Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 136 PageID #: 5835
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`On December 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 5,581,804, 5,754,946, 5,809,428, and
`
`5,894,506. Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim
`
`construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 99, 115, and 119),1 having considered the intrinsic evidence, and
`
`having made subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
`page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-CV-2-JRG-RSP
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`GOOGLE 1008
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 136 PageID #: 5836
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ......................................................................... 11
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PAT. NO. 5,581,804 ................... 11
`
`A. “base transmitter(s),” “base receiver(s),” “base [device],” and “mobile [device]”
`(Terms 46, 48-50) ............................................................................................................... 11
`
`B. “set of base transmitters” (Term 47) ................................................................................... 18
`
`C. “systemwide probe signal” (Term 51) ................................................................................ 20
`
`D. “registration signal” (Term 52) ........................................................................................... 22
`
`E. “disable the mobile transceiver’s capability to transmit a registration signal” (Term 53) .. 25
`
`F. “locating a mobile transceiver within a region of space” (Term 56) and “retransmitting
`the message signal in the zone where the mobile transceiver was last known to be
`located using an error correcting code when the network determines” (Term 59) ............. 27
`
`G. Preambles of Claims 5 and 10 (Term 45) ........................................................................... 30
`
`H. “processing the stored number of registration signals . . .” (Term 54) and “sending a
`message to the mobile transceiver to disable . . .” (Term 55) ............................................. 33
`
`I. “weak signal area” Terms (Terms 57, 58) ............................................................................ 36
`
`J. Order of Steps in Claims 5-8 and 10 (Term 60) ................................................................... 38
`
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PAT. NO. 5,754,946 .................... 40
`
`K. Terms 61-68, 71, 73, 74 ...................................................................................................... 40
`
`(a) Preambles of Claims 1 and 8 of the ’946 Patent (Term 61) ........................................... 47
`
`(b) Order of Steps in Claim 8 of the ’946 Patent (Term 71) ................................................ 47
`
`(c) “retransmission” (Terms 62, 63) .................................................................................... 47
`
`(d) “switch actuatable” (Term 64) ....................................................................................... 49
`
`(e) “said message” and “displayed message” (Terms 65, 66).............................................. 50
`
`(f) “a portion of [the/a] [displayed] message for which a user desires retransmission”
`(Term 67) ........................................................................................................................ 50
`
`(g) “mobile unit” (Term 68) ................................................................................................. 50
`
`(h) “means for transmitting . . .” and “means for receiving . . .” (Terms 73, 74) ................ 51
`
`L. “(means for) detecting errors in the received message” (Terms 69, 75) ............................. 53
`
`M. Terms 72, 76-79 ................................................................................................................. 56
`
`(a) “means for receiving a radio frequency message from the network” (Claim 1; Term
`72) ................................................................................................................................... 62
`
`(b) “means for highlighting said errors when the message is displayed on said display”
`(Claim 2; Term 76) ......................................................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 3 of 136 PageID #: 5837
`
`(c) “means for transmitting radio frequency signals containing a message to the mobile
`unit” (Claim 7; Term 77) ................................................................................................ 63
`
`(d) “means for retransmitting radio frequency signals containing the portion of the
`message to the mobile unit” (Claim 7; Term 78) ............................................................ 64
`
`(e) “means for receiving, from the mobile unit, radio frequency signals representing a
`portion of the message that the user desires retransmission” (Claim 7, Term 79) ......... 64
`
`VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PAT. NO. 5,894,506 ................... 66
`
`N. “canned message,” “message code,” “message code form,” and Related Terms, and
`Order of Steps (Terms 21, 22, 26, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) .................................................. 66
`
`(a) “canned message” (Claims 1-11, 13, 15-21; Term 21) .................................................. 74
`
`(b) “message code” and “message code form” (Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 19-21;
`Term 22) .......................................................................................................................... 75
`
`(c) “determining whether the second terminal can receive the canned message in a text
`form or message code form” (Claims 1, 15; Term 25) ................................................... 75
`
`(d) “selecting an appropriate canned message from the second file for transmission to
`the second terminal” (Claim 8; Term 26) ....................................................................... 76
`
`(e) Order of Steps in Claims 1-14 (Term 29) ....................................................................... 76
`
`(f) “means for retrieving the file of canned messages and the file of canned multiple
`response options from the memory” (Claim 19; Term 35) ............................................. 77
`
`(g) “means for retrieving the file of canned messages and message codes from the
`memory” (Claim 21; Term 36) ....................................................................................... 77
`
`(h) “means for selecting one of the canned messages and at least one of the multiple
`response options appropriate for the selected canned message for communication to
`a designated other message terminal” (Claim 19; Term 37) ........................................... 77
`
`(i) “means for selecting one of the canned messages for communication to a
`designated other message terminal and for selecting multiple response options
`appropriate for the selected canned message” (Claim 21; Term 38) .............................. 78
