`[jcXi^dch Vh lZaa &Z+\+) id egdXZhh ti]Z gZXZ^kZY YViV+u &Ex. A, v-.- JViZci) claim 64)).
`
`N]Z egZ[^m tegdXZhh^c\u ^c i]Z a^b^iVi^dc XZgiV^can YdZh cdi ^beVgi Vcn heZX^[^X higjXijgZh
`
`Wn \ZcZg^X gZ[ZgZcXZh id egdXZhh^c\+ M^b^aVgan) i]Z e]gVhZ tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu VcY i]Z
`
`egZ[^m tbZbdgnu Yd cdi ^beVgi hj[[^X^Zci higjXijgZ Wn \ZcZg^XVaan gZ[Zgencing interfaces,
`
`programmability and memory.
`
`Second, the functions claimed do not add any structure beyond a high level description of
`
`]dl i]Z VhhdX^ViZY tVji]Zci^XVi^c\)u tZhiVWa^h]^c\)u VcY thidg^c\u [jcXi^dch VgZ eZg[dgbZY+ Cc
`
`i]Z XVhZ d[ tVji]Zci^XVi^c\)u i]Z claim only states that it would perform another function:
`
`tYZiZgb^c^c\ ^[ i]Z Vi aZVhi dcZ igVchb^hh^dc XdciV^ch i]Z XdYZY cjbWZg+u N]^h egdk^YZh cd
`
`specific indication how i]Z tVji]Zci^XVi^c\u ldjaY WZ eZg[dgbZY WZndcY YZiZgb^c^c\ ^i ^cXajYZh
`
`a coded number. No algorithm, no electronic components, or other structural limitations are
`
`^cXajYZY ^c i]Z XaV^bh+ F^‘Zl^hZ) tZhiVWa^h]^c\ V Xdbbjc^XVi^dc a^c‘u ^h bZgZan V ]^\]-level
`
`description of the function performed, and as indicated elsewhere herein, the claims and the
`
`specification fail to recite any electronic components or other structural limitations that perform
`
`the function of establishing a communication link. Similarly, ic i]Z XVhZ d[ thidg^c\ the at least
`
`one telephone number or IP address from the authenticated transmission as one of one or more
`
`permitted callers,u i]Z XaV^b dcan hiViZh ^c ]^\] aZkZa [jcXi^dcVa iZgbh i]Vi ^i l^aa WZ hidgZY Vh
`
`teZgb^iiZY XVaaZgh+u ;XXdgY^c\an) i]^h XaV^b iZgb YdZh cdi gZX^iZ ZkZc Vc ^cY^XVi^dc d[ ]dl the
`
`cjbWZgh l^aa WZ hidgZY tVh dcZ dg bdgZ eZgb^iiZY XVaaZgh+u ;XXdgY^c\an) i]Z cdl lZV‘ZcZY
`
`presumption is rebutted, and the module limitations are subject to § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`- 12 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 16
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!28!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6428
`
`C.
`
`No Structure Disclosed for Performing Functions Associated With The
`Functional Limitations
`
`;ai]dj\] i]Z tegdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZ)u tegd\gVbbVWaZ ^ciZg[VXZu VcY tbZbdgn bdYjaZu
`
`terms are subject to means-plus-function requirements, neither the claims nor specification recite
`
`any structure for performing their corresponding functions. Accordingly, the claims are invalid.
`
`Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. The court must first
`
`identify the claimed function. Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL
`
`3687459 at *9 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015). Then, it must be determine what structure, if any,
`
`disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. Where there are multiple
`
`claimed functions, the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of
`
`the claimed functions. Id. If the patentee fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, the
`
`claim is indefinite. Id.
`
`While this analysis is undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, knowledge of such a person cannot be used as a substitute for the disclosure or linking
`
`requirements. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`&tN]^h XdcXajh^dc ^h cdi ^cXdch^hiZci l^i] i]Z [VXi i]Vi i]Z ‘cdlaZY\Z d[ dcZ h‘^aaZY ^c i]Z
`
`particular art may be used to understand what struXijgZ&h’ i]Z heZX^[^XVi^dc Y^hXadhZhr WZXVjhZ
`
`such resources may only be employed in relation to structure that is disclosed in the
`
`heZX^[^XVi^dc+u’ N]Z fjZhi^dc ^h tl]Zi]Zg dcZ d[ h‘^aa ^c i]Z Vgi ldjaY jcYZghiVcY i]Z
`
`specification itself to disclose the structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of
`
`^beaZbZci^c\ i]Vi higjXijgZ+u MZZ) Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`In cases where the function requires a computer programmed to perform particular
`
`functions pursuant to instructions from program software, the specification must disclose an
`
`- 13 -
`
`Sierra Wireless EX 1020 p 17
`
`

`
`Ecug!2<23.ex.11141.TIC!!!Fqewogpv!29;!!!Hkngf!18034026!!!Rcig!29!qh!32!RcigKF!$<!6429
`
`algorithm. Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459 at *21 (Fed.
`
`Cir. June 16, 2015); ,RKSTPERCT =GEJS( ,USTM( 9TY 5TF( V( 3OT[M 1CNG =GEJ(, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing @6< 1CNKOI& 3OE( V( 3OT[M 1CNG =GEJ(, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`The algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in
`
`any other manner that provides sufficient structure. Id. at 22. The court in Citrix held that
`
`[jgi]Zg gZX^iVi^dc d[ ]^\] aZkZa [jcXi^dch hjX] Vh ti]Z XddgY^cVi^c\ [jcXi^dc egdk^YZh V egZhZciZg
`
`with higZVb^c\ bZY^V hZaZXi^dc [jcXi^dcVa^inu YdZh cdi hZi [dgi] Vc Va\dg^i]b [dg eZg[dgb^c\ i]Z
`
`claimed functions. Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459 at *10
`
`(Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015).
`
`The specification does not recite sufficient structure to perform the functions of the
`
`limitations. First, the specification recites no additional information s let alone structure s
`
`gZaVi^c\ id tVji]Zci^XVi^c\ Vc Vi aZVhi dcZ igVchb^hh^dc hZci [orm a programming transmitters and
`
`gZXZ^kZY r Wn YZiZgb^c^c\ ^[ i]Z Vi aZVhi dcZ igVchb^hh^dc ^cXajYZh i]Z XdYZY cjbWZg+u N]^h
`
`high level function description itself does not provide an algorithm for determining if the
`
`transmission includes a coded number+ CcYZZY) tYZiZgb^c^c\ V igVchb^hh^dc ^cXajYZh V XdYZY
`
`cjbWZgu ^h cdi Vc Va\dg^i]b) Vh ^i egdk^YZh cd hiZeh dg Vcn heZX^[^X egdXZhhZh [dg eZg[dgb^c\ i]^h
`
`[jcXi^dc+ N]Z heZX^[^XVi^dc dcan bZci^dch tegdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZu dcXZ [dg V Y^[[ZgZci [jcXi^dc s
`
`for generating alarms, not authentication. Ex. A, v-.- JViZci) .-720-55. M2M agreed that the
`
`alarm generating processing module is not the claimed processing module for authentication.
`
`>+C+ 35 Vi 36+ N]Z iZgb tegdXZhh^c\ bdYjaZu l^i] i]Z [jcXi^dc d[ tVji]Zci^XVi^c\u lVh VYYZY id
`
`the Abstract of an application that led to O+M+ JViZci Hd+ 4)250)