Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1280 Page 1 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819), wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M.Fuller (SBN 266406), jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSONP.C.
`
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070/ Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (SHENZHEN)CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICEUSA,INC.
`
`[Additional Counsellisted on signature page.]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01783-CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE]
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`y
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES,INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`CO
`CATIONS,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`non
`soo 19-20, 2019
`Courtroom:
`AC ame
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM
`
`_
`Plaintiff,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Vv.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA,INC.,
`
`Date:
`Time:
`
`June 19-20, 2019
`9:00 a.m.
`
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`4C
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI 1017
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI 1017
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1281 Page 2 of 63
`
`||BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`|[LLc.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`,
`3
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IIv.
`Date:
`June 19-20, 2019
`4
`|IKYOCERA CORPORATIONand Oe te am.
`5
`
`6||KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC., Judge: Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`
` 1
`
`Defendants.
`
`||BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`-
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`1l
`
`12
`VV.
`13 ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE(USA)
`INC., ZTE (TX) INC
`14
`”
`°
`
`June 19-20, 2019
`Date:
`9:00. a.m.
`[ime
`Courtroom:
`4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Defendants.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`2
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1282 Page 3 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`D.=“coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix
`decomposition (SVD)? oo... ce... ceeee ccc cece cece cece cee eeteeeeeeeeneeeees 17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TL
`
`INTRODUCTION 000202 cec eee cece cence ee cece eee ceneec eee ceeeeteseeeeeeeteeeneees 1
`
`Il. U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554 0000.20 eeeeeee 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background -....02....2200000... 1
`
`“a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” / “a signal
`indicative of the existence ofa first condition, the first condition being
`that an external object is proximate”......2.....2.0000... 2
`
`Tl. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842 202000. o2occceccec cece eee cece cee cece cence ceeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeneees 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background -.-.202.... 22.00.0222. cece cece cece cece eee 4
`
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer’’.......2.0...2.0..2.0-c22-ccceeceeeeececeeeeceteeeeeeeeeeteees 5
`
`TV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450. 020000. ccccceceecc cece cence cece cence eeeeeeeeceeeeteeeeneeeteeeneees 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Technology Background ....20......2200.0...2.0 cece cece ceceeee 9
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)....0000ee. ll
`“channel estimate matrices”/ “matrix based on the plurality of channel
`estimates” / “matrix based onsaid plurality of channel estimates” ...... 12
`
`V. US. PATENT NO. 8,416,862 2202200 o2cc cee cee cece cee cece cee cence cece eeeeeeeeeeteeeeneeees 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Technology Background -..202.....000000..eeo cece ceceeect 19
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)...0000 ee. 20
`“decomposethe estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`to producethe transmitter beamforming information”......................... 20
`
`VL US. PATENT NO. 6,941,156 202000. ceeee cece cee cence ence ects ee eeteeeeees 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Technology Background -...200... 2200000 ..oe0 cececece 24
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)...0000 ee. 24
`
`“simultaneous communication paths from said multimodecell phone”
`(CLL) eee eee cee cece c cece cece cece eens cence ceeeceaeceneecenseeeeesseeenseeeeeeceeceneeeeetens 25
`
`“a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said
`RF communication functionality” (cl. 1) ........0..eeeeeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeees 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Is Subject to § 112 § 6 (Means-Plus-Function)........ 34
`
`Corresponding Function and Structure.........0.......0....::eceeeeeeeeeees 37
`i
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`3
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1283 Page 4 of 63
`
`1
`>
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`
`E.
`
`“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said
`cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality,
`operable to switch a communication path established on one ofsaid cell
`phonefunctionality and said RF communication functionality, with
`another communication path later established on the other of said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality”(cl. 1)41
`1.
`This Term Is Subject to § 112 § 6 (Means-Plus-Function)........ 41
`2.
`Corresponding Function and Structure.................0..:.:sceeeeeeeeeees 43
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 .00....ccccccccccecceeecceeeceeeeeeeceeeeeecesceceseeseeeeeseteeeeeees 46
`
`|[VIl.
