UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1065
`
`COMPLAINANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S INITIAL CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`INTEL 1022
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................. 4
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 7
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,698,558 ............................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Background ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Claim Constructions ............................................................................................. 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“driver” ..................................................................................................... 16
`
`“based on” ................................................................................................ 17
`
`“current sense amplifier” .......................................................................... 22
`
`“envelope signal” ..................................................................................... 26
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,608,675 .......................................................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Background ............................................................................................... 30
`
`Claim Constructions ............................................................................................. 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“intra-band” .............................................................................................. 35
`
`“plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals being sent
`simultaneously” ........................................................................................ 35
`
`“power tracker” ........................................................................................ 42
`
`“single power tracking signal” ................................................................. 48
`
`VI.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,838,949 .......................................................................................... 54
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Background ............................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim Constructions ............................................................................................. 57
`
`1.
`
`“image header” ......................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`“means for receiving” limitations ............................................................. 58
`
`VII. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,633,936 .......................................................................................... 62
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Background ............................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim Constructions ............................................................................................. 64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“full data precision” .................................................................................. 65
`
`“half data precision” ................................................................................. 65
`
`“programmable streaming processor” ...................................................... 65
`
`“(conversion / executable) instruction(s) [to]… convert[] graphics
`data … [from a] (first / second / different) data precision [to a] …
`(second / first / indicated) data precision” ................................................ 74
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 77
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`(cid:38)(cid:38)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 66
`August Tech. Corp v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 20, 21
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................... 7, 60
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`No. 2016-1770, 2017 WL 5559629 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2017) ............................................... 20
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 5
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 7, 20
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................... 46
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 7
`CardioNet, Inc. v. Mednet Heathcare Techs., Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-2517, 2013 WL 6047565 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2013) ............................................... 20
`In the Matter of Certain Communications or Computing Devices
`And Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 377-TA-925, Order No. 31, 2015 WL 3452414 (U.S.I.T.C. May 19, 2015) ............ 46
`In the Matter of Certain Computers & Computer Peripheral Device
`& Components Thereof & Prod. Containing,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-841, Order No. 23, 2012 WL 4829461 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 4, 2012) .............. 47
`In the Matter of Certain Computing or Graphics Sys., Components Thereof, & Vehicles
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-984,
`Order No. 42, 2016 WL 9990813 (July 15, 2016) .................................................................. 47
`Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-796, Order No. 16, 2012 WL 754088
`(U.S.I.T.C. Mar. 6, 2012) .................................................................................................. 4, 5, 6
`Certain Equipment for Communications Networks, Including Switches,
`Routers, Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems,
`IP Phones, and Products Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-778, Order No. 21, 2012 WL642717 (U.S.I.T.C. Feb. 14, 2012) ... 73, 74, 77
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters & Prod.
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-615, Final Determination,
`2010 WL 1918555 (U.S.I.T.C. Apr. 1, 2010) .................................................................. passim
`In the Matter of Certain Printing & Imaging Devices & Components
`Thereof, Inv. No. 377-TA-690, Final Determination,
`2011 WL 7628059 (U.S.I.T.C. Nov. 1, 2011) ......................................................................... 46
`In the Matter of Certain Radio Frequency Identification (Rfid)
`Prod. & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-979, Initial Determination,
`2017 WL 3331737 (June 22, 2017) ......................................................................................... 20
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 62
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 6
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 43, 44
`Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc.,
`639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 66
`Innova/PureWater, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 5
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 6
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 61
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 66
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
`aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ..................................................................................................... 4, 5
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................................ 7, 20
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 66
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 36
`Omega Eng’g Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................... 6, 76
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................ passim
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 72
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 4
`Secure Web Conf. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`640 Fed. Appx. 910 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 66
`Via Vadis, LLC v. Buffalo Ams., Inc.,
`No. A-14-CV-808-LY, 2016 WL 5239626 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2016) ................................ 20
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 5, 18, 36
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................... 61
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 43
`Statutory Authorities
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) .......................................................................................................................... 50
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ......................................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) .......................................................................................................................... 45
`Rules
`Ground Rule 8.1 .......................................................................................................................... 42
`Ground Rule 8.4 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`QX-3
`QX-4
`QX-5
`QX-6
`
`QX-7
`
`QX-8
`QX-9
`QX-10
`
`Exhibit Number Name
`JDX-1
`Joint Claim Construction Chart (Nov. 20, 2017)
`JX-1
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`JX-2
`U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675
`JX-3
`U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490
`JX-4
`U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949
`JX-5
`U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936
`JX-6
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`JX-7
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675
`JX-8
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490
`JX-9
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949
`JX-10
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936
`QX-1
`Declaration of Dr. Arthur W. Kelley
`QX-2
`November 2017 search for Apple’s patents including “based on” in the
`claims (ITCSTAFF-1065-000021-22)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,814,106
`U.S. Patent No. 9,807,528
`U.S. Patent No. 9,811,181
`Digital and Analog Communication Systems (8th ed. 2013) by Leon W.
