PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF (II)
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1093
`
`ORDER NO. 38:
`
`CONSTRUING CERTAIN TERMS OF THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS AT ISSUE (MARKMAN
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION)
`
`(August 28, 2018)
`
`I.
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`PATENTS AND CLAIMS AT ISSUE ............................................................................... 4
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,473,336 ........................................................................................ 5
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 9, 154,356 .............................. .' ............................................. , .......... 7
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 ......................... , ............................................................. 9
`TERMS ADOPTED AND CONSTRUED IN THIS ORDER ......................................... 10
`A.
`Claim Constrnction and Ground Rules ................................................................. 10
`B.
`Claim Charts in Appendix A ................................................................................. 11
`APPLICABLE LAW ........................................................................................................ 12
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................ 14
`SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF DISPUTED CLAlM TERMS ....................... 16
`PROCEEDINGS GOING FORWARD ............................................................................ 17
`A.
`Supplementation in Response to This Order ........................................................ 17
`B.
`Streamlining the Investigation .............................................................................. 18
`C.
`Settlement ............................................................................................................. 18
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`VII.
`
`INTEL 1336
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On Januaiy 2, 2018, the Commission instituted this Investigation pursuant to subsection
`
`(b) of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine:
`
`whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 in the
`imp01iation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale with.in the
`United States after importation of certain mobile electronic devices and radio
`frequency and processing components thereof by reason of infringement of one or
`more of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the '356 patent; claim 4 of the '336
`patent; claims 1, 5 -8, 12, 16-18, and 21-22 of the '674 patent; claims 1-4, 7-9,
`11, 17, 20-23, 31-33 and 36 of the '002 patent; aud claims 1-3, 10-12, 18, and
`22-24 of the '633 patent;1 and whether an industry in the United States exists as
`required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337[.]
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 834-35 (Jan. 8, 2018).
`
`The Notice of Investigation ("NOi") names as complainant: Qualcomm Incorporated. of
`
`San Diego, California ("Complainant" or "Qualcomm"). Id. at 835. The NOI names as
`
`respondent: Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, California ("Respondent" or "Apple," and with
`
`Complainant, the "Private Parties"). Id. The NOi also names the Office of Unfair Import
`
`Investigations ("Staff," and with Qualcomm and Apple, the "Patties") as a party. Id.
`
`On Januruy 19, 2018, a Proposed Scheduling Order jssuect' to guide the timing and
`
`conduct of this Investigation. (Order No. 2 (Jan. 19, 2018).). Also on January 19, 2018, an
`
`initial determination ("ID") issued setting January 21, 2019 as the target date in this
`
`Investigation. (Order No. 3 (Jan. 21, 2018).). On February 14, 2018, an initial procedural
`
`schedule ("Procedural Schedule)" issued, (Order No. 4 (Feb. 14, 2018)), that "accepted certain
`
`changes and adapted others" from the Patties' Joint Submission Regarding Procedural Schedule,
`
`filed on f'ebruary 2, 2018 (Doc. ID No. 635535 (Feb. 2, 2018)).
`1 The numbers of the asserted utility patents are: U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 ("the '356 patent"); U.S.
`Patent No. 9,473,336 ("the '336 patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 ("the '674 patent"); U.S. Patent No.
`7,693,002 ("the '002 patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 9,552,633 ("tbe '633 patent"). See, e.g.,83 Fed. Reg.
`834 (Jan. 8, 2018).
`
`1
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`On March 27, 2018, in response to the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Procedural
`
`Schedule, (Motion Docket No. 1093-003 (Mar. 23, 2018)), a Revised Procedural Schedule
`
`issued, (Order No. 7 (Mar. 27, 2018)). The Revised Procedural Schedule "extend[ed] expert
`
`discovery and avoid[ ed] scheduling conflicts with other investigations without affecting
`
`scheduling of the hearing, Initial Detennination, or Target Date in this Investigation." (Id.).
`
`Although it contained a deadline for Initial Briefs by All Parties Explaining Their Initial Claim
`
`Constructions, the Revised Procedural Schedule omitted a deadline for reply Markman briefs.
`
`(Id.; see also Order No. 2 at 11 ("compulsory reply Markman briefs have been eliminated.").).
`• On May 7, 2018, Staff filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend the Date for Its Initial
`
`Claim Constmction Brief. (Motion Docket No. 1093-007 (May 7, 2018).). That motion was
`
`granted on May 8, 2018, giving Staff a one-week extension, until May 25, 2018, to file its claim
`
`construction brief. (Order No. IO (May 8, 2018).).
