Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 74 PageID #: 3800
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECH., LLC, ET AL.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO.
` 2:17-cv-123-JRG-RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On December 1, 2017, the Court held an oral hearing to determine the proper construction
`
`of the disputed claim terms in the following U.S. Patents Nos. 6,604,216 (the “’216
`
`Patent”), 7,769,238 (the “’238 Patent”), 7,940,851 (the “’851 Patent”), 8,358,284 (the “’284
`
`Patent”), and 8,437,293 (the “’293 Patent”). The Court has considered the parties’ claim
`
`construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 94, 101, and 102) and arguments. Based on the intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence, the Court construes the disputed terms in this Memorandum and Order. See
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and PanOptis
`
`Patent Management, LLC (collectively “PanOptis”) has asserted seven patents against Defendants
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 74 PageID #: 3801
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc. and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (collectively “Huawei”). Five of the seven
`
`asserted patents have terms in dispute: the ’216 Patent, the ’238 Patent, the ’851 Patent, the ’284
`
`Patent and the ’293 Patent.
`
`The ’238 Patent relates generally to encoding and decoding video. The Abstract of the ’238
`
`Patent recites:
`
`The method includes the following units: a coefficient number detecting unit (109)
`for detecting the number of coefficients which has a value other than 0 for each
`block according to the generated coefficient, a coefficient number storing unit (110)
`for storing the number of coefficients detected, a coefficient number coding unit
`(111) for selecting a table for variable length coding based on the numbers of
`coefficients in the coded blocks located on the periphery of a current block to be
`coded with reference to the selected table for variable length coding so as to perform
`variable length coding for the number of coefficients.
`
`’238 Patent Abstract. More particularly, the ’238 Patent describes prior art techniques of dividing
`
`a picture into blocks. Data compression techniques are then applied to the blocks. Id. at 1:18-27.
`
`This may result in a representation of the data as a matrix of coefficients, having zero and non-
`
`zero coefficients. Id. at 28-38. A variable length coding (VLC) table is used to encode the
`
`information by providing the number of non-zero coefficients in a block with a code number. The
`
`’238 Patent describes the use of multiple VLC tables. Id. at 10:5-11:10. Based upon a prediction
`
`of a block, a different VLC table is chosen for use for a particular block. Id.
`
`The ’216 Patent relates generally to techniques for redundancy error correction in
`
`telecommunication transmissions. ’216 Patent 1:15-21. The Abstract of the ’216 Patent recites:
`
`A wireless communications system, transmitter, receiver and method are provided
`that are capable of supporting incremental redundancy error handling schemes
`using available gross rate channels. More specifically, the transmitter includes a
`coding circuit for coding a digital data block and generating a mother code word,
`and a reordering circuit for reordering the mother code word and generating a
`reordered mother code word. The transmitter also includes a modulating circuit for
`modulating at least one subsequence each of which has a desired number of bits
`taken from the reordered mother code word to fill the available bandwidth of at
`least one available gross rate channel. The transmitter continues to forward the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 74 PageID #: 3802
`
`modulated subsequences to the receiver until the receiver successfully decodes the
`digital data block.
`
`Id. at Abstract. More particularly, the ’216 Patent describes that a digital data block is coded to
`
`generate a mother code word which is then reordered. Id. at 4:32-36. A subsequence of the
`
`reordered mother code word may then be transmitted. The number of bits of the subsequence is
`
`chosen so as to fit the available bandwidth of a gross rate channel over which the data is
`
`transmitted. Id. at 36-46.
`
`The ’851 Patent relates generally to sending channel quality information (CQI) reports
`
`between a wireless receiving unit and a transmitting unit. ’851 Patent 1:5-56. The Abstract of the
`
`’851 Patent recites:
`
`A radio communication apparatus and an associated method are provided. The
`apparatus includes a receiving unit configured to receive first data and second data,
`which are transmitted from a plurality of antennas for spatial-multiplexing using a
`plurality of blocks, into which a plurality of consecutive subcarriers in a frequency
`domain are divided. The apparatus further includes a calculating unit configured to
`calculate a first absolute CQI value per each of the blocks for the first data and a
`second absolute CQI value per each of the blocks for the second data, and calculate
`a relative value of the second absolute CQI value with respect to the first absolute
`CQI value, per each of the blocks. The apparatus still further includes a transmitting
`unit configured to transmit the first absolute CQI value and the relative value of the
`second absolute CQI value in the same block.
`
`Id. at Abstract. More particularly, the ’851 Patent describes that increasing the amount of CQI
`
`provided between a receiver and transmitter can undesirably consume system resources. Id at 1:45-
`
`56. The ’851 Patent describes data being sent in blocks or “chunks.” Id. at 6:1-9, Figure 4. The
`
`CQI sent for streams of data may be reduced by sending an absolute CQI value for one stream (the
`
`“reference” stream) and only sending relative CQI values for the other streams. Id. The relative
`
`CQI may be given as a value relative to the absolute value of the reference stream. Id. at 6:1-21.
`
`Because the amount of information in the relative CQI data may be less than the absolute CQI
`
`data, the amount of CQI data sent may be less.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 4 of 74 PageID #: 3803
`
`The ’284 Patent relates generally to control information provided on a control channel
`
`between a mobile station and a base station. The Abstract of the ’284 Patent recites:
`
`The invention relates to a method for providing control signalling associated to a
`protocol data unit conveying user data in a mobile communication system and to
`the control channel signal itself. Furthermore, the invention also provides a mobile
`station and a base station and their respective operation in view of the newly defined
`control channel signals defined herein. In order to reduce the control channel
`overhead, the invention suggests defining a common field for the transport format
`and redundancy version in the control channel information format. According to
`one approach, the common field is used to jointly encode transport format and
`redundancy version therein. According to another aspect, one shared field is
`provided on the control channel signal that indicates either a transport format or a
`redundancy version depending of whether the control channel signal relates to an
`initial
`transmission or a retransmission. In another embodiment, further
`enhancements to a HARQ protocol are suggested for addressing certain error cases.
`
`’284 Patent Abstract. More particularly, the ’284 Patent describes that in the prior art it was known
`
`that control signaling information sent between a base station and mobile station included the
`
`“transport format” and the “redundancy version.” Id. at 3:21-4:21. The ’284 Patent describes a
`
`method in which the control channel information is formatted in a manner such that the transport
`
`format and redundancy version information is provided in a single field in the control channel
`
`information. Id. at 6:65-7:14. Further, the control channel information field bits may provide joint
`
`encoding of the transport format and redundancy version. Id. at 7:15-22.
`
`The ’293 Patent relates generally to scheduling the transmission of information between a
`
`mobile terminal (UE) and a base station. The Abstract of the ’293 Patent recites:
`
`Aspects of the present invention relate to the scheduling of resources in a
`telecommunication system that includes a mobile terminal and base station. In one
`embodiment, the mobile terminal sends an initial scheduling request to a base
`station. Subsequently, the mobile terminal does not transmit a scheduling request
`to the base station unless and until a scheduling request triggering event is detected.
`
`’293 Patent Abstract. More particularly, the ’293 Patent describes that it is known in the prior art
`
`that when a transmit buffer of a mobile terminal has information to send, the mobile terminal may
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 5 of 74 PageID #: 3804
`
`send a scheduling request (SR) to the base station. The base station may then assign resources to
`
`the mobile terminal over which to transmit the data by sending a scheduling grant (SG) to the
`
`mobile terminal. After the grant of resources, the mobile terminal may also send a buffer status
`
`report that contains more information on the buffer status than included in the scheduling request.
`
`Id. at 1:48-2:61, Figures 2 and 3. The ’293 Patent describes an addition to the process in which a
`
`scheduling request trigger event is used. After transmitting buffer status information to a base
`
`station, the mobile terminal may determine that a scheduling request triggering event has occurred.
`
`The scheduling request triggering event may be based on determining (1) if additional data has
`
`become available to send, (2) an amount of time has elapsed since the first scheduling request, or
`
`(3) the amount of data in the transmit buffer exceeds a threshold. If a scheduling request trigger
`
`event occurs, then the mobile terminal transmits a second scheduling request to the base station.
`
`Id. at 3:5-33.
`
`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)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
`
`considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; 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. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
`
`term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 6 of 74 PageID #: 3805
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure
`
`Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There is a heavy presumption
`
`that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”)
`
`(vacated on other grounds).
`
` “The claim construction inquiry. . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`“[I]n all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)). A term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`Other asserted or unasserted claims can also 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. (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (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.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 7 of 74 PageID #: 3806
`
`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)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is
`
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if
`
`it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
`
`and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic
`
`Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution
`
`history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also 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 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). 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 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 8 of 74 PageID #: 3807
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court recently explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim
`
`construction:
`
`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. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). 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 underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman,
`and this subsidiary fact finding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`A. Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either
`
`in the specification or during prosecution.”1 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the
`
`plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding
`
`lexicography or disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`
`1 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the general rule,
`such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to cover the corresponding
`structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 9 of 74 PageID #: 3808
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`B. Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA)
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6;
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`
`relevant portion). Section 112, Paragraph 6, provides that a structure may be claimed as a “means
`
`. . . for performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for performing
`
`a specified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`But § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to all functional claim language. There is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies when the claim language includes “means” or “step for” terms,
`
`and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326;
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls according to whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 10 of 74 PageID #: 3809
`
`the entire specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function.
`
`See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§
`
`112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites
`
`sufficiently definite structure” (quotation marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349;
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); Williamson, 792 F.3d
`
`at 1349 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the words of the claim are understood by persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”); Masco
`
`Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes an “act” corresponding
`
`to “how the function is performed”); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. International
`
`Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim
`
`includes “sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited
`
`function . . . even if the claim uses the term ‘means.’” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
`
`When it applies, § 112, ¶ 6 limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a means-plus-function limitation
`
`involves multiple steps. “The first step . . . is a determination of the function of the means-plus-
`
`function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is
`
`‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates
`
`that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure”
`
`inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather
`
`whether the corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 11 of 74 PageID #: 3810
`
`Id. The corresponding structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited
`
`function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005). However, § 112 does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written description
`
`beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem.
`
`Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`For § 112, ¶ 6 limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an
`
`algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather
`
`the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs.
`
`Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`C. Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA)
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence,
`
`must “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). If it does not, the claim
`
`fails § 112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid as indefinite. Id. at 2124. Whether a claim is indefinite is
`
`determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application for
`
`the patent was filed. Id. at 2130. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any
`
`claim in suit to comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 2130
`
`n.10. “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v.
`
`Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent
`
`provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 12 of 74 PageID #: 3811
`
`F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when a subjective term is
`
`used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some
`
`standard for measuring the scope of the [term].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417
`
`F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005); accord Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1351).
`
`In the context of a claim governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the claim is invalid as indefinite
`
`if the claim fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions.
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351–52. The disclosure is inadequate when one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art “would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the
`
`corresponding function in the claim.” Id. at 1352.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`Prior to the oral hearing, the parties agreed to the following terms:
`
`Term
`“incremental redundancy”
`
` (’216 Patent claims 12, 13, 19)
`
`“second available gross rate channel”
`
`(’216 Patent claim 20)
`“transport format”
`
`(’284 Patent claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 15, 16, 20,
`27, 28, 29)
`“serially multiplexing first control signals and
`data signals . . ., wherein the first control
`signals are placed at a front part of the
`
`Agreed Construction
`“transmission scheme whereby the
`transmissions are of sets of coded bits from
`the same digital data block, and where, in
`the case of retransmissions, previously
`received sets of coded bits are stored at the
`receiver to be combined with a
`subsequently received set of coded bits,
`which may or may not be identical to a
`previously transmitted set of coded bits”
`“second available gross bit rate channel,
`which may have different available bandwidth
`from the first available gross bit rate channel”
`“transport format, transport block size,
`payload size, or modulation and coding
`scheme”
`
`
`
`“First control signals and data signals are
`mapped with a sequence in which one is
`directly after the other, wherein the first
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 13 of 74 PageID #: 3812
`
`multiplexed signals and the data signals are
`placed at a rear part of the multiplexed
`signals”
`
`(’833 Patent claim 1)
`
`“mapping” / “mapped”
`
`(’833 Patent claims 1, 8)
`“mapping the multiplexed signals to”
`
`(’833 Patent claims 1, 8)
`
`“mapping ACK/NACK control signals to”
`
`(’833 Patent claim 1)
`
`“the ACK/NACK control signals overwrite
`some of the multiplexed signals mapped to
`the 2-dimensional resource matrix at step (b)
`from the last row of the specific columns”
`
`(’833 Patent claims 1, 8)
`
`“serially multiplexing first control signals and
`data signals, wherein the first control signals
`are placed at a front part of the multiplexed
`signals and the data signals are placed at a
`rear part of the multiplexed signals”
`
`(’833 Patent claim 8)
`
`“single carrier frequency divisional multiple
`access (SC-FDMA) and subcarriers for each
`SC-FDMA symbol”
`
`control signals are placed at a front part of the
`multiplexed signals and the data signals are
`placed at a rear part of the multiplexed
`signals”
`
`See Optis Cellular Tech. et al. v. Kyocera et
`al., 2:16-cv-0059-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 108 at 30
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017) (“Kyocera CC
`Order”).
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 26.
`“after placing the first control signals and the
`data signals [in step (a)], mapping the
`multiplexed signals to”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 26.
`“after mapping the multiplexed signals [in
`step (b)], mapping ACK/NACK control
`signals to”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 26.
`“(1) Some of the multiplexed signals, from
`the last row of the specific columns of the 2-
`dimensional resource matrix, are skipped and
`the corresponding ACK/NACK signals are
`mapped, and (2) the length of the entire
`information is maintained equally even after
`the ACK/NACK control signals are inserted”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 36.
`“First control signals and data signals are
`mapped with a sequence in which one is
`directly after the other, wherein the first
`control signals are placed at a front part of the
`multiplexed signals and the data signals are
`placed at a rear part of the multiplexed
`signals”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 30.
`“single carrier frequency divisional multiple
`access (SC-FDMA) symbols2 and subcarriers
`for each SC-FDMA symbol”
`
`
`2 The parties’ Joint Chart further states: “Plaintiffs seek correction of this claim language in the ’833 patent
`to add the term ‘symbols.’ A typographical error inadvertently omitted the term during prosecution.
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 14 of 74 PageID #: 3813
`
`
`(’833 Patent claim 8)
`“scheduling request triggering event”
`
`(’293 Patent claim 1, 12, 20)
`
`“data processor”
`
`(’293 Patent claim 12)
`“means for transmitting…to [a/the] base
`station”
`
`(’293 Patent claim 20)
`
`“means for receiving…from the base station”
`
`(’293 Patent claim 20)
`
`“triggering event detection means for
`determining whether a scheduling request
`triggering event has occurred”
`
`(’293 Patent claim 20)
`
`“a predefined condition that triggers a
`scheduling request”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 42.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 49.
`This claim term should be governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6) and the parties identify one or
`more of the following structure(s), act(s), or
`materials correspond to this claim term:
`
`Structure: FIG. 7 (700 incl. “Transceiver” and
`antenna), col. 9:53-55, and/or equivalents
`thereof.
`
`Function: “transmitting to a/the base station”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 10.
`This claim term should be governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6) and the parties identify one or
`more of the following structure(s), act(s), or
`materials correspond to this claim term:
`
`Structure: FIG. 7 (700 incl. “Transceiver” and
`antenna), col. 8:23-24, 9:53-55, and/or
`equivalents thereof.
`
`Function: “receiving from the base station”
`
`See Kyocera CC Order at 11.
`This claim term should be governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6) and the parties identify one or
`more of the following structure(s), act(s), or
`materials correspond to this claim term:
`
`Structure: a data processor executing
`software, as described in connection with data
`processor 706 and software 708 of FIG. 7 and
`at col. 9:48-53, implementing the algorithm
`
`
`Plaintiffs submitted supporting case law and facts in the parties Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement. See Dkt. 89-1 at 4, n.1. A certificate of correction was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office on Nov. 7, 2017 correcting the ‘833 patent, claim 8 to now include the omitted term ‘symbols.’”
`(Dkt. No. 106-1 at 40, n.2.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 01/18/18 Page 15 of 74 PageID #: 3814
`
`“means for comparing the transmit buffer
`status information transmitted to the base
`station with new information concerning the
`status of the transmit buffer”
`
`(’293 Pat