HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01783-CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE]
`
`v.
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND
`YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC.,
`ZTE (TX) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`OPENING EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D., M.B.A.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`following is true and correct.
`
`Dated: October 25, 2019
`
`___________________________________________
`Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1032
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC
`IPR2019-01365
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`

`

`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE ...................................................................... 2
`A.
`Qualifications .......................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Recent Consulting and Testimony .......................................................................... 5
`C.
`Compensation ......................................................................................................... 5
`III. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELIED UPON ....................................... 5
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ................................................................................................ 6
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ 6
`A.
`Prior Art .................................................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Priority Date ............................................................................................................ 8
`C.
`Anticipation............................................................................................................. 9
`D.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................................... 10
`E.
`Indefiniteness ........................................................................................................ 14
`F.
`Written Description ............................................................................................... 14
`G.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 15
`H.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................... 17
`VI. THE GORIS PATENTS ..................................................................................................... 18
`A.
`Summary of the Goris Patents and Prosecution History ....................................... 18
`1. Summary of the Goris Patents .............................................................................. 18
`2. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’811 Patent ...................................... 21
`3. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’889 Patent ...................................... 22
`4. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’554 Patent ...................................... 25
`5.
`Inter Partes Review (Huawei) .............................................................................. 27
`6.
`Inter Partes Review (Coolpad & ZTE) ................................................................ 28
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................... 29
`1. Court Construed Terms ......................................................................................... 29
`2. BNR’s Implicit Constructions............................................................................... 30
`Overview of Prior Art ........................................................................................... 34
`1. Fukiharu ................................................................................................................ 34
`2. Numazawa............................................................................................................. 37
`3. Giel ........................................................................................................................ 41
`4. Bradley .................................................................................................................. 43
`5. Grivas .................................................................................................................... 44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D.
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`6. Goris Priority ........................................................................................................ 45
`7. Perez ...................................................................................................................... 47
`8. Seo......................................................................................................................... 52
`9. Mantyjarvi ............................................................................................................. 58
`10. Miyashita............................................................................................................... 62
`Invalidity of the ’889 Patent ................................................................................. 68
`1. Anticipation of the ’889 Patent ............................................................................. 69
`2. Obviousness of the ’889 Patent........................................................................... 103
`3. Lack of Written Description, Lack of Enablement of the ’889 Patent ............... 264
`Invalidity of the ’554 Patent ............................................................................... 269
`1. Anticipation of the ’554 Patent ........................................................................... 270
`2. Obviousness of the ’554 Patent........................................................................... 304
`3. Lack of Written Description, Lack of Enablement of the ’554 Patent ............... 458
`VII. THE ’435 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 462
`A.
`Summary of the ’435 Patent and Prosecution History ........................................ 462
`1. Summary of the ’435 Patent ............................................................................... 462
`2. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’435 Patent .................................... 463
`3. Priority Date ........................................................................................................ 464
`4.
`Inter partes Review (Huawei) ............................................................................ 466
`5.
`Inter Partes Review (ZTE) ................................................................................. 466
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................. 467
`1. Court Construed Terms ....................................................................................... 467
`Overview of Prior Art ......................................................................................... 468
`1. Baiker .................................................................................................................. 468
`2. Werling ............................................................................................................... 471
`3.
`Irvin ..................................................................................................................... 473
`4. Myllymäki ........................................................................................................... 477
`5. Bodin ................................................................................................................... 480
`6. Stutzman ............................................................................................................. 482
`7. Carter................................................................................................................... 484
`8. Admitted Prior Art .............................................................................................. 486
`Invalidity of the ’435 Patent ............................................................................... 487
`1. Anticipation of the ’435 Patent ........................................................................... 487
`2. Obviousness of the ’435 Patent........................................................................... 515
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`ii
`ATTORNEYS’EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D.
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`3. Lack of Written Description, Indefiniteness, and Improper Form of the ’435
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ..................................................................................... 547
`Non-infringing Alternatives to the ’435 Patent .................................................. 553
`A.
`VIII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ............................................................................................. 554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`ATTORNEYS’EYES ONLY
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D.
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`