`
`On May 16, 2018, one day late, the Parties .filed a Joint Claim Construction Chatt ("Joint
`
`CC Chait"). (Doc. ID No. 645195 (May 16, 2018).). The Joint CC Chait lays out the claim
`
`terms for which a meaning remains in dispute. (Id.). With their Joint CC Chrut, the Pa1ties filed
`
`a Joint Motion for Leave to File Joint Claim Construction Chart Out of Time. (Motion Docket
`
`No. 1093-008 (May 16, 2018).). That motion was granted on Jun"e 4, 2018. (Order No. 13 (June
`
`4, 2018).).
`
`On May 18, 2018, the Private Pruties each :filed a claim consh·uction brief. (Respondent
`
`Apple Inc. 's Initial Claim Construction Brief ("RMBr."), Doc. ID No. 645527 (May 18, 2018);
`
`Complainant Qualcomm's Claim Construction Brief ("CMBr."), Doc. ID No. 645526 (May 18,
`
`2018).). Also on May 18, 2018, the Private Pruties filed separate Markman Hearing Proposals
`
`requesting the scheduling of a one-day Markman hearing to occur during the week of June 4,
`
`2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`2018. (Complainant's Markman Hearing Proposal, Doc. ID No. 645497 (May 18, 2018);
`
`Respondent Apple Inc. 's Markman Hearing Proposal, Doc. ID No. 645499 (May 18, 2018).).
`
`Staff filed its claim constmction brief on May 25, 2018. (Claim Constrnction Brief of the
`
`Commission Investigative Staff ("SMBr. "), Doc. ID No. 646022 (May 25, 2018).).
`
`On May 30, 2018, an order issued setting June 7, 2018, as the date of the Markman
`
`hearing. (Order No. 12 (May 30, 2018).). Qualcomm filed a Pre-Markman Hearing Statement
`
`on June 6, 2018. (Doc. ID No. 647012 (June 6, 2018).). Apple filed a Markman Pre-Hearing
`
`Statement on June 7, 2018. (Doc. ID No. 647034 (June 7, 2018).). Qualcomm and Apple filed
`
`amended versions of these Statements on June 7, 2018. (Doc. ID Nos. 647035 and 647036 (June
`
`7, 2018).). The Markman hearing took place on June 7, 2018. (Markman Hearing Transcript
`
`("Markman Tr."), Doc. ID No. 647253 (June 8, 2018).).
`
`On June 19, 2018, the Patties filed a Statement Regai·ding Markman Meet and Confer.
`
`(Doc. ID No. 648172 (June 19, 2018).). The Statement reported on results of the Parties' post­
`
`Markman 1-Ieai·ing meeting on June 14, 2018 that addressed disputed claim constructions. (Id. at
`
`1.). The Statement also referenced another sucb meeting that was documented in an unfiled Joint
`
`Claim Construction Statement provided to Chambers on June 15, 2018. (Id.).
`
`On August 7, 2018, Qualcomm filed its first Unopposed Motion for Prutial Termination
`
`by Withdrawal of Ce1tain Claims. (Doc. 1D No. 652282 (Aug. 7, 2018).). On August 22, 2018,
`
`Qualcomm filed its second Unopposed Motion for Patti.al Termination by Withdrawal of Certain
`
`Claims. (Doc. ID No. 653609 (Aug. 22, 2018).). An foitial Determination issued on August 27,
`
`2018, granting Qualconun's motions for partial te1mination. (Order No. 37 (Aug. 27, 2018).).
`
`3
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`II.
`
`PATENTS AND CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`The complaint ("Complaint") and NOI identify five (5) asse1ted patents and
`
`approximately forty-six (46) asserted claims: claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the '356
`
`patent; claim 4 of the '336 patent; claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22 of the '674
`
`patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 1 1 , 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33 and 36 of the '002 patent; and
`
`claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 22, 23, and 24 of the '633 patent. (See, e.g., Compl. � 5 (Nov.
`
`30, 2017).). Patents and claims that remain after Qualcomm's motions for partial termination
`
`and Order No. 37 are: (1) claim 4 of the '336 patent; (2) claims 1 and 17 of the '356 patent; and
`
`(3) claims l, 5, and 8 of the '674 patent.2 (Order No. 37 at 3.). As set fo1th below in Chatt 1 ,
`
`each remaining asserted patent claim has one or more disputed claim terms.