`
`(j) “means for adding parameters to the selected canned messages for inclusion with
`the assigned message code transmitted over the communications link” (Claim 20;
`Term 39) .......................................................................................................................... 79
`
`O. “a receiver for receiving . . .” and “a transmitter for transmitting . . .” Terms
`(Terms 40-43) ..................................................................................................................... 82
`
`P. “means responsive to the received message code for retrieving from the memory the
`canned message assigned thereto” (Term 30) ..................................................................... 88
`
`Q. “means for determining whether a receiving terminal in the network can receive the
`canned message in text form or in message code form” (Term 31) ................................... 90
`
`R. “means for updating the canned message file stored in the memory and a
`corresponding canned message file stored in a memory in at least the calling terminal”
`(Term 32) ............................................................................................................................ 92
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 4 of 136 PageID #: 5838
`
`S. “means for retrieving from the memory those canned multiple response options
`assigned to response codes received from the calling terminal by the receiver, the
`retrieved canned message and multiple response options being transmitted to the
`receiving terminal by the transmitter” (Term 33) ............................................................... 94
`
`T. “means for routing a selected canned multiple response option received from the
`receiving terminal to the calling terminal in either text or response code form” (Term
`34) ....................................................................................................................................... 97
`
`U. “a message compiler for compiling the assigned message code and the response codes
`assigned to the selected multiple response options into a message for transmission by
`the transmitter” (Term 44) .................................................................................................. 99
`
`VII. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PAT. NO. 5,809,428 ............... 102
`
`V. “probe message,” “acknowledgement” Terms, and “registration message” (Terms 2, 3,
`4, 5, 6, 7) ........................................................................................................................... 102
`
`(a) “probe message” (Claims 1, 8; Term 2) ....................................................................... 106
`
`(b) “acknowledgment to a probe message” / “probe acknowledgment message”
`(Claims 1, 8; Term 3) .................................................................................................... 106
`
`(c) “transmitting a probe message . . . if, after transmitting a data message to the
`mobile unit, no data acknowledgment message is received” (Claims 1, 8; Term 4) .... 107
`
`(d) “[marking . . . / marking at the network operations center] a data message as
`undelivered and storing the undelivered data message if, after transmitting a probe
`message to the mobile unit, no probe acknowledgment message is received”
`(Claims 1, 8; Term 5) .................................................................................................... 108
`
`(e) “acknowledgment to a data message” / “data acknowledgment message” (Claims
`1, 8; Term 6) ................................................................................................................. 108
`
`(f) “registration message” (Claims 2, 9; Term 7) .............................................................. 108
`
`W. Terms 11, 12, 19 .............................................................................................................. 110
`
`(a) “In a two-way wireless communications system, a method of . . . comprising the
`steps of: (a) transmitting . . .; (b) receiving . . .; (c) transmitting . . .; (d) marking
`. . .” (Claim 8; Term 11) ................................................................................................ 113
`
`(b) Order of Steps in Claim 8 (Term 12) ........................................................................... 113
`
`(c) “means for automatically transmitting undelivered data messages to the mobile
`unit upon receiving a registration message from the mobile unit” (Claim 1; Term
`19) ................................................................................................................................. 113
`
`X. “means for transmitting messages to the mobile unit” (Term 13) and “means for
`receiving . . .” (Terms 14, 18) ........................................................................................... 115
`
`(a) “means for transmitting messages to the mobile unit” (Claim 1; Term 13) ................. 118
`
`(b) “means for receiving acknowledgment messages from the mobile unit” (Claim 1;
`Term 14) and “means for receiving registration messages from the mobile unit”
`(Claim 2; Term 18) ....................................................................................................... 119
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 5 of 136 PageID #: 5839
`
`Y. “means for determining . . .” (Term 15), “means for transmitting . . .” (Term 16), and
`“means for marking . . .” (Term 17) ................................................................................. 120
`
`(a) “means for determining whether an acknowledgment message is an
`acknowledgment to a data message or an acknowledgment to a probe message”
`(’428 Patent, Claim 1; Term 15) ................................................................................... 123
`
`(b) “means for transmitting a probe message to the mobile unit if, after transmitting a
`data message to the mobile unit, no data acknowledgment message is received”
`(’428 Patent, Claim 1; Term 16) ................................................................................... 124
`
`(c) “means for marking a data message as undelivered and storing the undelivered data
`message if, after transmitting a probe message to the mobile unit, no probe
`acknowledgment message is received” (’428 Patent, Claim 1; Term 17) .................... 125
`
`Z. “dial-in access” (Terms 10, 20) ......................................................................................... 127
`
`AA. Preambles of Claims 1 and 8 (Term 1) .......................................................................... 131
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 134
`
`APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 136
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 6 of 136 PageID #: 5840
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 5,581,804 (“the ’804
`
`Patent”), 5,754,946 (“the ’946 Patent”), 5,809,428 (“the ’428 Patent”), and 5,894,506 (“the ’506
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit relate to wireless
`
`communications.