`
`Technology Background ....2.........00..cccecccccceeceeeeeeeeceeeeeeceeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeees 46
`A.
`8
`“position to a communications towel”...............ccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeees 47
`B.
`9
`10 VITL=CONCLUSION 200...ecceecccceccecec cececeece cee ceeeeecececeneececeeeseeeaeeceseeeeeceseeeseeeseeens 51
`
`-i
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1284 Page 5 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) o2..eee cece cece ceecceeceeeec eee eeececeeeeeececeseeeeeeeseeeeseeeeees 38
`
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) o2..eeeceecececceceeecceeeeeec cece ececeeeeeeeeceeeseeenecesseeeseeeeees 16
`
`ChefAm., Inc. v. Lamb Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir, 2004) ooo... cece cecceceecc cece cee eceeceeeeeeeeeecesaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneees 50
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2220.2... cece cece eee ee cee eeceeeee cece eeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeetiees 47
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .2...ecececceceeecescceecceeecceeceeeeceeeceeeeeeeeseeeseeceeeeeeeeseeeens 31
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir, 2014) ooo... cece ceecce cece eceecceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeceeseeeenseeens 1, 48
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .22. 2200. eee cece cece cece ec cecececeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeesneees 15
`
`Markmanv. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) «2202...eee eeeeee 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 202... .eccccecceecececceeeceeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeseeeeseees 1, 18, 26, 47
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co..,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) oo... ceccececcceceecccceecceeeecceeeeceeceeeeeceeneceaceeeeeeseneeeenneees 31
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 22... cee eee ceeec cece c cece ee cence ceceece cee eceeneeeeeeeeeeneees 31
`
`Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp.,
`418 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2.2... cece ceeceececcecceeeeeeeeecececeeeeeeeececesceeeeeeseeeeseeeesees 14
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 2... ceeceececceeceeec cence ceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeseeeeeees 8, 47, 48
`
`ill
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`5
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1285 Page 6 of 63
`
`Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`681 F. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..ccccccccccccecsescsseccsessseesssesesessseesssessieesevesesees 41, 46
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) oo...coccecececceecceceeccc cence ceeeececeeeceescecneseecntseeenspassim
`
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’! Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ooo.ceeccecceccccecececceeeeceeceseeeeeeeeeeceeeessseeeeesseeeeees 38
`
`.l
`
`V
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 >
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1286 Page 7 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff BNR sued the Defendants (Coolpad, Huawei, Kyocera, and ZTE),
`
`alleging certain cell phonesandtablets infringe its patents. The patents purport to
`
`relate to wireless communications, as well as power management techniques(e.g.,
`
`the use of proximity sensors). BNR hasasserted eight patents against Huawei and
`
`ZTE,and a subset of these against Kyocera (six patents) and Coolpad(four patents).
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions, as reflected below, properly begin with
`
`the plain meaning of terms informedby the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Defendants propose a usage
`
`consistent with and supported by the specifications, id. at 1316, absent a clear
`
`disclaimer, GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014). BNR, however, proposes constructions to impermissibly broaden or
`
`rewrite its claims. For these reasons, Defendants’ proposals should be adopted.
`
`I.
`
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The ’889 and °554 patents (“the Goris patents”) share a common
`
`specification.! They pertain to a mobilestation (e.g., a cordless or cellular
`
`telephone) that includes “a proximity sensor .
`
`.
`
`. adapted to cause [the] power
`
`consumption ofthe display to be reduced whenthe display is within a
`
`predetermined rangeof an external object.” ’889 (Doc. No. 1-3)? at Abstract, 1:21-
`
`26, 1:42-46; see also id. at 3:13-15, 3:20-32. Their commonspecification teaches
`
`that, during a telephonecall, the display “is not needed” when“the display [is] near
`
`to an object, in particular to the ear” of a user. See id. at 1:47-51, 1:55-58, 1:62-2:1,
`
`2:18-24, 3:12-39, 3:55-58. Thepatents disclose activating a proximity sensor during
`
`' Because the Goris patent specifications are the same,for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier-issued ’889 patent.