`
`Chart 1: Disputed Claim Terms of Asserted Patent Claims Remaining in This Investigation
`
`Asserted Patents/Claims
`
`Disputed Terms
`
`'336 patent, cl. 4
`
`'336 patent, cl. 4
`
`'356 patent, els. 1 and 17
`
`'356 patent, els. 1 and 17
`
`first stage ca1Tier group
`first portion of the ca1Tier signals
`second portion of the carrier signals
`
`canier aggregation
`
`a second carrier of the multiple carriers
`
`up/down detector
`'674 patent, els. 1, 53 and 8
`2 On August 20, 2018, the Private Parties filed pre-hearing briefs. (Complainant's Pre-Hearing Brief
`("CPBr."), Doc. ID No. 653441 (Aug. 20, 2018); Respondent Apple Inc. 's Pre-Hearing Brief ("RPBr."),
`Doc. ID No. 653442 (Aug. 20, 2018).). On the same date, the Private Parties filed a Joint Chart of
`Substantive Legal Issues Being I ,itigated ("Joint Chart"). (Doc. ID No. 653442 (Aug. 20, 2018).). On
`August 22, 2018, in response to Order No. 33, the Parties filed a Joint Statement of Terminated Claims
`and Prior Art Statements ("Joint Statement"). (Doc. ID No. 653669 (Aug. 22, 2018).). With respect to
`asse1ted patents and patent claims remaining in the Investigation, the Joint Chrui, Pre-Hearing Briefs, and
`
`Joiot Statement are consistent with Qualcomm's motions to terminate. (See, e.g., CPBr. at 9-69.).
`3 Claim 5 of the '674 patent is the only remaining asserted dependent claim, as it depends from claim I.
`The term "up/down detector" appears only in claim 1 and is inherited by dependent claim 5.
`
`4
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`power on/off detector
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,473,336
`
`The '336 patent, entitled "Radio Frequency (RF) Front End Having Multiple Low Noise
`
`Amplifier Modules," was filed on March 27, 2015 as U.S. Patent Application No. 14/671,939
`
`("the '939 application"). (JXM-0002 at 1.). The '939 application claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/994,158, filed on May 16, 2014. (Id.). The '939 application
`
`issued as the '336 patent on October 18, 2016, and names as inventors Dongling Pan, Aleksandar
`
`Miodrag Tasic, Rajagopalan Rangarajan, Lai Kan Leung, Chiewcharn Narathong, and Yiwu
`
`Tang. (Id.). Complainant Qualcomm is the assignee of the '336 patent. (Id.).
`
`The '336 patent relates generally to radio frequency transceivers capable of
`
`accommodating "carrier aggregation," defined by the '336 patent as the "concmTent operation of
`two or more receive paths" to "simultaneously receive two or more receive signals .... "4 (Id. at
`1 :28-30.). Yet, "canier aggregation" poses a problem occasioned by "RF transceivers that are
`
`becoming more and more complex as they are designed to h�dle··an ever-increasing number of
`
`different frequencies in multiple communication bands." (Id. at 1 :45-48.). The problem is that a
`
`"receiver includes multiple signal paths that give rise lo stringent path-to-path isolation
`
`requirements because each receiver signal path could generate aggressor signals to other receiver
`
`signal paths," which make "recovery of the information on the victim receiver path difficult or
`
`impossible." (Id. at 1:51-59.).
`
`4 According to Apple, a "carrier" is a signal that contains or "carries" useful information (e.g., voice data,
`a text message, or an email). (RMBr. al 2.). As explained by Qualcomm, "[i]n an uplink operation, an
`RF frequency sine wave, also referred to as a 'carrier wave' is first modulated with [configured lo cany]
`the information to be communicated by the baseband processor [e.g., voice data, a text message, or an
`email]. Then, this modulated carrier signal is transmitted by the cellular device .... " (CMBr. at 8.).
`
`5
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The solution taught by the '336 patent is "improved receiver path isolation" using a "two
`
`stage low noise amplifier ('LNA') that efficiently routes received RF carrier signals in multiple
`
`communication bands to demodulators in a wireless device .... "5 (Id. at 1 :60-62, 2:40-44.). In
`
`one embodiment, the first stage comprises "first stage amplification integrated circuits (IC)," and
`
`the second stage comprises a "second stage amplification and demodulation integrated circuit
`
`.... " (Id. at 4:31-35.). The first stage outputs "signals having selected carrier signals in selected
`
`bands and/or band groups." (Id. at 3 :64-66.). The second stage demodulates "canier signals
`
`associated with a particular carrier :frequency .... " (Id. at 5:18-21.).
