Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6109 Page 1 of 76
`
`
`MICHAEL K. LINDSEY
`(AZ Bar No. 024452, Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`lindsey@gdllawfirm.com
`JAMES M. SARNECKY (SBN 202465)
`sarnecky@gdllawfirm.com
`GAVRILOVICH, DODD & LINDSEY, LLP
`4660 La Jolla Village Dr., Ste. 750
`San Diego, CA 92122
`Telephone: (858) 458-3607
`Facsimile: (858) 458-9986
`
`ROBERT F. RUYAK (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`robertr@ruyakcherian.com
`BRITTANY V. RUYAK (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`brittanyr@ruyakcherian
`RONALD WIELKOPOLSKI (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`ronw@ruyakcherian.com
`RUYAKCHERIAN, LLP
`1776 Eye St. NW, Suite 750
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 838-1560
`
`KORULA T. CHERIAN (SBN 133697)
`sunnyc@ruyakcherian.com
`ROBERT M. HARKINS, JR. (SBN 179525)
`bobh@ruyakcherian.com
`RUYAKCHERIAN, LLP
`1936 University Ave, Suite 350
`Berkeley, CA 94704
`Telephone: (510) 944-0190
`
`DON F. LIVORNESE (SBN 125934)
`donl@ruyakcherian.com
`RUYAKCHERIAN, LLP
`222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2000
`El Segundo, CA 90245
`Telephone: (310) 586-7689
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CARUCEL INVESTMENTS, L.P.
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6110 Page 2 of 76
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`
`PLAINTIFF CARUCEL
`INVESTMENTS, L.P.’S
`MEMORANDUM OF
`CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND
`LAW
`
`Trial Date: April 4, 2017
`Time: 9 A.M.
`Courtroom: 15A
`Judge: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CARUCEL INVESTMENTS, L.P., a
`Delaware limited partnership,
`
`
`
`
`
`NOVATEL WIRELESS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company; VERIZON
`COMMUNICATIONS INC., a
`Delaware corporation; and CELLCO
`PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
`WIRELESS,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6111 Page 3 of 76
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MATERIAL FACTS AND POINTS OF LAW ........................................................ 1 
`I. 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`II. 
`THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`Carucel .................................................................................................. 8 
`B.  Novatel Wireless, Inc. ........................................................................... 8 
`C.  Verizon Communications, Inc. ............................................................. 9 
`D. 
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ......................................... 10 
`III.  Defendants Each Infringe the Asserted Claims of the Carucel Patents—
`Either Literally or Under the Doctrine of Equivalents .................................. 10 
`A. 
`Infringement—Contentions of Law .................................................... 10 
`B.  Material Facts Regarding Infringement of Carucel’s Patents ............. 13 
`1. 
`The ’904 Patent ......................................................................... 13 
`2. 
`Teachings of the ’904 Patent Claims ........................................ 14 
`3. 
`Infringement of the ’904 Patent ................................................ 15 
`4. 
`The ’701 Patent ......................................................................... 19 
`5. 
`Teachings of the ’701 Patent Claims ........................................ 19 
`6. 
`Infringement of the ’701 Patent ................................................ 20 
`7. 
`The ’023 Patent ......................................................................... 23 
`Teachings of the ’023 Patent Claims ........................................ 24 
`8. 
`9. 
`Infringement of the ’023 Patent ................................................ 25 
`10.  The ’543 Patent ......................................................................... 28 
`11.  Teachings of the ’543 Patent Claims ........................................ 28 
`12. 
`Infringement of the ’543 Patent ................................................ 30 
`IV.  CARUCEL’S ASSERTED PATENT CLAIMS ARE VALID .................... 33 
`A.  Validity—Contentions of Law ............................................................ 33 
`B.  Material Facts—Validity of Carucel’s Asserted Claims .................... 42 
`1. 
`The Uhlirz Doctoral Thesis is Not Prior Art ............................ 43 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6112 Page 4 of 76
`
`
`2. 
`
`V. 
`
`The Uhlirz Paper Does Not Anticipate Any of the Asserted
`Claims Because It Is Not Enabling Prior Art ........................... 43 
`Validity of the Asserted Claims of the ’904 Patent .................. 44 
`3. 
`Validity of the Asserted Claims of the ’701 Patent .................. 47 
`4. 
`Validity of the Asserted Claims of the ’023 Patent .................. 49 
`5. 
`Validity of the Asserted Claims of the ’543 Patent .................. 52 
`6. 