`? Doc. Nos. referenced herein refer to BNR v. Huawei, 3:18-cv-1784 unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`1
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1287 Page 8 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`incoming and outgoing calls. /d. at Abstract, 3:7-15, 3:33-35, 3:48-55, Figs. 3, 4.
`
`The proximity sensor detects whether an external objectis “within a predetermined
`
`range.” See id. at Abstract, 1:43-46, 3:13-15, 3:20-25, 3:33-39, 3:55-58. When the
`
`proximity sensor detects an external object within the predeterminedrange,“the
`
`power consumptionof the display 150 is reduced, most preferably by switching the
`
`display 150 completely off.” See id. at Abstract, 1:43-46, 1:55-58, 1:62-64, 2:18-24,
`
`3:20-25, 3:35-39, 3:55-58, Fig. 3. When the external object movesout of range
`
`(e.g., when the user movesthe phone awayfrom hisorherear), the proximity
`
`sensor detects that event as well, and the “the display 150 is switched back on.” Jd.
`
`10
`
`at 2:6-9, 3:26-32.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“a signalindicative of proximity of an external object” / “a signal
`B.
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`3
`that an external object is proximate
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`BNR’s Construction
`
`within a predetermined range”
`
`“a signal that an external objectis or is
`not within a predetermined range”
`
`“a signal that an external objectis
`
`Claim 1 of the 889 patent recites “a proximity sensor adapted to generate a
`
`signal indicative ofproximity of an external object.” Claims 1 and 14 of the °554
`
`patentrecite “a proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of the
`
`existence of a first condition, the first condition being than an external object is
`
`proximate.” Throughtheir continuing negotiations, the parties have narrowedthis
`
`dispute to a single issue: must the signal generated by the proximity sensor be
`
`capable of indicating only that an external object is within a predetermined range (as
`
`BNR contends) or mustthat signal also be capable of indicating that an external
`
`> The parties have agreed to a construction of “the signalis that an external object is
`within a predetermined range”for the phrase “the signal indicates the proximity of
`the external object,” and they will file a Supplemental Joint Hearing Statement
`reflecting this agreement.
`
`2
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Cage
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1288 Page 9 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`object is no longer(or 1s nof) within the predeterminedrange as well (as Defendants
`
`contend).
`
`The claims of the Goris patents demonstrate that Defendants’ construction is
`
`correct. For example, claim | of the ’889 patent requires the proximity sensor to
`
`“detect[] whether an external object is proximate”to the display. Jd. at 4:21-22.
`
`The use of “whether” indicates alternatives, i.e., the sensor either determines that an
`
`external object is proximate or it determinesthat the external object is not
`
`proximate. Asfurther recited in claim 1, the proximity sensor is “adapted to
`
`generate a signalindicative ofproximity of an external object” based onits
`
`determination of “whether an external object is proximate.” See id. at 4:5-6, 4:21-
`
`22. The proximity sensor’s signal must be capable of indicating the two
`
`alternatives, thus, the claimed signalis “a signal that an external object is or is not
`
`within a predeterminedrange.”
`
`Sometimes, that signal will state “yes, the external object is proximate.” See
`
`supra n.3. But other times, the clarmed signal must be able to state “no, the external
`
`object is not proximate.” For example, claims 2 and 9 of the ’554 patent explicitly
`
`confirm that the claimed signal must havethe “is not proximate” state. Claim 2
`
`recites “increasing powerto the display ifthe signalfrom the activatedproximity
`
`sensor indicates that thefirst condition no longer exists.” °554 (Doc No.1-4) at
`
`4:24-26 (emphasis added). The “first condition no longer exists” if an external
`
`object is not proximate. See id. at 4:4-6. Claim 9 similarly claims “increasing
`
`power consumption ofthe display ifthe signalfrom the activatedproximity sensor
`
`indicates that the proximity condition no longerexists.” Id. at 4:62-64 (emphasis
`
`added). In other words, both of these claims expressly require the signal generated
`
`by the proximity sensoralso be capable of indicating that the external objectis not
`
`proximate (and then more powerwill go to the display of the mobile station). By
`
`3
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1289 Page 10 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`excluding the “or is not” state of the claimed signal, BNR’s proposed construction
`
`contradicts this explicit claim language.