`
`In layman's terms, it appears that the '336 patent teaches a housekeeping approach to
`
`"handle an ever-increasing nwnber of different frequencies in multiple communication bands,"
`
`so as to rrunimize signal conflict. (Id. at 1 :45-59.). In at least one embodiment, the fast stage of
`
`a two-stage LNA, bearing number 302 in Figure I below, facilitates the grouping of signals (by
`
`cal1'ier frequency) so as to minimize interference among them. (See, e.g., id. at 3:64-66.). The
`
`signals are then delivered in their interference-minimizing groups to the second stage of the two­
`
`stage LNA, bearing number 304 in Figure 1 below, where the signals are individually separated
`
`from their groups by carrier frequency and demodulated. (See, e.g., id. at 5: 18-21 .).
`
`5 According to Apple, demodulation converts "the received frequency into a different (typically lower)
`frequency that other components in the mobile device (such as a baseband processor) can process."
`(RMBr. at 28.). The fimction of the demodulator is typically referred to as "demodulation" or
`"downconversion." (Id. (citing R.Xrvl-0001 (Fay Deel.) ,i 49 and JXM-0002 ('336 patent) at 1 :20-23,
`5:18-21, and 9:9-13).). While modulation combines useful information with a carrier wave for
`transmission, demodulation does the opposite by extracting the useful information from a carrier wave.
`(See, e.g., JXM- 0002 at 9:9-54 ("The demodulated signals, which are baseband signals are input to
`baseband filters 610(a) and 610(b) of baseband filters 610(a-h).").).
`6
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Figure 1 :
`
`Figure 3 of the '336 Patent
`
`302�
`Pr
`Band
`(
`'
`314
`310 Prx
`
`CTL
`Pr ant •
`
`304
`
`"(
`
`Swt
`
`LNA-BG1
`
`LNA-BG2
`
`306
`
`Dv ant
`
`Drx
`
`DcA1, DcAJ
`DcAo, DcA2
`LNA-BG1
`
`Swt
`
`LNA-BG2
`
`308
`
`312
`
`316
`
`322
`
`Dv
`
`Band
`
`CTL
`
`334
`
`PIG. 3
`
`300
`
`�
`
`'
`r 332
`
`PcA1-ss
`DcA1-s0
`
`PcA3-BB
`DcA3-BB
`
`PcAo-ss
`DcAo-ss
`
`PcA2-s0
`DcA2-BB
`
`336
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3.).
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`The '356 patent, entitled "Low Noise Amplifiers for CaITier Aggregation," was filed on
`
`August 21, 2012, as U.S. Patent Application No. 13/590,423 ("the '423 application"). (JXM-
`
`0001 at Cover.). The '423 application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`61/652,064, filed May 25, 2012. (Id.). The '423 application issued as the '356 patent on
`
`October 6, 2015 and names as inventors Aleksaodar Miodrag Tasic and Anosh Bomi
`
`Davierwalla. (Id.). Qualcomm is the assignee of the '356 patent. (Id.).
`
`According to Qualcomm, the '356 patent teaches "a receiver design that offers the
`
`flexibility of aclivaling circuitry to receive a signal employing carrier aggregation when needed
`
`and deactivating that circuitry when it is not needed." (CMBr. at 9; see also JXM-0001 at
`
`7
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Abstract, 2:23-25.). This purportedly saves precious devjce power. (CMBr. at 9.). In reference
`
`to Figure 6A below, the '356 patent describes an input RF signal split at the input of a dual-stage
`
`amplifier. (JXM-0001 at 8:21-24, Fig. 6A.). "CA [carrier aggregation] LNA 640a may operate
`
`in a non-CA mode or a CA mode at any given moment. In the non-CA mode, CA LNA 640a
`
`receives transmissions on one set of caniers and provides one output RF signal to one load
`
`circuit. In the CA mode, CA LNA 640a receives transmissions on two sets of carriers and
`
`provides two output RF signals to two load circuits, one output RF signal for each set of
`
`carriers." (Id. at 8:28-35.). In other words, "In the non-CA mode, only one amplifier stage is
`
`enabled, and the other amplifier stage is disabled." (Id. at 8:46-47.).
