Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4782 Page 1 of 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
`
`Mieke K. Malmberg
`(SBN 209992)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`800 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1450
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Phone: (213) 788-4500
`Fax: (213)788-4545
`mmalmberg@skiermontderby.com
`
`Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice)
`(TX Bar No. 24033073)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm St., Ste. 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 978-6600
`Fax: (214) 978-6601
`pskiermont@skiermontderby.com
`(Additional counsel identified on signature page)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`v.
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Mag. Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`Hearing Date: June 19, 2019
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1784-CAB-BLM
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0001
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4783 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1785-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1786-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`ZTE (TX) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0002
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4784 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. THE ’889 AND ’554 PATENTS ............................................................................. 1
`
`A. The “signal indicative” terms .............................................................................. 1
`
`II. THE ’842 PATENT ................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer” ............................................................................ 4
`
`III. THE ’450 PATENT ................................................................................................ 7
`
`A. The “channel estimate matrices” terms ............................................................... 7
`
`B. The “coefficients” term ..................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. THE ’862 PATENT .............................................................................................. 12
`
`A. The “decompose” term ...................................................................................... 12
`
`V. THE ’156 PATENT ............................................................................................... 16
`
`A. The “simultaneous communication paths” term ............................................... 16
`
`B. The “module to establish simultaneous communication paths” term ............... 20
`
`C. The “automatic switch over module” term ....................................................... 25
`
`VI. THE ’435 PATENT .............................................................................................. 27
`
`A.
`
`“position to a communication tower” ............................................................... 27
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0003
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4785 Page 4 of 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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 13
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc.,
`
`No. 14-cv-2235 DMS (BLM), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187440
`
`
`
`(S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017) ............................................................................................ 5
`
`Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`
`726 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 6
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Multimedia Games, Inc.,
`
`266 Fed. Appx. 942 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 29
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.,
`
`No. C 07-1359, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14842 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) ................. 7
`
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`
`922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 34
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`
`No.: 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549
`
`
`
`(S.D.C.A. Feb. 6, 2017) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Cal. Expanded Metal Prods. Co. v. Klein,
`
` No. C18-0659JLR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65648 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2019) ..... 12
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................. 13
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0004
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4786 Page 5 of 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
`
`Data Line Corp. v. Micro Techs., Inc.,
`
`813 F.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................. 30
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................... 6
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 5, 10
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. Micron Consumer Prods. Grp.,
`
`No. 13-cv-2907-H-BGS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148886
`
`
`
`(S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2015) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum,
`
`849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 23
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 29
`
`Gen-Probe Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`
` No. 09cv2319 BEN (NLS), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131820
`
`
`
`(S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.,
`
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 5
`
`InterDigital Communs., LLC v. ITC,
`
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 34
`
`Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co.,
`
`790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................... 2
`
`L.A. Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`
`849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................... 3
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0005
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4787 Page 6 of 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
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 5, 10, 11
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 27
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 29
`
`Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 5, 10
`
`Omax Corp. v. Flow Int'l Corp.,
`
`No. C04-2334L, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81914 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2006) .......... 20
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 19
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 14
`
`Research Plastics, Inc. v. Fed. Packaging Corp.,
`
`421 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 19
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pac. Keystone Techs., Inc.,
`
`326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 20, 23
`
`Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Serrano v, Telular Corp.,
`
`111 F.3d, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 30, 33
`
`Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp.,
`
`336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 12
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. IBM,
`
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 27
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0006
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4788 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 25, 26, 30
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,
`
`442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 19
`
`Wyeth v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.,
`
`No. 1:07CV91, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43800 (N.D.W. Va. May 22, 2009) ........... 13
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................... 27, 31
`
`Zircon Corp. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.,
`
`452 Fed. Appx. 966 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 4
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0007
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4789 Page 8 of 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
`
`Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “BNR”) respectfully
`
`submits this Responsive Claim Construction Brief to the Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief filed May 24, 2019 by Defendants Coolpad Technologies, Inc., Yulong
`
`Computer Communications, Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Kyocera Corporation, Kyocera
`
`International Inc., ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX) Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”).
`
`I.
`
`THE ’889 AND ’554 PATENTS
`
`A. The “signal indicative” terms
`
`The area of dispute with respect to this term is whether the proximity sensor
`
`must be adapted to a generate a signal that there is no object within the predetermined
`
`range (Defendants’ position), or whether the absence of a signal indicating proximity
`
`to an external object is sufficient to meet the claim limitations in dispute (BNR’s
`
`position). The claim language itself demonstrates that BNR’s position is the correct
`
`one. Defendants are unable to cite anything in the intrinsic record to support their
`
`reading. Nor do Defendants rely on any extrinsic evidence to support their
`
`construction. Defendants have not shown that the Court should depart from the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the claim term that BNR’s proposal reflects. See Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the words of a claim ‘are
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’”).