`
`The Goris patents’ commonspecification further supports Defendants’
`
`construction. The specification discloses two actions depending on what the
`
`proximity sensor detects. First, “[i]f the proximity sensor 140 detects an external
`
`object (such as the user’s ear) within the monitored range, the power consumption of
`
`the display 150 is reduced.” °889 at Abstract, 1:41-46, 1:55-58, 1:62-64, 2:18-24,
`
`3:20-25, 3:35-39, 3:55-58, Fig. 3. Second, in responseto the external object
`
`“mov[ing] out of range” of the proximity sensor, “the display 150 is switched back
`
`on.” Id. at 3:26-32; see also id. at 2:6-9. Figures 3 and 4 are flow diagramsthat
`
`show(at 304 and 404) the determination made by the proximity sensor. Jd. at 2:49-
`
`52, Figs. 3, 4. The proximity sensor determines whether an external objectis
`
`proximate. Theresult is either “yes” or “no.” Jd. Only Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the claimsandspecification.
`
`Il. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The °842 patent relates to how data is encoded for transmission from a
`
`wireless device. An encoding technique helps put the data in a format that can be
`
`transmitted andthen, later, decoded by the receiver essentially using an inverse of
`
`the encoding technique. As background, the ’842 patent states that “both the
`
`802.11a and 802.11g standards use an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`
`(OFDM) encoding scheme.” ’842 (Doc No. 1-5) at 2:8-10.4 “OFDM works by
`
`* The “802.11” standards are a set of communication protocols promulgated by the
`Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (“TEEE”). “802” refers to IEEE
`802 local area network (“LAN”) protocol standards, while “802.11” are a subset of
`
`802 standards that specify two layers of the network protocol “stack”—the media
`access layer (“MAC”) and the physical access layer (“PHY”)—for implementing
`wireless local area networks (“WLAN”) WiFi communications in certain
`
`4
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1290 Page 11 of 63
`
`spreadinga single data stream overa band of sub-carriers, each of whichis
`
`transmitted in parallel.” Jd. at 2:12-14. “In 802.1 1a/802.11g, each data packetstarts
`
`with a preamble whichincludesa short training sequence followed by a long
`
`training sequence. Theshort and long training sequencesare used for
`
`synchronization between the senderand the receiver.” Jd. at 2:30-34. These
`
`training sequences use a form of modulation known as Binary Phase Shift Keying or
`
`BPSK,in which a +1 mapsto transmitting the sub-carrier with a 0-degree phase
`
`shift and a -1 mapsto transmitting the subcarrier with a 180-degree phase shift. The
`
`°842 patent purports to address a “need to create a long training sequence of
`
`minimum peak-to-averageratio [(‘PAPR’)] that uses more sub-carriers without
`
`interfering with adjacent channels.” Jd. at 2:36-38. Accordingto the patent,its
`
`approach “decreases power back-off” and “should be usable by legacy devices in
`
`order to estimate channel impulse response andto estimate carrier frequency offset
`
`betweena transmitter and a receiver.” Jd. at 2:41-43, 4:4-6.
`
`B.
`
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`BNR’s Construction
`
`an inverse Fourier transform.”