`
`Figure 2: Figure 6A of the '356 Patent
`
`6908
`
`690b
`
`Load
`Circuit
`
`Load
`Circuit
`
`RFout1 65�
`
`RFo�t2
`
`1 S:.ige 2
`
`654b
`
`- - - , , ----_ .... ---- - - - ,
`' : Amplifier
`I I I ' ' ' ' I '
`Vcasc �
`1 I I ' I
`� 5t
`' I
`:
`..,__..,__ ___ ---j
`I I I I I I I I I
`I I I I I I I I
`:
`
`640,1 .........
`
`632
`
`Input RF In
`
`Matching ___________
`RXln
`Circuit
`
`I_ --------------_ _J
`
`,_ ---------------_J
`
`(Id. at Pig. 6A.).
`
`FIG. 6A
`
`8
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674
`The '674 patent, entitled "Multiple Supply-Voltage Power-Up/Down Detectors," was
`
`filed on February 4, 2009, as U.S. Patent Application No. 12/365,559 ("the '559 application").
`
`(JXM-0003 at Cover.). The '559 application issued as the '674 patent on November 22, 2011
`
`and names Chang Ki Kwon and Vivek Mohan as inventors. (Id.). Qualcomm is the assignee of
`
`the '674 patent. (Id.).
`
`The '674 patent pe1tains to power management in integrated devices having multiple
`
`supply voltages. (Id. at 3: 15-22.). "[M]any newer integrated circuit devices include dual power
`
`supplies: one lower-voltage power supply for the internally operating or core applications, and a
`
`second higher-voltage power supply for the I/O circuits and devices." (Id. at 1:22-25.). "Tt has
`
`been found useful to have the UO devices in a known [i.e., controlled) state when the core
`
`networks are powered down." (Id. at 1 :41-48.).
`
`"One hardware solution cu1rnntly in use provides power-up/down detectors to generate a
`
`power-on/off-control (POC) signal internally. The POC signal instructs the I/O devices when the
`
`core devices are shut down." (Id. at 1:55-58.). "However, when I/0 power supply 104 is
`
`powered-up before core power supply 103 powers-up, substantial current leakage may occur in
`
`the power up/down detector 100 or in the POC 10." (Id. at 2:17-20.). In addition to leakage,
`
`"conventional solutions still have problems with ... [slow] switching [i.e., detecting] times"
`
`during supply voltage transitions. (Id. at 3: 1-11.).
`
`As shown in Figure 3B below, the '674 patent teaches solving these problems using a
`
`power-up/down detector with feedback signals. (Id. at 5: 1-23, Fig. 3B.). SpecificaUy, ''[t]he
`
`control network further includes one or more feedback circuits coupled to the up/down detector.
`
`The one or more feedback circuits are configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a ctment
`
`9
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`capacity of said up/down detector." (Id. at 3:31-34.). According to the '674 patent, these
`
`feedback circuits allow the power-up/down detector to detect supply voltage transitions faster
`
`and more efficiently in terms of power usage, as compared to conventional techniques. (Id. at
`
`Figure 3: Figure 3B of the '356 Patent
`
`7:1 -7.).
`
`� �
`
`'
`I
`
`� - - - - - -- - - - - - -- C�
`JO(, I
`30�
`300
`I
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
`
`L - - -
`
`310
`
`,---- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .r}OS �
`311 l'OC
`I �__._ __._- I
`I
`I
`.!-. Power U/1>
`Si:111:11 --a.I Ou1pul ._ ... l�M
`IJCICCIOr
`rr111:�". ,r
`Uuff'-'"f
`I
`I
`I I
`I
`I
`I
`I I I I I I
`�--------------------------------
`
`110 Network
`
`I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I
`
`FICi. :m
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3B.).
`
`III.
`
`TERMS ADOPTED AND CONSTRUED IN THIS ORDER
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction and Ground Rules
`
`Claim terms are construed in this Order solely for the pmposes of this Section 337
`
`Investigation. Only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent
`
`necessruy to resolve the controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. lnt'l Trade Comm.,
`
`366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`10
`
`

`

`i>uBtic VERSION
`
`Going forward, including during the evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") scheduled from
`
`September 17 to September 22, 2018, the Parties are limited to the claim-term constrnctions
`
`adopted in this Order. Ground Rule 1.14 states that "[t]he patties will be bound by their claim
`
`constrnction positions set forth on the date they are required to submit a joint list showing each
`
`patty's final proposed construction of the disputed claim terms and will not be permitted to alter
`
`these absent a timely showing of good cause." Modified or new claim-te1m constructions set
`
`forth for the first ti.me in post-hearing briefs will be considered to be waived.