`
`Defendants agree that the claim term appearing in claim 1 of the ’554 Patent and
`
`the term appearing in claim 1 of the ’889 Patent should have the same meaning. The
`
`language used in claim 1 of the ’554 Patent makes it particularly clear that BNR’s
`
`definition is correct. The term in the ’554 Patent is “a signal indicative of the existence
`
`of a first condition, the first condition being that an external object is proximate.” A
`
`signal that indicates that an external object is proximate, as this term requires, does not
`
`require a “negative signal” that the external object is not proximate. Defendants
`
`acknowledge this because they agree that the different term “the signal indicates the
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0008
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4790 Page 9 of 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
`
`proximity of the external object” means “the signal is that an external object within a
`
`predetermined range” – without the insertion of the “is not.” (See Defendants’ Opening
`
`Br. at 2 fn. 3.) The claim language here does not require a “signal indicative of the
`
`absence of a first condition;” Defendants’ proposal requires just that.
`
`A significant portion of Defendants’ argument relies on claims 2 and 9 of the
`
`’554 Patent. But in doing so, Defendants ignore a basic tenet of claim construction
`
`law: it is “improper to import a claim limitation from a dependent claim into an
`
`independent claim.” See Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co., 790 F.3d
`
`1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Phillips court noted, “Differences among claims
`
`can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms…For
`
`example, the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise
`
`to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent
`
`claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315-1316. Thus, Defendants statement that “both [claim
`
`2 and claim 9] expressly require the signal generated by the proximity sensor also be
`
`capable of indicating that the external object is not proximate” is not only irrelevant to
`
`whether the independent claim requires it, there is a presumption that it does not. And
`
`it has even less relevance to the claims of the ’889 Patent, which do not contain that
`
`language. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (“in relying on the dependent claims to inform the meaning of [a term in the
`
`independent claims], the district court effectively imported limitations it saw in
`
`dependent claims into the independent claims”).
`
`Finally, Defendants’ citations to the specification are equally inapposite. None
`
`of the instances that Defendants cite require the generation of signal that an external
`
`object is not proximate. Defendants quote the portion of the specification describing an
`
`embodiment where “[w]hen the telephone call 210 is finished, the user of the mobile
`
`station 110 typically moves the mobile station 110 away from his ear. This causes the
`
`proximity sensor 140 to move out of range of the external object (in this case the user's
`
`ear). Accordingly, in response hereto, the display 150 is switched back on….” (Ex. A,
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0009
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4791 Page 10 of 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
`
`’889 Patent, and Ex. C, ’554 Patent, at 3:26-32; see Defendants’ Opening Br. at 4.) But
`
`nothing in this quote requires that, when the user moves the proximity sensor out of
`
`range, a signal must be sent indicating that there is no external object present. To the
`
`contrary, the proximity sensor could stop emitting a signal that an external object is
`
`within range, and that would inform the processor that there is no longer an external
`
`object present and that the display can be turned back on. Both of these options are
`
`within the scope of the claim limitations in dispute, and thus it is improper to limit the
`
`claim to just one where there is no support in the intrinsic record for doing so. See,
`
`e.g., L.A. Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849
`
`F.3d 1049, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (declining to “import[] a…limitation into the claims
`
`where such a limitation has no support in the specification or the prosecution history”).
`
`
`
`Similarly, Defendants point to Figures 3 and 4, and the fact that the answer to
`
`the question of “Is external object proximate?” is either “yes or no.” However, again,
`
`this says nothing about the kind of signal that must be generated. For example, a signal
`
`that indicates that an external object is within a predetermined range would result in an
`
`answer of “yes.” When the object moves away, the absence of a signal that indicates
`
`that an external object is within a predetermined range would result in an answer of
`
`“no.” The remainder of Defendants citations to the specification also do not support
`
`Defendants’ construction because none of them require a signal indicating that an
`
`object is not present.