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`18
`
`20
`
`“a circuit and/or software that performs a|“Plain and ordinary meaning,
`17
`defined mathematical function that
`alternatively to the extent the Court
`transformsa series of values from the
`determinesthat a specific
`frequency domain into the time domain”|construction is warranted: circuit
`19
`and/or software that at least performs
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The parties agree that an Inverse Fourier Transformercan be a circuit and/or
`
`software. Otherwise, Defendants seek to construe the Inverse Fourier Transformer
`
`communication frequency bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 60 GHz). Often,
`products purporting to comply with aspects of the 802.11 standard are brandedas
`“Wi-Fi” products. Amendments and improvementsto the base standards get
`additional letter designations, such as 802.11a or 802.11b. See, e.g.,
`http://www.ieee802.org/11.
`
`5
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1291 Page 12 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`consistent with the ’842 patent’s claims and specification, while BNR seeks a non-
`
`construction.
`
`Only Defendants’ proposed construction accurately captures what the Inverse
`
`Fourier Transformer does with the “extended long training sequence,” as recited in
`
`the claims. Independent claim 1 recites “a signal generator that generates an
`
`extended long training sequence.” °*842 at cl. 1. “|The Inverse Fourier Transformer
`
`processesthe extended long training sequence from the signal generator and
`
`provides an optimal extended long training sequence.” Jd. Thus, the Inverse
`
`Fourier Transformer converts the BPSK modulated sub-carriers (a sequence defined
`
`in the frequency domain) into an “optimal extended long training sequence”(a
`
`sequence defined in the time domain).
`
`The specification describes the operation of an “Inverse Fourier Transform”
`
`in accordance with Defendants’ proposal: “[s]ignal generating circuit 205 generates
`
`the expanded longtraining sequence and if 56 active sub-carriers are being used,
`
`signal generating circuit generates .
`
`.
`
`. and stores the expandedlong training
`
`sequence in sub-carriers -28 to +28. ... The inventive long training sequenceis
`
`inputted into an Inverse Fourier Transform 206.” Jd. at 4:41-52 (emphasis added).
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below,has the Inverse Fourier Transform 206 outlined in red.
`joo
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`6
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1292 Page 13 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The specification further confirms that the output of block 206,“the Inverse
`
`Fourier Transform,” which is an input to block 208, is a time domain signal:
`
`“[s]erial to parallel module 208 converts the serial time domain signals into parallel
`
`time domain signals that are subsequently filtered and converted to analog signals
`
`via the D/A [(digital-to-analog converter)].” Jd. at 4:61-64 (emphasis added). The
`
`specification teaches that a frequency domain signalis the input to the Inverse
`
`Fourier Transform,and the resultant output signal is a time domain signal, precisely
`
`as described in Defendants’ construction. The creation ofparallel time domain
`
`streamsis necessary to transmit the signal on multiple antennas via independent
`
`digital to analog converters, as described above.
`
`Both of BNR’s proposals are flawed. First, BNR’s proposalthat Inverse
`
`Fourier Transformer be given its plain and ordinary meaning does not help the jury,
`
`nor the Court, understand what this highly technical term would mean to person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). Second, BNR’s alternate proposal is effectively a non-
`
`construction wherein BNR simply parrots back the language of the claim and does
`
`not explain the highly technical term “Inverse Fourier Transformer.”
`
`Defendants do not dispute that a Fourier transform can operate in more than
`
`one dimension. But BNR’s assertions that “Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`erroneously restricts the inverse Fourier Transform to time and frequency domains”
`
`and “there is no specific direction for the transform required by the claims”are
`
`incorrect and contradict the intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Ex. A (Madisetti Op.
`
`Decl.) at § 192.° First, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`> Pursuant to the Court’s Consolidation Order dated February 2, 2019 anddirection
`to the parties during the April 26, 2019 Claim Construction Status Hearing,
`Defendants are filing consolidated Claim Construction and Indefiniteness Briefs.