`
`Similarly, it will not be appropriate for any party to seek additional claim construction
`
`during the evidentiary hearing or merely to state that a claim te1m that may be implicated in an
`
`expert repo1t or expe1t testimony bas either a "plain or ordinary" meaning, or that a claim term is
`
`"indefinite." (See Proposed Scheduling Order and Notice of Ground Rules (Order No. 2 at 6-7;
`· Attachment B, G.R. 1 . 14 at 9 (Jan. 19, 2018).). If any pruty posits a "plain ai1d ordinary
`
`meaning," it must be explained.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Charts in Appendix A
`
`Chait No. 1 in Appendix A is labeled "Court's Constructi�ns of Disputed Claim Terms
`
`That Remain Relevant in this Investigation" and is self-explanatory. There are seven (7)
`
`columns in Chatt No. 1: (1) Patent/Claim(s); (2) Term(s) to be Construed; (3) Complainants'
`
`Proposed Construction; (4) Respondent's Proposed Construction; (5) Staff's Proposed
`
`Consh·uction; (6) the Adopted Construction; and (7) and the Rationale/Support for the Adopted
`
`Construction.
`
`Chart No 2 in Appendix A, labeled "Adopted Claim Constrnctions Based Upon the
`
`Patties' Agreed Upon Constrnctions Tbat Remain Relevant in this Investigation," contains the
`
`J ]
`
`

`

`PUBL!C VERSION
`
`one remaining claim te1m for which the Patties have agreed to a construction. The Parties'
`
`agreed-upon claim construction was adopted without providing a rationale or explanation.
`
`IV.
`
`APPLICABLE LA W6
`Claim construction begins with the language of the claims themselves. Claims should be
`
`given their ordinary and customai·y meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, viewing the claim terms in the context of the entiJe patent. Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 13 12-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In some cases, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim
`
`language is readily apparent and claim construction will involve little more than "the application
`
`of the widely-accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1 3 14. In other cases,
`
`claim tenns have a specialized meaning and it is necessary to determine what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean by analyzing
`
`"the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history,
`
`and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, as well as the meaning of
`
`technical te1ms, and the state of the art." Id. ( quoting Jnnova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
`
`Filtration Sys., Inc. , 381 F.3d 1 1 1 1, 1 1 16 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance with regard to the meaning of
`
`disputed claim language. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1 3 14. "[T]he cont'ext in which a term is used in
`
`the asse1ted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Similarly, other claims of the patent at issue,
`
`regardless of whether they have been asserted against respondents, may show the scope and
`
`meaning of disputed claim language. Id.
`
`In cases in which the meaning of a disputed claim term in the context of the patent's
`6 The constructions of the disputed claim terms in Chart 1 of Appendix A generally follow and apply the
`law cited in this Order. To the extent possible, the case law that applies to a constrnclion is either
`identified explicitly or implicilly in adopting a party's argument or construction.
`
`12
`
`

`

`.,.. -.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`.
`
`claims is unce11ain, the specification is "single best guide to the meaning of a disputed te1m." Id.
`
`at 1321. Moreover, "[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally
`
`aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in t�e end, the conect construction."
`
`Id. at 1316. As a general rnle, however, the particular examples or embodiments discussed in the
`
`specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Id. at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history f)1ay also explain the meaning of claim language, although "it
`
`often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction
`
`purposes." Id. at 1317. The prosecution history consists of the complete record of the patent
`
`e�amination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including cited prior art.
`
`Id. The prosecution history may reveal "how the inventor understood the invention and whether
`
`the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower
`
`than it would otherwise be." Id.
`
`If the intrinsic evidence is insufficient to establish the clear meaning of a claim, a court
`
`may resort to an examination of the extlinsic evidence. Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Ho/finger
`
`Indus., Inc., 206 P.3d 1408, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Extrinsic evidence may shed light on the
`
`relevant art, and "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
`
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." ·Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317. Tn evaluating expert testimony, a court should disregard any expe1t testimony that is
`
`conclusory or "clearly al odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves,
`
`the written description, and the prosecution histmy, in other words, with the written record of the
`
`patent." (Id. at 1318.). Moreover, expert testimony is only of assistance if, wiU1 respect to the
`
`disputed claim language, it identifies what the accepted meaning in the field would be to one
`
`skilled in the aii. Symantec Co,p. v. Comput. Assocs. Int 'l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 n.3., 1290-
`
`13
`
`

`

`,.... ,.. .
