Case 2:12-cv-00832-RSP Document 384 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 12736
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-832-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-259-JRG-RSP
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-258-JRG-RSP
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`v.
`SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Before
`
`the Court
`
`is Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`Noninfringement of the ‘946 and ‘428 Patents (Dkt. 246, the “Motion”).
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
`
`dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Any evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
`
`nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v.
`
`S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). Summary judgment is proper when there is no
`
`genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “By its very
`
`terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1011
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-RSP Document 384 Filed 11/07/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 12737
`
`parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
`
`requirement is that there be no genuine [dispute] of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-
`
`48. The substantive law identifies the material facts, and disputes over facts that are irrelevant or
`
`unnecessary will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 248. A dispute about a
`
`material fact is “genuine” when the evidence is “such that a reasonable jury could return a
`
`verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The moving party must identify the basis for granting
`
`summary judgment and evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material
`
`fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
`
`The ‘946 Patent
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Apple first requests summary judgment of noninfringement as to the ‘946 Patent. Apple
`
`urges that the Court must act on what it alleges is a claim construction dispute regarding the term
`
`“retransmission.” The Court first observes that both now and at the claim construction stage of
`
`this case, Apple and MTEL have continually agreed that the term “retransmission” should be
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning. Apple contends that it is nevertheless “improper to
`
`characterize this as a factual dispute simply because Apple and MTel contend that the claim term
`
`‘retransmission’ should be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” citing O2Micro Int’l Ltd. v.
`
`Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in support of that
`
`proposition. The nature of the dispute before the Court is distinguishable from O2 Micro.
`
`Nevertheless, the Court’s analysis need not end there.
`
`Given that both parties contend the term has its plain and ordinary meaning, the question
`
`presented to the Court by Apple is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “retransmission” to require that a retransmission “can
`
`only occur after a first transmission of the message from the communications network to the
`
`- 2 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1011
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-RSP Document 384 Filed 11/07/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 12738
`
`mobile unit.” (Dkt. 298 at 1 (emphasis in original).) The Court does not believe that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term “retransmission” includes the limitations urged by Apple. Indeed,
`
`even the specification of the ‘946 Patent uses retransmission in a manner inconsistent with the
`
`additional limitations urged by Apple. See ’946 Patent at 8:43-53.
`
`Accordingly, the court construes the term “retransmission” to have its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, and further finds that the plain and ordinary meaning of “retransmission” is not so
`
`limited as to require that a retransmission “can only occur after a first transmission of the
`
`message from the communications network to the mobile unit.”1
`
`The remaining dispute outlined by Apple with regard to the ‘946 Patent (comparing the
`
`properly construed claims to the accused instrumentalities) is simply a question of infringement
`
`that is a question of fact for the jury. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F. 3d 967, 976
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). The Court finds that, when viewing the summary judgment evidence in the
`
`light most favorable to the non-movant, a genuine factual dispute exists with regard to the
`
`question of infringement of the ‘946 Patent.
`
`The ‘428 Patent
`
`Apple also requests summary judgment of noninfringement as to the ‘428 Patent. Apple
`
`contends that because its “flush messages” do not serve to locate a mobile unit, they do not
`
`qualify as “probe messages.” In doing so, Apple implicitly argues that the Court’s construction
`
`of “a message that is generated to locate a mobile unit” for “probe message” requires that the
`
`message include or return a location. (See, e.g., Dkt. 285-2 at ¶175, 181.) The Court has
`
`previously declined to endorse this position. (See Dkt. 162 at 47 (“[t]he intrinsic evidence thus
`
`consistently demonstrates that although a probe message need not itself specify a location or
`
`1 Nothing in this ruling should be read to imply that Apple may not argue to the jury that Apple’s accused
`instrumentalities do not meet this or other limitations of the ‘946 Patent.
`
`- 3 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1011
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-00832-RSP Document 384 Filed 11/07/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 12739
`
`contain location information, a probe message is generated for locating a mobile unit.”)) The
`
`Court finds that, when viewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the
`
`non-movant, there exists a genuine factual dispute with regard to infringement of the ‘428 Patent.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
` For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`Noninfringement of the ‘946 and ‘428 Patents (Dkt. 246) is hereby DENIED.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1011
`Page 4 of 4