`Couch (APL-QC1065_00206734)
`Carrier Aggregation Fundamentals For Dummies (“Qorvo Book”)
`(QCAppleITC-00190746)
`3GPP, Carrier Aggregation Explained (QCAppleITC-00190705)
`3GPP Website “About Us”
`LTE Carrier Aggregation And The Massive Capacity Challenge
`(QCAppleITC-00190743)
`LTE CA: Carrier Aggregation Tutorial (ITCSTAFF-1065-000034)
`LTE Advanced – Leading in chipsets and evaluation (ITCSTAFF-1065-
`000037)
`U.S. Patent App. 2011/0151806 (“Kennington”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0142156 (“Haartsen”)
`The Why and How of Differential Signaling (ITCSTAFF-1065-000023)
`Maxim, Glossary of EE Terms (ITCSTAFF-1065-000033)
`Webster’s College Dictionary (ITCSTAFF-1065-000072)
`Declaration of Murali Annavaram
`Programmable Stream Processors (QCAppleITC-00190956-64)
`Brook for GPUs: Stream Computing on Graphics Hardware (2004)
`(QCAppleITC-00190901-910)
`GPU Computing (2008) (QCAppleITC-00190911-931)
`The GPU Computing Era (2010) (QCAppleITC-00190932-945)
`Secure Web Conf. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 Fed. Appx. 910 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016)
`
`QX-11
`QX-12
`
`QX-13
`QX-14
`QX-15
`QX-16
`QX-17
`QX-18
`QX-19
`QX-20
`
`QX-21
`QX-22
`QX-23
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 7 and Ground Rule 8.4, Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(“Qualcomm” or “Complainant”) respectfully submits this initial brief in support of its proposed
`
`claim constructions.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Qualcomm is a relatively young company that has, in the span of only three decades,
`
`become one of the greatest innovators in modern communications. Founded in 1985 by Irwin
`
`Jacobs, an MIT-trained University of California, San Diego Professor and six other industry
`
`veterans, Qualcomm’s mission was to provide the world with “Quality Communications.” And
`
`Qualcomm succeeded, becoming one of the telecommunications industry’s greatest start-up
`
`success stories. One would be hard-pressed to find any company that has contributed more to
`
`the modern state of telecommunications than Qualcomm. All one need do to appreciate
`
`Qualcomm’s disproportionate effect on this field is think back to the way people communicated
`
`with each other in 1985 and compare it to the effortless way we all remain interconnected in the
`
`modern day. Many of the most fundamental innovations that allowed that to occur came from
`
`Qualcomm.1 For example, Qualcomm played a central role in the design and development of
`
`code-division multiple access (“CDMA”), which made the modern smartphone possible.
`
`Qualcomm also led the development and widespread proliferation of the fundamental LTE
`
`technology that significantly increased cellular data rates needed by the ever growing number of
`
`data-hungry smartphone users. Simply put, today’s cellular communication system would not
`
`exist without Qualcomm.
`
`Innovation allowed Qualcomm to start as a vision in Irwin Jacobs’ den in 1985 and to
`
`become, in a mere 32 years, a multinational corporation based in San Diego with over 18,000
`
`
`1 https://www.qualcomm.com/company/about/history
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`employees in the US and 224 locations worldwide. There are few people in this country who
`
`have not been touched by Qualcomm’s many contributions to the telecommunications field.
`
`But those contributions came at a cost. Qualcomm always has maintained an extraordinary
`
`research budget. Currently, Qualcomm spends billions of dollars, largely in the United States,
`
`on research and development. To give that number perspective, approximately twenty percent
`
`of Qualcomm’s revenues go into research and development. That continuing investment is
`
`what allows Qualcomm consistently and repeatedly to revolutionize the field of
`
`telecommunications on an ongoing basis. Simply put, there is a reason that nearly every mobile
`
`phone manufacturer’s products (including Apple’s) on earth include Qualcomm products and
`
`technology. Qualcomm is the best, most innovative player in the field of how
`
`telecommunications, semiconductors and devices intersect. Apple is, without doubt, a creative
`
`designer of consumer products but Qualcomm is equally, without doubt, a pioneer in the field of
`
`telecommunications. There is a reason Apple switched in from another chip maker to
`
`Qualcomm beginning with the iPhone 4 in 2011—Qualcomm’s technology was and is better.
`
`Qualcomm’s customers are amongst the most sophisticated users and purveyors of consumer
`
`technology in the world. They include Apple, Samsung, and many others. The reason those
`
`consumers have used and continue to use Qualcomm technology is because it is extremely
`
`valuable and makes the devices they sell work in an extremely efficient and effective manner.
