Case 1:12-cv-00033-RGA Document 99 Filed 11/19/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1879
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and SIERRA
`WIRELESS, INC., a Canadian corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES GMBH,
`a German limited liability company,
`CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES NAFT A
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ENFORA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`NOV ATEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS,
`INC., a Delaware corporation, and
`NOV ATEL WIRELESS, INC, a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 12-030-RGA
`
`C.A. No. 12-031-RGA
`
`C.A. No. 12-032-RGA
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.1
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00033-RGA Document 99 Filed 11/19/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1880
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, TELIT COMMUNICATIONS PLC,
`a United Kingdom public limited company, and
`TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIMCOM WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO.,
`LTD., a Chinese limited company, SIM
`TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD, a Bermuda
`limited company, MICRON ELECTRONICS
`L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company,
`and KOWATEC CORPORATION, a California
`corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 12-033-RGA
`
`C.A. No. 12-034-RGA
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`After having considered the submissions of the parties and hearing oral argument
`
`on the matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, as used in the
`
`asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,094,010 ("'010 patent"):
`
`1. The term "permitted caller" is construed to mean "a telephone number or IP
`
`address on a list of numbers that are designated to cause the programmable
`
`2
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.2
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00033-RGA Document 99 Filed 11/19/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1881
`
`communicator to accept an incoming call received from that number."
`
`2. The term "coded number" is construed to mean "a designated, unique sequence of
`
`characters."
`
`3. The term "a programmable interface" is construed to mean "an interface that is
`
`able to be directly programmed."
`
`4. The term "processing module" is construed to mean "components or units of a
`
`computer program."
`
`5. The term "monitoring device" is construed to mean "a device configured to
`
`remotely monitor a programmable communicator device and/or a monitored
`
`technical device."
`
`6. The term "wireless communications circuit for communicating through an
`
`antenna" is construed to mean "a complete wireless circuit that transmits and
`
`receives data and includes an antenna."
`
`7. The term "monitored technical device" is construed to mean "a device that
`
`provides information to the remote monitoring device through the programmable
`
`communicator device."
`
`8. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, as used in claims 92 and 94, the term "a
`
`programmable communicator device ... configured to be incorporated into the at
`
`least one monitored technical device such that it becomes an integrated part of the
`
`monitored technical device" should be construed to mean "a programmable
`
`communicator device configured to be physically embedded within a monitored
`
`technical device so as to form a single device."
`
`3
`
`I
`I
`I
`I
`t
`f
`(
`I
`I
`I
`~
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.3
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00033-RGA Document 99 Filed 11/19/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1882
`
`so ORDERED this ~ay or---'-M---"'<.(2---'V'------' 20 I 3.
`
`4
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.4
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3104
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC. and
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES
`GMBH and CINTERION WIRELESS
`MODULES NAFTA LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ENFORA, INC., NOV ATEL WIRELESS
`SOLUTIONS, INC., and NOV ATEL
`WIRELESS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-30-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 12-31-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 12-32-RGA
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.5
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3105
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., TELIT
`COMMUNICATIONS PLC, and TELIT
`WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIMCOM WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO.,
`LTD., SIM TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.,
`MICRON ELECTRONICS L.L.C., and
`KOWATEC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-33-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 12-34-RGA
`
`ORDER
`
`On November 25, 2013, M2M ("Plaintiff') filed a motion seeking clarification and
`
`reconsideration of two terms, "permitted caller" and "wireless communications circuit for
`
`communicating through an antenna," that were construed in the Court's Memorandum Opinion
`
`issued on November 12, 2013. (D.I. 92). Having reviewed PlaintiffM2M Solution LLC's
`
`Motion for Partial Clarification and Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion on
`
`2
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.6
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3106
`
`Claim Construction (D.I. 1 05) and related briefing (D.I. 1 06), it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs
`
`Motion (D.I. 105) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons that follow:
`
`1. Plaintiffs request to clarify the Court's construction of "permitted caller" is
`
`DENIED.
`
`a. To grant Plaintiffs motion, the Court must find, in its discretion, that Plaintiff
`
`demonstrated one of the following: a change in the controlling law, a need to correct a clear error
`
`of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice, or availability of new evidence not available when
`
`the judgment was granted. "Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be used as a
`
`means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter
`
`previously decided." Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., 831 F. Supp. 2d 837, 840 (D. Del.