`
`In sum, the claims require that the device must determine if an object is within
`
`range, and if it is, reduce power to the display. BNR is entitled to the full scope of the
`
`claims and Defendants’ unsupported attempt to limit that scope must be rejected. See
`
`Zircon Corp. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 452 Fed. Appx. 966, 974 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (“the claims of a patent are not to be unduly limited where their plain meaning
`
`does not allow for such limitation”). The Court should adopt BNR’s proposal.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0010
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4792 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`II. THE ’842 PATENT
`
`A. “Inverse Fourier Transformer”
`
`The central dispute between the parties concerning this term is Defendants’
`
`attempt to graft extraneous limitations by requiring the transformation of “a series of
`
`values from the frequency domain into the time domain.” Defendants’ naked attempt
`
`to import limitations from the specification violates black letter patent law and should
`
`be rejected for numerous reasons.
`
`First, Defendants’ extraneous limitations do not appear in the claim language.
`
`There is nothing in the claim language referencing “frequency or domain” or “time
`
`domain,” much less the directionality requirement of going from one specific domain
`
`to another as required under Defendants’ proposed construction. The most important
`
`claim construction tool is the claim language itself, and the “actual words of the claim
`
`are the controlling focus” throughout the construction process. Digital Biometrics, Inc.
`
`v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Furthermore, Courts are “cannot
`
`rewrite claim language.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d
`
`1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Courts also “will not read unstated limitations into claim
`
`language.” Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d 1281,
`
`1290 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Court should decline Defendants’ invitation to adopt
`
`extraneous limitation that are not supported or required by the claim language.
`
`Second, Defendants argue that the inverse Fourier transformer is an “input” to
`
`the “serial to parallel module 206.” (Defendants’ Opening Br at 7.) However, assuming
`
`Defendants’ contention is accurate, the Federal Circuit has long warned “[e]ven when
`
`the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not
`
`be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the
`
`claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted); see id. (citing cases); Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc., No. 14-cv-2235
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0011
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4793 Page 12 of 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
`
`DMS (BLM), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187440, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017)
`
`(“although the specifications are rife with the term ‘CPE,’ the patent claims ‘will not
`
`be confined to that example 'unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to
`
`limit the claim scope using words or expression of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”
`
`(quoting Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296, 1302 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013)); e.Digital Corp. v. Micron Consumer Prods. Grp., No. 13-cv-2907-H-BGS,
`
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148886, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2015) (“In construing the
`
`terms of a claim, even though claim terms are ‘understood in light of the specification,
`
`a claim construction must not import limitations from the specification into the
`
`claims.’” (quoting Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012)).
`
`Defendants point to no clear intention by the patentees to restrict “inverse
`
`Fourier transformer” in the manner proposed by Defendants. In fact, the specification’s
`
`use of the terms “time domain” and “frequency domain” in describing embodiments
`
`demonstrates that the patentees were aware of such concepts yet chose not to restrict
`
`their claims by adding such limitations. Indeed, the patentees expressly state:
`
`
`The foregoing description has been directed to specific embodiments of this
`invention. It will be apparent, however, that other variations and modifications
`may be made to the described embodiments, with the attainment of some or all
`of their advantages. Therefore, it is the object of the appended claims to cover
`all such variations and modifications as come within the true spirit and scope of
`the invention.
`
`(Ex. E, ’842 Patent at 5:28-35.) Therefore, the patentees expressed a clear intent not to
`
`limit the claims based on the description of any preferred embodiment.
`
`Third, Defendants also rely on BPSK as “a sequence defined in the frequency
`
`domain” to support incorporating their superfluous limitations (Defendants’ Opening
`
`Br. at 6.) BPSK stands for “binary phase key shifting.” (Ex. E, ’842 Patent at 2:21-23.)
`
`However, BPSK is not a requirement of independent claim 1, but it is a specific
`
`requirement of dependent claim 19: “[t]he wireless communications device according
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0012
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4794 Page 13 of 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
`
`to claim 1, wherein the extended long training sequence or the optimal extended long
`
`training sequence is encoded using binary phase shift key encoding on each of the
`
`Subcarriers.” Therefore, to the extent Defendants rely on BPSK to support inclusion of
`
`either their proposed domain or directionality limitations, such arguments run afoul of
`
`the doctrine of claim differentiation. See Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med.
`
`Care Holdings, Inc., No. C 07-1359, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14842, at *13 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Feb. 10, 2009) (“Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, when one claim does not
`
`recite a particular limitation that is recited in another claim, ‘that limitation cannot be
`
`read into the former claim.’”) (quoting Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`
`314 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval
`
`Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Claim
`
`terms should not be read to contain a limitation “where another claim restricts the
`
`invention in exactly the [same] manner.”).