`
`.
`PUBLIC VERSJON
`
`91 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Testimony that recites how each expe,1 would constrne the term should be
`
`accorded little or no weight. Id. Extrinsic evidence is inherently "less reliable" than intrinsic
`
`evidence, and "is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless
`
`considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318-19.
`
`Extrinsic evidence is a last reso11: "[i]n those cases where the public record
`
`unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence
`
`is improper." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`V.
`
`PERSON 011' ORDINARY SKILL 'IN THE ART
`
`This is a hypothetical person of ordinary skill and "ordinary creativity." KSB
`
`Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). "Factors that may be considered in
`
`determining [the] level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the
`
`inventor[s]; (2) type of problems e11coW1tered in the art; (3) prior at1 solutions to the problems;
`
`(4) rapidity with which inventions are mad_e; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field." Envtl. Designs Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of
`
`California, 713 F.2d 693, 696-97 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations .omitted). "These factors are not
`
`exhaustive but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art." Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).). The hypothetical person of
`
`skill is also separately presumed to have knowledge of all the relevant prior art in the field.
`
`Custom Accessories, inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`The Parties disagreed over the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the att for the
`
`asserted patents. According to Qualcomm, for the '336 and '356 patents, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art "at the time of the invention would have had at least a bachelor's degree in
`
`computer science or engineering, electrical engineering, or a comparable degree, with about two
`
`14
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`years of graduate coursework or work experience in wireless communications." (CMBr. at 11,
`
`25.). Staff agrees with Qualcomm.. (SMBr. at 10, 28.). Apple contends that "[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the ait at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least a Master of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and would have had at least
`
`two years of experience with the structure and operation of RF transceivers and related st.J.uctures
`
`(or the equivalent)." (RMBr. at 6, 25.). The Parties have not explained the reasons for their
`
`disagreement.
`
`For the '674 patent, Qualcomm asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art "at the
`
`time of its invention would have had a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering with at least
`
`three years of experience as an integrated circuit designer focusing on on-chip power control and
`
`multiple supply voltage VLSI circuit and system design. Altematively, he/she would have had a
`
`higher degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) with fewer years of design experience." (Id. at 39.). According to
`
`Apple and Staff, "[a] person of ordinai·y skill in the rut ... peltaining to the '674 patent at the time
`
`of filing would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and two yeai·s of
`
`experience designing CMOS circuits or equivalent training and experience. Additional
`
`education can compensate for less work experience, and vice versa." (RMBr. at 49; SMBr. at
`
`41.). The Paities have not explained the reasons for theiJ: disagreement.
`
`This Order does not resolve the person of ordinai·y skill in the art issue because it is not
`
`germane to the claim construction requested by the Parties. In arguing for their proposed
`
`constructions of disputed terms, the Parties have appropriately focused on other matters, such as
`
`the inhinsic evidence. None of the Paities has indicated in any of their filed documents that the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the ait definition is necessary or dispositive for construction of the
`disputed claim terms. (See, e.g., SM.Br. at 10, 28, 41 ("Staff, however, is of the view that the
`
`15
`
`

`

`JIK ...... i""'-.... J ... ! .... ,,...,_., . .J':J-... ..L!_, n ...... .: .... ___ T.,.r_ ............. ,: ...... .
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`difference between the private patties' proposals with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art does not appear to be dispositive as to the construction that should be adopted for the disputed
`
`term.").).
`
`To the extent this issue could be necessary for testimony dw-ing the upcoming evidentiary
`
`Hearing, the Parties should attempt to agree on a person of ordinary skill in the art definition for
`
`each of the '336, '356, and '674 patents. If the Pruties instead reserve their person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art positions for the evidentiary Hearing, their explanations at the Hearing must
`
`address each of the factors set fo1th in Envtl. Designs, supra.
`
`VI.
`
`S UMMARY OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`With respect to the '336 patent, the Parties dispute the construction of "first stage carrier
`
`group" and "first p01tion of the ca:nier signals I second portion of the carrier signals." (SMBr. at
`
`28-32