`
`Qualcomm’s substantial contributions have been recognized by patent offices across the
`
`world. Currently Qualcomm owns tens of thousands of patents, including over 19,860 U.S.
`
`patents. The U.S. Patent system is a large part of what allows Qualcomm to devote enormous
`
`resources to innovation. Because Qualcomm obtains valuable property interests that protect its
`
`contributions, it is able to recoup vast amount of the money it expends on research and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`development and plough much of that money back into future innovation. If Qualcomm were
`
`unable to protect the many inventions that come out of its laboratories and require others to pay
`
`to use those inventions, its storied research and development machine would grind to a halt.
`
`Protecting those inventions from unauthorized use is at the heart of this investigation.
`
`Specifically, Qualcomm is enforcing five patents in this investigation against Apple.
`
`These patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,698,558, 9,608,675, 9,535,490, 8,838,949 and 8,633,936—
`
`represent important contributions to the field of telecommunications. These patents are not
`
`“standards essential,” and Apple is not authorized to use the inventions described and claimed
`
`in those patents. There is little doubt that Apple uses these claimed inventions and is doing so
`
`by selling phones where much of the infringing functionality comes from chips furnished by a
`
`competitor (Intel) to Qualcomm. Qualcomm knows that Apple’s phones infringe, in large part
`
`because Qualcomm has provided and continues to provide chips and technological solutions to
`
`Apple that enable much of the patented functionality. This is not a case where Apple chose a
`
`different way to solve the problems that Qualcomm’s inventions solve; it merely chose a
`
`different vendor to provide chips to allow it to practice Qualcomm’s inventions. Although
`
`Apple reflexively contends that it does not infringe Qualcomm’s patents, it puts as much or
`
`more effort into specious contentions that the public needs infringing phones using non-
`
`Qualcomm chips as it does into its non-infringement assertions.
`
`The patents in suit are directed to envelope tracking, carrier aggregation,
`
`uplink/downlink synchronization, flashless boot, and graphics processing technologies. These
`
`technologies are important and offer tremendous benefits to the design of mobile device and
`
`user experience by improving key metrics like speed, battery life, power efficiency, thermal
`
`performance, reliability, and useful lifetime.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Unsurprisingly, many of Apple’s non-infringement and invalidity contentions are based
`
`on claim construction arguments. Those arguments are results-oriented and geared more to
`
`Apple’s desire to continue its unauthorized use of Qualcomm technology and less to a true
`
`desire to assist the Commission in ascertaining the correct legal scope of the asserted claims.
`
`Qualcomm, in contrast, advances constructions firmly rooted in the intrinsic record and that
`
`reflect what the inventors of the asserted patents invented. Qualcomm’s constructions are
`
`derived from an “understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop
`
`with the claim[s].” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998). They do so by “stay[ing] true to the claim language” and “the patent[s’]
`
`description[s] of the inventions[s].” Id. Simply put, Qualcomm’s proposed constructions are
`
`right, because they are consistent with the inventions described in the asserted patents and with
`
`the words used to claim those inventions.
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning
`
`and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the
`
`properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (internal citations omitted), aff’d,
`
`517 U.S. 370 (1996). To properly construe the disputed claim terms, several tenets of claim
`
`construction apply.
`
`“Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history.” Certain Electronic Digital Media
`
`Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-796, Order No. 16, 2012 WL 754088, at *3
`
`(U.S.I.T.C. Mar. 6, 2012) (“Certain Electronic Digital Media”) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)); Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. “As the Federal
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Circuit in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these components to determine the
`
`‘ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term’ as understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`art at the time of the invention.” Id. “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of
`
`the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Network
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`“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, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/PureWater, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312. In this regard, “the context in which a term is used in an asserted claim can be
`
`highly instructive.” Id. at 1314.
`
`In addition to the claims, the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “As a general rule, however, the
`
`particular examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the
`
`claims as limitations.” Certain Electronic Digital Media, Order No. 16, 2012 WL 754088, at *3
`
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323). “In the end, ‘[t]he construction that stays true to the claim
`
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be . . . the
`
`correct construction.’” Id. (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (alterations in original).
`
`The prosecution history also must be examined. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “Like the
`
`specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`understood the patent. Furthermore, like the specification, the prosecution history was created
`
`by the patentee in attempting to explain and obtain the patent.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
`
`“When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence (i.e., all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, including
`
`dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered.”
`
`Certain Electronic Digital Media, Order No. 16, 2012 WL 754088, at *3 (citing Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1317). “Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent itself and
`
`its prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms.” Id. “The court may receive
`
`extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology, but the
`
`court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds with
`
`the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Id. (quoting Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg.