`
`2011) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`b. Plaintiff does not allege a change in the controlling law or the availability of
`
`new evidence. The only ground for reconsideration is the identification of a clear error of law.
`
`Plaintiff contends that the "Court has inadvertently allowed for a misreading of its construction
`
`as being narrowly limited to one single type of transmission (i.e., a circuit-switched 'call') that
`
`could only possibly originate from a telephone number and never from an IP address." (D.I. 105
`
`at 4 (emphasis in original)). The Defendants respond by noting, "IP addresses are not simply
`
`addresses, rather they are a series ofnumbers known specifically as an 'IP address."' (D.I. 106
`
`at 3). The Court agrees with the Defendants that both telephone numbers and IP addresses are
`
`included within the term "numbers," as used in the Court's construction. 1
`
`c. Plaintiff also seeks to change "incoming call" to "incoming transmission"
`
`because "'transmission' is broader and more technically accurate than 'call,' and would
`
`1 The Court also notes that a construction "allowing for a misreading" falls far short of establishing "a clear error of
`law."
`
`3
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.7
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3107
`
`encompass all of the relevant types of incoming transmissions sent by 'permitted caller'
`
`telephone numbers or IP addresses including circuit-switched calls, SMS data messages, and
`
`packet-switched data messages." (D.I. 105 at 5-6). Plaintiffs concern appears to be overstated
`
`in light of the Court's rejection of portions of the Defendants' overly narrow construction on the
`
`grounds that several disclosed embodiments "are based on data messages." (D.I. 92 at 8). The
`
`Court's construction does not read those disclosed embodiments, or their accompanying data
`
`messages, out of the patent. The Court is also wary that "[b]roadening the term 'call' to
`
`'transmission' would capture return transmissions that are parts of calls or communication
`
`sessions initiated by another party," thereby including both the caller and callee device within the
`
`claim term's scope. (D.I. 106 at 4 (emphasis in original)). This construction is contrary to the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of"caller" that the Court believes to be controlling. (D.I. 92 at 7).
`
`2. Plaintiffs request to reconsider the Court's construction of"wireless communications
`
`circuit for communicating through an antenna" is GRANTED IN PART.
`
`a. Plaintiff does not allege a change in the controlling law or the availability of
`
`new evidence. The only possible ground for reconsideration is the identification of a clear error
`
`of law.
`
`b. Plaintiff alleges, among other arguments, that the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of "for communicating through an antenna" requires the Court to revisit its construction.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff contends that "[t]he fact that the '01 0 claim language expressly describes
`
`the wireless communications circuit as 'communicating through an antenna' over a
`
`communications network plainly conveys that the antenna is something different from-and not
`
`a structural component of-the wireless communications circuit." (D.I. 105 at 8 (emphasis in
`
`original)). The Defendants object, noting that all of the Plaintiffs arguments were either
`
`4
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.8
`
`

`
`•
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3108
`
`previously rejected by the Court or are positions now being heard for the first time.2 (D.I. 106 at
`
`7-9).
`
`The Court will make one modification to its earlier construction. The claim language
`
`itself requires the circuit to communicate "through an antenna." The plain meaning of "through
`
`an antenna" is "through an antenna," and this should not be read out of the claim. The
`
`construction is revised to read: "a complete wireless circuit that transmits and receives data
`
`through an antenna."3
`
`The Court's claim construction opinion (D.I. 92) is amended accordingly. Within five
`
`days the parties shall submit a proposed order, suitable for submission to the jury, reflecting this
`
`alteration.
`
`Entered this~ of January, 2014.
`
`2 The new argument is that "for communicating through an antenna" is a functional limitation, and that so long as
`the wireless communications circuit has the capability of communicating through an antenna, it need not have an
`antenna. The authorities cited for this proposition are new. The one cited Federal Circuit case, DePuy Spine, Inc. v.
`Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006), does not offer as much support for Plaintiffs
`position as Plaintiff argues. Depuy Spine found "for inserting said screw" to be a functional limitation "when read
`in view ofthe specification." /d. at 1021. In my opinion, both the language ofthe patent claim and the specification
`(to wit, the abstract) require an antenna. The only way the wireless communications circuit has of communicating
`through an antenna is if it has an antenna.
`3 The Court notes Plaintiffs earlier construction of the term at the Markman hearing was "circuitry that enables the
`sending and receiving of wireless transmissions through an antenna." (D.I. 54 at 61 (emphasis added)).
`
`5
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1211 p.9