`

`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS ’ EYES ONLY
`
`ll6l.-
`
`116.3—
`
`Claim 6 - The portable cell phone as recited in claim 1
`(8)
`wherein said location sensing subsystem or said power
`
`governing subsystem is embodied in an integrated circuit.
`
`1 l64. Baiker’s “control element 17” and/or or “sensor electronics” are embodied in an
`
`integrated circuit. Baiker describes that “[u]nder the control of the control element 17. the power
`
`regulation device 16 selects one or various antennas and adjusts their transmit power as a
`
`function of the data produced by the detector 18.”).
`
`-498—
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS‘ EYES ONLY
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS. PHD.
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
` Based on my knowledge and experience in this field and my review of Baiker, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have understood
`
`Baiker to suggest its location sensing or power governing subsystems were embodied in an
`
`“integrated circuit.” A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have recognized that, although Baiker does not expressly provide implementation details
`
`of its construction, portable cell phones at the time normally used an “integrated circuit” to
`
`control operation of the phone while maintaining portability of the device. Werling demonstrates
`
`an example of this common construction. As I discussed previously, Werling describes that its
`
`cell phone includes a control element 17 formed by a “suitably programmed microcontroller
`
`μC.” Werling at 2:61-67. Werling also describes that its “microcontroller” controls its “power
`
`regulation device 16” to select one or various antennas and adjust their transmit power as a
`
`function of the data produced by the detector 18,” similar to Baiker’s “control” which is
`
`described to perform similar power regulation operations. Werling at 3:15-18. For example,
`
`Baiker describes that “[u]nder the control of the control element 17, the power regulation device
`
`16 selects one or various antennas and adjusts their transmit power as a function of the data
`
`produced by the detector 18.”).
`
` Based on my knowledge and experience in this field and my review of Baiker, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have been prompted
`
`to implement Baiker’s “control” as an “integrated circuit.” First, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention would have been motivated to implement Baiker’s
`
`“control” as an “integrated circuit” for reasons of achieving a compact, space-efficient,
`
`lightweight, and cost-effective configuration for the electronic components within the device.
`
`This compact configuration would have facilitated portability of the overall device because the
`
`-499-
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D.
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`

`

`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`device can be made more compact, which in turn renders the device more readily carried by the
`
`user. Baiker describes “hand-held” devices, explicitly highlighting this objective. Baiker at Title
`
`(“hand-held”). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would
`
`have also recognized that the use of “integrated circuits” offered reduced manufacturing and
`
`component costs.
`
` Second, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have been motivated to implement Baiker’s “control” as an “integrated circuit” for
`
`purposes of achieving known power management advantages. Based on my knowledge and
`
`experience in the field and my review of Baiker, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention would have recognized that an integrated circuit would have provided
`
`for control of device components without unduly limiting battery life. Battery life was an
`
`important design consideration in portable cell phone devices at the time of the ’435 patent, and
`
`remains an important design consideration today. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention would have recognized that using an “integrated circuit” in Baiker’s
`
`device would have allowed for adequate power usage/management.
`
` Third, implementing Baiker’s “control” as an “integrated circuit” would have
`
`been the straightforward application of a known technique (use of an “integrated circuit” to
`
`control components of a mobile telephone, including transmission power) to a known system
`
`(Baiker’s “mobile telephone” that includes a “control” to regulate transmit power) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results. I note that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention would have recognized that this implementation would not have
`
`significantly altered or hindered the functions performed by Baiker’s portable cell phone, and it
`
`would have been a relatively straightforward and ordinary task for a person of ordinary skill in
`
`-500-
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D.
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`

`

`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention (certainly by the relatively late time frame leading up
`
`to September 2001).
`
`1 169. Additionally, based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review
`
`of Baiker, a person of ordinaly skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have
`
`likewise been prompted to incorporate Baiker’s “sensor electronics” at least paltially into the
`
`“integrated circuit.” A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have been prompted to do so for the same known benefits I deselibed above—including to
`
`provide a compact. space-efficient, lightweight, and cost-effective configtn‘ation for the
`
`electronic components within the device and a desirable power management. The resulting
`
`combination, in which Baiker’s “sensor electronics” that process sensor signals from the
`
`“distance sensor” are at least partially embodied 011 the “integrated circuit,” would have provided
`
`the location sensing subsystem embodied in an integrated circuit.
`
`In-
`
`1170.
`
`1171.
`
`-50 l -
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`EXPERT REPORT OF JONATHAN WELLS. PHD.
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`