`
`Finally, as noted in BNR’s opening brief, Fourier transforms, and inverse
`
`Fourier transforms, are agnostic, versatile mathematical principles with wide
`
`applicability. (BNR’s Opening Br. at 17.) Defendants’ construction would re-write the
`
`claims to allow any “mathematical function” that converts values from a frequency
`
`domain to a time domain. Adopting such a construction would eliminate the “inverse
`
`Fourier transform” requirement, which is a specific mathematical operation, and re-
`
`write the claims, which is improper. See Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335,
`
`1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“It is likewise well-settled that courts generally may not re-draft
`
`claims; we must construe the claims as written.”); Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R.
`
`Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 799 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Nothing in any precedent permits
`
`judicial redrafting of claims.”). Even Defendants’ expert, Dr. Wells, concedes that a
`
`“Fourier transform could map one domain to another in a broad mathematical
`
`sense…” (Ex. R, Wells Rebuttal Decl., ¶8) and Defendants identify nothing from the
`
`patentees or the prosecution history warranting a narrower interpretation. Further, Dr.
`
`Wells’ admission corresponds with BNR extrinsic evidence, in the form of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0013
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4795 Page 14 of 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
`
`contemporaneous dictionary definitions and learned treatises, establishing that Fourier
`
`transforms, and consequently, inverse Fourier transforms, are not limited in the manner
`
`advocated by Defendant. See Ex. Q (definition of “Fourier transform.”); Ex. U at
`
`Appx560 (showing that the Fourier and inverse Fourier transform equations do not
`
`require space, time, frequency, or any other specific variable).
`
`III. THE ’450 PATENT
`
`A. The “channel estimate matrices” terms
`
`On June 11, 2019, in an effort to narrow the disputes before the Court, BNR
`
`informed Defendants that it was modifying its proposed construction as indicated by
`
`strikethrough for the deletion and underline for the insertion: “one or more matrices
`
`that is based on an SVD decomposition of or are the estimates of the values of H(t).”
`
`(See also No. 3:18-cv-1783 at Dkt. 71; No. 3:18-cv-1784 at Dkt. 68; No. 3:18-cv-1786
`
`at Dkt. 95.) In light of this narrowing, Defendants’ arguments concerning whether the
`
`channel estimate matrices are “based on an SVD decomposition” are now moot since
`
`BNR has removed the language giving rise to the dispute from its proposed
`
`construction. (See Defendants’ Opening Br. at 12.) Now, the competing constructions
`
`are as follows:
`
`
`BNR’s Proposed Construction
`one or more matrices that is or are the
`estimates of the values of H(t)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`matrix Hest for tones of different
`frequencies, where Hest contains
`estimates of the true values of H(t)
`
`
`
`Both constructions essentially agree that a “channel estimate matrix” is a matrix
`
`that estimates the values of H(t). The two pending disagreements concern (1)
`
`Defendants’ limiting the H matrix to Hest, which is incorporated from a preferred
`
`embodiment, and (2) Defendants’ inclusion of “tones for different frequencies,” which
`
`imports limitations from the specification and other claims.
`
`Defendants appear to contend that the inclusion of “est” is required because of
`
`the specification’s description of that embodiment:
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`ZTE, Exhibit 1023-0014
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 98 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4796 Page 15 of 40
`
`
`Consistent with the notion that a matrix H “constitute[s] an estimate of the
`‘true’ values of H(t),” the patentee chose the notation “Hest” to represent a
`matrix “computed by a receiving mobile terminal” that is “an estimate” of
`the channel.
`
`(Defendants’ Opening Br. at 14.) However, the parties both agree elsewhere in their
`
`respective constructions that a “channel estimate matrix” is a matrix (or matrices) that
`
`has estimates of the trues values of H(t). In other words, the substance of what
`
`constitutes “channel estimate matrix” does not appear to be in dispute.
`
`As noted in BNR’s opening brief, the patentee associated the term “Channel
`
`estimate matrix” with a variety of H matrix examples. (See BNR’s Opening Br. at 32-
`
`33.) Despite these various embodiments, the patentees did not restrict the claim
`
`language to any specific embodiment of an H matrix. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d
`
`at 1344 (the actual words of the claim are the controlling focus”); Northern Telecom.,
`
`215 F.3d at 1290 (courts “will not read unstated limitations into claim language.”).
`
`
`
`Defendants admit that the specification uses several H notations to signify
`
`channel estimate matrices, and in particular Hup, Hdown, and H(t), in addition to Hest.
`
`(See Defendants’ Opening Br. at 10 fn. 7; 16. Nevertheless, Defendants argue that “Hest
`
`is the only notation used (i.e.,’equation [2]’) in reference to a “channel estimate matrix
`
`which is computed by a receiving mobile terminal” as required by the claim language.
`
`In other words, Defendants argue that there is only one equation presen