`CARUCEL’S CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW ON
`DAMAGES ................................................................................................... 54 
`A.  Damages Contentions of Law ............................................................. 54 
`B.  Damages Contentions of Fact ............................................................. 59 
`VI.  ABANDONED ISSUES ............................................................................... 65 
`VII.  EXHIBITS ..................................................................................................... 66 
`VIII.  WITNESSES ................................................................................................. 66 
`IX.  RESERVATIONS ......................................................................................... 66 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6113 Page 5 of 76
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 58
`Ajinomoto Co., 1998 WL 151411 .............................................................................. 36
`Am. Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 722 F. Supp. 86, 109 (D. Del. 1989) ..................... 37
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
` ......................................................................................................................... 37
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............ 55, 57, 58
`Applied Med. Res. Corp v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 435 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`2006) ................................................................................................................ 57
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir.
`1985) ................................................................................................................ 41
`Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 750 F.2d 1569, 1573-74 (Fed. Cir.
`1984) ................................................................................................................ 37
`Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615,
`622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1995)), aff’d, 234 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................... 12
`Brucklemeyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........ 36
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................. 33
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......... 39
`Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............................................. 35
`Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984) ................................................ 33
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . 36
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .. 39, 42
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................... 35
`Crown Operations Int’l Ltd. v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
` ................................................................................................................... 38, 39
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6114 Page 6 of 76
`
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed. Cir.
`1988) .......................................................................................................... 41, 42
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc., 341 F.3d 1370, 1382, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...... 55
`Drexelbrook Controls, Inc. v. Magnetrol Int’l, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 397, 405 (D. Del.
`1989), aff’d, 904 F.2d 45 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ...................................................... 11
`Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................. 11
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................... 34
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................. 33
`Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....... 33
`Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655 (1983) ................................. 58
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.
`1970) .......................................................................................................... 56, 57
`Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ....................... 36
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966) ........................................ 39, 40
`Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (1966)
` ......................................................................................................................... 12
`Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
` ................................................................................................................... 34, 35
`In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................ 36
`In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................. 36
`In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265-66 (Fed. Cir. 1992). ............................................ 40
`In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................. 12, 13
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................ 39
`
`In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litig., MDL 2303, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`144061, 2013 WL 5593609, at *30-*40 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013) .................... 57
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................ 40
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6115 Page 7 of 76
`
`
`In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................ 36
`In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................ 40
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) .......................................... 40
`Innovative Scuba Concepts, Inc. v. Fed. Ind., Inc., 26 F.3d, 1112 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`1994) ................................................................................................................ 34
`Intel Corp., v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 830 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......... 33
`Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 974 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .. 11
`Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .... 11
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007) ...... 39, 40
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 76 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . 56,
`57
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 895 F.2d 1403,
`1406 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................... 55
`Lucent Techs. Inc. v. Gateway Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) . 55, 56, 58
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................... 34, 35
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................... 11
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................... 58
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d
`at 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 11
`Monsanto Co. v. David, 516 F.3d 1009, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................ 58
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ... 38
`New Railhead Mfg., LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) ................................................................................................................ 34
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................... 39
`Oney v. Ratliff, 182 F.3d 893, 895 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................. 33
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6116 Page 8 of 76
`
`
`Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 20 (Fed. Cir.
`1984) ................................................................................................................ 12
`Pentec Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............ 41
`PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .. 37,
`43
`Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................... 34, 35
`Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................ 35
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............. 57, 58
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ... 37, 38
`Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002); ...... 55
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 663 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................. 40
`Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................................... 37
`Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track & Court Construction, 172 F.3d 836, 842 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) ................................................................................................................ 13
`See Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
`2004) ................................................................................................................ 37
`Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed Cir. 1994) ................................................ 34
`Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289 U.S. 689, 698 (1933) 57
`SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1167-68 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................................... 55
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......... 41
`Stryker Corp. v. Davol, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 741, 743 (W.D. Mich. 1999) .............. 12
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........ 58
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1356-57 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................... 40
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6117 Page 9 of 76
`
`
`TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert.
`denied, 537 US 995 (2002). ............................................................................ 12
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......... 37
`Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n., 988 F.2d 1165, 1178
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................... 42
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........... 56
`United States v. Adam, 383 U.S. 39 (1966) ............................................................... 39
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Am. Inc., 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241, 1246 (C.D. Cal.
`1993) ................................................................................................................ 34
`Warner-Jenkins Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) .................. 12
`Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
` ......................................................................................................................... 35
`Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............... 35
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) ........................................................................................ 35, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 38
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ..................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 282 .......................................................................................................... 32
`35 U.S.C. § 284 .......................................................................................................... 55
`Other Authorities 
`Chisum on Patents § 6.02[4] (2006) .......................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6118 Page 10 of 76
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) and this Court’s scheduling orders, Plaintiff
`Carucel Investments, L.P. (“Carucel”) hereby submits the following Memorandum
`of Contentions of Fact and Law. Carucel notes that it has prepared this
`Memorandum without the benefit of any pretrial disclosures from Defendants
`Novatel Wireless, Inc. (“Novatel”), Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”), and
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Cellco,” collectively “Defendants”).