`
`
`
`The Court previously construed terms in the asserted patents in:
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Clearwire Corp., et al.,
`No. 2:12-CV-308, Dkt. No. 72 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2013)
`(“Clearwire”);
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`et al., No. 2:12-CV-832, Dkt. No. 162 (E.D. Tex. May 2, 2014)
`(“Sprint”), Civil Action Nos. 2:13-CV-258 (consolidated with
`Sprint and sometimes referred to as the “Apple” case), 2:13-CV-
`259 (consolidated with Sprint and sometimes referred to as the
`“Samsung” case or as “MTel I”);
`
`Sprint, Dkt. No. 384 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) (“Apple Summary Judgment
`Order”);
`
`MTel I, Dkt. No. 81 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2014) (“Samsung Supplemental
`Order”);
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
`2:13-CV-883, Dkt. No. 79 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2014) (“Amazon”);
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`et al., No. 2:13-CV-886, Dkt. No. 108 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2015)
`(“T-Mobile”);
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm USA, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-947, Dkt. No. 94 (E.D. Tex.
`May 13, 2015) (“LG”);
`
` Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Leap Wireless
`International, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-CV-885, Dkt. No. 114 (E.D.
`Tex. May 13, 2015) (“Leap,” which has sometimes been referred
`to as “Cricket”); and
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:13-CV-946, Dkt. No. 149 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2016) (“ZTE,”
`or sometimes referred to by the parties here as “HTC”).
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 7 of 136 PageID #: 5841
`
`
`
`The asserted patents have also been construed by the Northern District of Texas in
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1652, Dkt.
`
`No. 244 (N.D. Tex. May 8, 2015) (Lynn, J.) (“Blackberry”).
`
`
`
`One of the Defendants in the above-captioned litigation, Microsoft Corp., has reached a
`
`settlement with Plaintiff. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 116. Thus, the only remaining active Defendant is
`
`Google Inc. For convenience, the present Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`
`nonetheless continues to refer to “Defendants” in the plural.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the December 2, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are set forth below within the discussion for each
`
`term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the
`
`court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to
`
`look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to
`
`understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art
`
`during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841
`
`(2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need
`
`to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 8 of 136 PageID #: 5842
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
`
`factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312-13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 9 of 136 PageID #: 5843
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 10 of 136 PageID #:
` 5844
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`
`
`In general, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit are
`
`“entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals
`
`articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable
`
`per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
`
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP Development, LLC v. Inuit Inc., No. 2:12-
`
`CV-180, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J.) (“[P]revious claim
`
`constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial weight, and the Court
`
`has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a strong reason for doing
`
`so.”); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 839-40 (2015) (“prior
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 11 of 136 PageID #:
` 5845
`
`cases will sometimes be binding because of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as
`
`persuasive authority”) (citation omitted); Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting “the importance of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent”)
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996)).
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties reached agreement on constructions as stated in their September 9, 2016 Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 78, Ex. A) and their November 23, 2016
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A). Those agreements are set forth in
`
`Appendix A to the present Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PAT. NO. 5,581,804
`
`
`
`The ’804 Patent is a divisional of United States Patent No. 5,590,403, which the Court
`
`previously construed in Clearwire, Sprint, Leap, and T-Mobile. Plaintiff submits that the Court
`
`has not previously construed any terms in the ’804 Patent. Dkt. No. 99 at 1. Terms in the ’804
`
`Patent were, however, construed by the Northern District of Texas in Blackberry.