`Doc. No. 60 at 3; Ex. B (Apr. 26, 2019 Status Hr’g Tr.) at 9:9-10:9. Given BNR’s
`use of Dr. Madisetti’s opinions in a mannerdirectly adverse to ZTE, ZTE must
`
`7
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1293 Page 14 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`customary meanings as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read
`
`in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nowhere doesthe
`
`specification mention an Inverse Fourier Transformer operating on anything other
`
`than a one-dimensional signal. Nowhere doesthe specification disclose the Inverse
`
`Fourier Transformer operating on a spaceorspatial signal, or any other variable
`
`other than time or frequency.
`
`Second, the Inverse Fourier Transformerhasa specified direction. The
`
`specification teaches that the “FFT [(fast Fourier transform)] module 36 converts
`
`the serial me domain signals intofrequency domain signals.” °842 at 5:8-9
`
`(emphasis added). The specification also teachesthat the “Inverse Fourier
`
`Transform 206 may be an inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT).” Jd. at 4:53-55
`
`(emphasis added). If there were no specified direction, there would be no need for
`
`14
`
`an inverse transform.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Defendants’ proposalclarifies that in the context of the claims and the
`
`specification, a wireless communications system using Orthogonal Frequency
`
`Domain Multiplexing (OFDM), that the Inverse Fourier Transformer maps the
`
`frequency domain sub-carriers into a time domainrepresentation as defined by the
`
`mathematical function of an inverse Fourier Transform. “OFDM is a frequency
`
`division multiplexing modulation technique for transmitting large amounts ofdigital
`
`data over a radio wave. OFDM worksbyspreading a single data stream over a band
`
`of sub-carriers, each of which is transmitted in parallel.” Jd. at 2:10-14. The very
`
`nature of OFDM,asdescribed bythe specification, is to start with a frequency
`
`domain signal and distribute the data to be transmitted over a band of sub-carriers in
`
`the frequency domain, each of whichis transmitted in parallel via the Inverse
`
`address BNR’s positions in this consolidated brief. However, ZTE maintains and
`does not waiveits objections to BNR’s use of Dr. Madisetti for the reasons cited in
`its Motion to Strike dated May 8, 2019. BNR v. ZTE, 3:18-cv-1786, Doc. No. 84.
`8
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1294 Page 15 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Fourier Transformer converting the frequency domain signalto its corresponding
`
`time domain representation.
`
`For these reasons, Defendants’ construction should be adopted.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO.7,957,450
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`The °450 patent relates to antenna “beamforming” in wireless communication
`
`systems. Beamformingis like shining a beam oflight at an intended area. In
`
`contrast to antennas which transmit a radio frequency (“RF”) signalin all directions,
`
`beamformingis a technique using multiple antennas to focus an RF signal (a
`
`“beam’’) toward the intended receiver. Ex. C (Min Op. Decl.) at § 41. As a result, a
`
`strongersignal is available to the intended receiver. *450 (Doc. No. 33-6) at 1:37-
`
`41; 3:8-14.
`
`In general terms, beamforming requires coordinatingthe arrival of the
`
`transmitted signals at the receiving device. To implementthis technique, the
`
`transmitting device mathematically modifies the signals to be transmitted by each
`
`antenna using a beamforming “matrix.”° Importantly, to construct an appropriate
`
`beamforming matrix, the transmitting device must obtain information aboutthe
`
`characteristics of the RF channel to the receiving device. The claims of the °450
`
`patent are directed to “feedback information”sent by the receiving device back to
`
`the transmitting device to help the transmitting device construct an appropriate
`
`beamforming matrix.
`
`This conceptis illustrated in Figure 2 below, which depicts a “transmitting
`
`mobile terminal 202,” a “receiving mobile terminal 222,” and “RF channels 242.”
`
`Id. at 11:32-36. To focus a beam,the transmitting mobile terminal modifies the
`
`source signals 206, 208, 210 based on beamforming matrix V 204 before they are
`
`° A “matrix” is a two-dimensional array of values. An example of a 2x2 matrix,
`which is a matrix that includes two rows and two columns,1s: ; ‘ .