`Accordingly, Carucel reserves the right to amend or supplement this Memorandum
`in response to Defendants’ disclosures.
`Additionally, the statements below regarding infringement and validity of
`Carucel’s patents-in-suit are based upon the Court’s construction of the terms in
`those patents. By making these statements, Carucel does not waive any claim
`construction issues with respect to those constructions, including but not limited to
`the right to appeal from the Court’s Claim Construction order.
`
`MATERIAL FACTS AND POINTS OF LAW
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`This case concerns Novatel’s and Verizon/Cellco’s infringement of
`Carucel’s patents—U.S. patent 7,221,904 (the “’904 patent”); 7,848,701 (the
`“’701 patent”); 7,979,023 (the “’023 patent”); and 8,718,543 (the “’543 patent”)
`(collectively the “Carucel patents”). Novatel designed, made, imported, marketed,
`used and sold a line of hotspot devices named MiFi (for “mobile Wi-Fi” or “My
`WI-Fi”) that infringe the Carucel patents, and Verizon/Cellco sold, distributed, and
`used the infringing MiFi devices within the United States.1 MiFi devices have
`
`
`1 Carucel’s patents expired in June, 2015, after this case was originally filed in the
`Southern District of Florida. This case was transferred to this Court from the
`Southern District of Florida in January, 2016. Accordingly, Carucel is seeking a
`reasonable royalty from the Defendants for past unauthorized use of its inventions.
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6119 Page 11 of 76
`
`
`one and only one purpose—to act as an intermediary between cell towers and Wi-
`Fi enabled user devices.
`Carucel’s experts reviewed the discovery and evidence in this case and
`provided their expert opinions regarding Defendants’ infringements and the
`damage it has caused Carucel. For example, the reports and testimony of Dr.
`Kamran Kiasaleh, who has over 30 years of experience in the wireless
`communications industry and is a professor of Electrical Engineering at the
`University of Texas, conclude that Defendants’ MiFi devices undoubtedly infringe
`certain claims of each of Carucel’s patents. Dr. Kiasaleh also explains why,
`contrary to Defendants’ assertions, Carucel’s patents are valid. Finally, economist
`Dr. Patrick Kennedy has opined that Defendants’ infringements have harmed
`Carucel and calculates reasonable royalties for such harm to be approximately
`$32.8 million for Verizon and $17.2 million for Novatel.
`Carucel looks forward to trial to vindicate its rights, and notes the following
`issues the jury and Court will help resolve.
`A. Carucel’s History
` Carucel is a small, family-owned, limited partnership, whose sole assets are
`the patents-in-suit. Carucel owns a total of eight patents related to the technology in
`this suit, but is only asserting four of its eight patents against Defendants. The
`Carucel patents concern inventions by the family patriarch, Charles D. Gavrilovich,
`Sr., who passed away in July, 2015. Charles Gavrilovich, Jr. and his sister, Vera I.
`Gavrilovich, are now the sole owners and managers of Carucel.
`Inventor Charles Gavrilovich, Sr. founded Carucel in 1999 and invented the
`patented technology at issue in this suit. He earned a M.S. in electrical engineering
`and had 39 years of experience in the field of telecommunications, working for
`leading companies, including Bell Labs, Lucent Technology, and Motorola.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6120 Page 12 of 76
`
`
`Mr. Gavrilovich, Sr. was a prolific inventor during his lifetime. In addition to
`the Carucel patents, Mr. Gavrilovich was a named inventor on more than twenty
`other patents. Some of those patents, which were owned by Mr. Gavrilovich’s
`former employers, were extremely valuable—with one former employer valuing
`certain patents by Mr. Gavrilovich, Sr. at over $1 billion.
`B.
`The Carucel Patents
`The Carucel patents were the culmination of Mr. Gavrilovich’s life’s work.
`The Carucel patents claim several distinct inventions. Most importantly to the
`issues presented here, Mr. Gavrilovich invented a “mobile base station” that
`significantly improved wireless communications by acting as an intermediary
`between cell towers and user devices.