`
`A. “base transmitter(s),” “base receiver(s),” “base [device],” and “mobile [device]”
`(Terms 46, 48-50)2
`
`
`“base transmitter(s)” (Claims 5, 10; Term 46)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“a transmitter that operates in an identifiable,
`fixed location”
`
`“transmitter(s) for direct wireless
`communication with mobile transceivers, with
`the understanding that transmitting multiple
`signals or outputs from a single structural unit
`cannot suffice as multiple transmitters”
`
`
`
`2 Term numbers set forth herein refer to the term numbers specified in the parties’ September 9,
`2016 P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Chart and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 78, Ex. B) and
`the parties’ November 23, 2016 Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A).
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 12 of 136 PageID #:
` 5846
`
`
`“base receiver(s)” (Claims 5, 10; Term 48)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“a receiver that operates in an identifiable,
`fixed location”
`
`
`“receiver(s), separate from base transmitter(s),
`capable of receiving wireless signals directly
`from mobile units”
`
`
`
`“base [device]” (Claims 5, 10; Term 49)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“describes a device that operates in an
`identifiable, fixed location”
`
`
`Not appropriate to construe the term “base” in
`isolation, separate from surrounding claim
`language.
`
`Defendants propose “base transmitter(s)” be
`construed as “transmitter(s) for direct wireless
`communication with mobile transceivers, with
`the understanding that transmitting multiple
`signals or outputs from a single structural unit
`cannot suffice as multiple transmitters”
`
`
`
`“mobile [device]” (Claims 5, 10; Term 50)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“describes a device that operates in a non-fixed
`location”
`
`
`Not appropriate to construe the term “mobile”
`in isolation, separate from surrounding claim
`language.
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 78, Ex. B at 17-18; Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A at 31-33. The parties submit that these terms
`
`appear in Claims 5 and 10 of the ’804 Patent. Dkt. No. 78, Ex. B at 17-18; Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A
`
`at 31-33.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the December 2, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary constructions:
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 13 of 136 PageID #:
` 5847
`
`Term
`
`“base transmitter” (Claims 5, 10; Term 46)
`
`
`“base receiver” (Claims 5, 10; Term 48)
`
`
`“base [device]” (Claims 5, 10; Term 49)
`
`“mobile [device]” (Claims 5, 10; Term 50)
`
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`“transmitter that operates in a fixed location
`and that can transmit wireless signals to mobile
`transceivers”
`
`“receiver that operates in a fixed location and
`that can receive wireless signals from mobile
`units”
`
`No separate construction necessary
`
`Plain meaning
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that the specification discloses that whereas “the location of the
`
`
`
`
`
`portable/mobile units may be unknown as the units move throughout the network,” “the base
`
`transmitters and receivers exist within a known location.” Dkt. No. 99 at 3 (citing ’804 Patent at
`
`10:43-46 & 19:20-22). Plaintiff also submits that “‘[w]ireless’ does not appear in the claims or
`
`the specification and the only mention of ‘radio frequency’ occurs in discussion of the mobile
`
`unit.” Dkt. No. 99 at 4.
`
`
`
`Defendants respond: (1) “[t]he ‘804 patent only discloses base transmitters and receivers
`
`that communicate wirelessly with mobile units, via antennas”; (2) “consistent with the Court’s
`
`prior construction of this term in the ‘403 patent (which is related to the ‘804 patent), . . . a single
`
`structural unit transmitting multiple signals cannot suffice as multiple transmitters”; and (3) “the
`
`intrinsic evidence shows Defendants’ proposal that ‘base receiver(s)’ be interpreted such that
`
`they are separate devices from the claimed base transmitters, is correct.” Dkt. No. 115 at 15.
`
`
`
`As to “base device,” Defendants argue that “[t]he term ‘base’ is only used in the ‘804
`
`patent in conjunction with the word ‘transmitter’ or ‘receiver,’ and its meaning will therefore be
`
`addressed in the construction of ‘base transmitter’ and ‘base receiver.’” Dkt. No. 115 at 16.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 128 Filed 12/19/16 Page 14 of 136 PageID #:
` 5848
`
`
`
`As to “mobile device,” “[a]lthough Defendants do not necessarily disagree with
`
`[Plaintiff’s] proposed construction for ‘mobile,’ [Plaintiff] offers no reason to construe that word,
`
`as the meaning of the word ‘mobile’ is not disputed.” Dkt. No. 115 at 16.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “[t]he ’804 Patent teaches that the antenna is not part of the base
`
`transmitters, but merely attached thereto.” Dkt. No. 119 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that “the
`
`identification that the term [‘base station’] is used in wireless does not limit its use to that area.”
`
`Id. at 1 n.1. Further, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants[’] reliance on ‘structural unit’ excludes
`
`the Court’s full statement” in Clearwire. Id. at 2. “Finally,” Plaintiff argues, “Defend