`
`9
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1295 Page 16 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`transmitted from antennas 212, 214,216. Jd. at 11:41-54. The characteristics of RF
`
`channels 242 through which the signals are transmitted may be represented
`
`mathematically by a matrix, H, which is another two-dimensionalarray of values.
`
`Id. at 11:61-65. The receiving mobile terminal includes antennas 232, 234, and 236
`
`to receive the signals transmitted through the RF channels 242. Jd. at 11:55-59.
`
`
`
`
`
`°450 at Fig.2.
`
`To construct an appropriate beamforming matrix V, the transmitting mobile
`
`terminal must take into account the characteristics of the RF channel, which is
`
`represented by the matrix H.’ Dueto signal fading effects on the RF channel, the
`
`7 The patentee chosethe notation “H”to identify a mathematical representation of
`an RF channel. °450 at 3:53-66. However, the patentee also uses “H” in
`conjunction with various additional notations to provide additional specificity, but
`each refers to an RF channel. “Hes” is used to identify an RF “channel estimate
`matrix which is computed by a receiving mobile terminal.” Jd. at 8:52-56. “H(t)” is
`used to identify H “as a function of time,” where “t” refers to the RF channel
`characteristics at a specific instant in time. Jd. at 4:5-9. “Hip”is used to identify a
`“reverse channel estimate matrix”that is “computed by a receiving mobile
`terminal,” where the term “reverse” refers to an “uplink” RF channel (1.e., channel
`for signals transmitted from the receiving mobile terminal to the transmitting mobile
`terminal). Jd. at 4:66-5:2. “Hdown” is used to identify a “forward channel estimate
`matrix”that is “computed by a transmitting mobile terminal,” where the term
`“forward”refers to a “downlink” RF channel (i.e., channel for signals transmitted
`from the transmitted mobile terminal to the receiving mobile terminal). Jd. at 5:2-
`5:7.
`
`10
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1296 Page 17 of 63
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`values in the matrix H may rapidly change. /d. at 3:49-53; 8:36-39. Toassist in the
`
`beamformingprocess, the receiving mobile terminal mayperiodically send feedback
`
`information to the transmitting mobile terminal. Jd. at 1:30-34. To do so, the
`
`receiving terminal computesa channelestimate matrix Hes: based on the signals
`
`received. Then, the receiving mobile terminal performsa singular value
`
`decomposition (SVD) on the channel estimate matrix. Jd. at 7:67-8:5. SVD isa
`
`mathematical operation that is used to decompose(e.g., factor) a matrix, such as the
`
`channel estimate matrix, into the product of three other matrices, namely matrices
`
`U, S, and V¥® Ex. D (Min Reb. Decl.) at 57. The receiving mobile terminal may
`
`then transmit back to the transmitting mobile terminalcoefficients of the SVD-
`
`derived matrices (U, S, and V") as “feedback information.” °450 at 7:67-8:5; 8:28-
`
`12
`
`33.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“‘“POSITA”)
`
`Theparties’ experts generally agree on the level of ordinary skill for the °450
`
`Patent and their opinions are not affected by any differences. Ex. D (Min Reb.
`
`Decl.) at § 51; Ex. E (Madisetti Reb. Decl.) at § 71. Dr. Min states that a POSITA
`
`would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, and between 2 to 4 years of
`
`experience in the field of wireless communication, or a person with equivalent
`
`education, work, or experience in this field. Ex. C (Min Op. Decl.) at 4 136-38;
`
`Ex. A (Madisetti Op. Decl.) at § 129.
`
`8 A real number, such as the number 24, maybefactored into the product of other
`real numbers2, 3, and 4, as shown by the equation: 24=2x34_ Ex. D (Min Reb.
`Decl.) at § 57 n.2. Matrices similarly can be factored. Using SVD, a matrix Hest
`may be decomposed(factored) into the productof three matrices U, S, and V™, as
`shown by “equation[2]”: Hest = U x S x V¥®, or just Hes=USV™. °450 at 8:52-65.
`11
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.1297 Page 18 of 63
`
`