`The asserted claims of the Carucel patents cover a movable base station or
`apparatus configured to provide important benefits to mobile user devices, such as
`smartphone, tablet and laptop users. In 1995, movable base stations like those
`patented by Mr. Gavrilovich did not exist. Fig. 4 of the ’904 patent, reproduced
`below, shows a conceptual diagram of the mobile base station/apparatus that was
`invented by Mr. Gavrilovich, where no. 100 shows antennas to communicate with
`mobile units and no. 101 shows antennas to communicate with fixed base stations,
`i.e., cell towers. (‘904 pat., 6:28-29, 5:25-29.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6121 Page 13 of 76
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’904 Patent
`Thus, Mr. Gavrilovich’s inventive movable base station is a mobile wireless
`device that acts as an intermediary and provides connectivity between a cellular
`network and one or more mobile user devices. It provides a communication path
`between the mobile devices and cellular network that increases the available data
`bandwidth and quality of wireless service, which in turn provides important, tangible
`benefits to consumers by enabling fewer dropped calls and higher data throughput.
`For example, the inventive technology can be put in automobiles so that passengers
`of a car can listen to music or news, follow driving directions, watch streaming
`movies or play networked games (high bandwidth applications) on their tablets or
`other portable devices while travelling.
`Increased bandwidth and service quality are hallmarks of modern cellular
`communications, allowing for many applications that did not exist at the time of the
`invention back in 1995—such as video chat, mobile multimedia, texting of high-
`resolution photos, etc. Mr. Gavrilovich’s inventions enable higher bandwidths and
`service quality by addressing the handoff problems and data bandwidth constraints
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6122 Page 14 of 76
`
`
`that would otherwise exist, thereby allowing greater access to these modern day
`applications.
`At the time of the invention in 1995, conventional consumer cellular networks
`generally did not provide high bandwidth to mobile users. A significant technical
`challenge impeding high bandwidth was the “handoff” processing of connected
`mobile devices. “Handoff” is a term of art that describes the situation that occurs
`when a mobile device moves geographically from one cell to another within a
`cellular network. As the mobile device moves between cells, its communication link
`with the network may be dropped or disconnected unless it can be seamlessly
`“handed-off” from one cell tower base station to another so as to ostensibly provide a
`continuous, uninterrupted call or data link connection. Under the conventional
`scheme, the network and mobile devices are burdened with processing handoffs as
`the mobile devices move through cells of a cellular network. This burden increases
`and reliability declines with increases in the travel speed of the mobile devices as
`they move across cells, potentially becoming unmanageable, resulting in dropped
`connections, interruptions and poor service.
`Mr. Gavrilovich recognized this significant problem, among others, as
`described in the specification. (’904 pat., 1:51-2:11.) His vision led to the patented
`invention of a movable base station or apparatus interposed between mobile devices
`and a cellular network.
`The inventive mobile base station essentially provides a portable cell that
`moves together with the mobile user devices. The user devices need only remain
`wirelessly connected to a single mobile base station and do not need to repeatedly
`handoff with multiple cellular network cell tower base stations. This reduces the
`handoff processing burden on the mobile devices and the network and substantially
`increases reliability, quality of service and available bandwidth. (’904 pat., 5:17-19.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6123 Page 15 of 76
`
`
`Although the Carucel patents all generally share the same specification, the
`asserted patents all claim different inventive aspects of a movable apparatus or
`movable base station, and thus differ in the scope of their claims. One inventive
`aspect has the mobile apparatus configured to communicate with multiple fixed radio
`ports of a cellular network (e.g., asserted claims of the ’904 patent). Another aspect
`of the invention emphasizes multiple antennas of the mobile base station (e.g.,
`asserted claims of the ’701, ’023, and ’543 patents). Both of these inventive aspects
`further improve bandwidth and service quality of the mobile base station.
`Starting in about 2000, Carucel made efforts to license or sell its patented
`technology. In October, 2014 Carucel successfully licensed its patented technology
`to
`
`
`.
`
`The Accused MiFi Hotspot Devices
`C.
`The accused products in this case are small, portable, electronic “MiFi”
`(Mobile Wi-Fi or My Wi-Fi) devices designed, manufactured, imported and sold
`by Novatel, and sold at retail to consumers together with cell network access by
`Verizon/Cellco. Carucel accuses five different MiFi product models of infringing
`each Carucel patent. The accused MiFi models are the: MiFi2200, MiFi4510,
`MiFi4620, MiFi5510, and MiFi6620. A representative photo of the MiFi2200 is
`shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Photo of MiFi2200
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`Case No. 16-cv-0118-H-KSC
`CARUCEL’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW
`
`Carucel Investments—Exhibit 2102
`IPR2019-01079: Unified Patents, Inc. v. Carucel Investments L.P.
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00118-H-KSC Document 184 Filed 02/10/17 PageID.6124 Page 16 of 76
`
`
`The sole purpose of MiFi de

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket