`
`
`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