`
`Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Some of the asserted claims are written in means plus function format pursuant 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. “The construction of a means-plus-function limitation includes two steps.
`
`First, [the Court] determine[s] the claimed function . . . Second, [the court] identif[ies] the
`
`corresponding structure in the written description that performs that function.” JVW Enters.,
`
`Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Omega Eng’g
`
`Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Two fundamental tenants govern
`
`the determination of the function of a means-plus-function term: (1) “a court may not construe a
`
`means-plus-function limitation by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in
`
`the claim,” and (2) “a court errs by importing the functions of a working device into the specific
`
`claims, rather than reading the claims for their meaning independent of any working
`
`embodiment.” Id. at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). Once the function is identified, ordinary
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`principles of claim construction apply to determining the meaning of the words used to describe
`
`the function. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002). Then, the structure corresponding to that function must be identified. “[S]tructure
`
`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.” B. Braun
`
`Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Although not entirely a question of claim construction, Apple asserts a number of the
`
`disputed claim terms are “indefinite.” A patent’s claims must “particularly point[] out and
`
`distinctly claim[] the subject matter that the applicant regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(b). This “definiteness” standard is satisfied if the 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). The definiteness standard does not require “absolute or mathematical precision,”
`
`but simply that the claims, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, “provide
`
`objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783
`
`F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`The asserted patents generally are directed to mobile communications devices,
`
`particularly reducing the power consumption in such devices while improving the performance.
`
`At a very high level, a mobile communications device such as a smartphone includes both a
`
`general purpose processor, sometimes referred to as an “applications processor,” and a modem
`
`processor. The applications processor executes the device’s operating system and various
`
`applications. The modem processor, on the other hand, is responsible for communicating with a
`
`cellular network and is at the heart of the exchange of data with that network. In some devices,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`the applications processor and modem processor are combined on a single chip. In others, like
`
`Apple’s infringing devices, the applications processor (for example an Apple A10) and modem
`
`processor (an Intel modem processor) reside on separate chips. This arrangement requires that
`
`the two chips communicate with each other across a communications bus. Modem processors
`
`communicate with cellular networks. The link from the cellular network to the cellular device
`
`is referred to as the forward link or downlink, whereas the link from the cellular device to the
`
`cellular network is referred to as a reverse link or uplink. At a high level, information is
`
`communicated by transmitting radio frequency, or RF, electromagnetic signals between cellular
`
`devices and base stations in a cellular network by modulating what is referred to as a “carrier
`
`wave” with the information to be communicated. This involves modifying a sine wave at the
`
`carrier frequency based on the information to be communicated to or from the base station.
`
`Cellular devices are required to act as transmitters for uplink data, transmitting data to base
`
`stations, which is a power intensive task.
`
`A more specific description of the asserted patents is included below.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,698,558
`A.
`
`Patent Background
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (the ‘558 patent) describes and claims inventions directed to a
`
`novel approach for managing the power associated with transmitting radio frequency (“RF”)
`
`signals in a mobile device. Specifically, the ‘558 patent teaches an innovative use of a
`
`technique called “envelope tracking” to maximize efficient power usage in a mobile device.
`
`Use of the claimed inventions results in substantial power savings in mobile devices and, as a
`
`result, extended battery life. This is an extremely attractive feature from a user perspective.
`
`In a wireless communication system (e.g., Long Term Evolution (LTE) system), mobile
`
`devices transmit (and receive) RF signals within a particular frequency range via cellular base
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`stations. Within the device, a component called an “RF power amplifier” (“PA”) is responsible
`
`for amplifying a low-power RF signal into a higher power signal for external transmission via
`
`an antenna.
`
`In the prior art, the system typically supplied the PA with a constant power supply
`
`voltage, as illustrated by Fig. 2A of the ‘558 patent (annotations added):
`
`
`
`The part of this figure on the left shows that the PA receives an input RF signal (RFin) and
`
`amplifies it to generate an output RF signal (RFout) using a constant supply voltage from the
`
`battery (Vbat). The plot on the right represents the output RF signal 250 having a “time-varying
`
`envelope,” meaning the general amplitude of the signal increases and decreases over time. The
`
`constant supply voltage is shown as the dotted line 260. As the ‘558 patent specification
`
`explains, “the difference between the battery voltage [260] and the envelope of the RFout signal
`
`[250] [in Fig. 2A] represents wasted power [highlighted in orange above] that is dissipated by
`
`power amplifier 210 instead of delivered to an output load.” JX-1 (‘558 patent) at 4:7-9.
`
`
`
`In mobile devices, such constant power provision undesirably and suboptimally uses the
`
`battery. See QX-1 (Kelley Decl.) ¶ 28. Furthermore, the unused power is dissipated as residual
`
`heat within an electronic device, and