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,
`
`Plaintitt,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01783-CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE]
`DEFENDANTS’? MEMORANDUM OF
`
`V.
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.|FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`INDEFINITENESS
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`Date:
`June 19, 2019
`Courtroom: 4C
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`Defendants.
`
`Judge:
`
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 2019
`
`Date:
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI 1019
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI 1019
`
`

`

`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 2019
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 2019
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBERSRULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICEUSA,INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATIONand
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA)
`INC., ZTE (TX) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`2
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`T.
`
`INTRODUCTION020.0 cccccccce cece cece ccc cence eee ee cece cence cease seceseeeeeeeeeeeeneenteeee 1
`
`Tl. LEGAL STANDARD ooo. cee eee cee cence eee cece cece ect ee ee ceeee cee eeeeeeeneeenieeees 1
`
`TH. ARGUMENT..00...0.cccccccccccecceeecceecceeccececcesseeeeeececeeceeecseceseeceaeseseeeseeeeseeseeeesseeseeeees 1
`
`A. Goris Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,554) ..00..eee 1
`
`“A mobile station, comprising:... the proximity sensor begins detecting
`1.
`whether an external object is proximate substantially concurrently with the
`mobile station initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or recerving an
`mcoming wireless telephone call.” (889 cL. 1)... eee eee eee 1
`
`2.
`
`“substantially concurrently” (889 cls. 1, 8; 554 cls. 7, 13) _0..0002.. 3
`
`B. US. Patent No. 7,990,842 0222. cec cece cece cence cece cece eee ceee cee eeceeeceeeceeeeenneeties 4
`
`“a standard wireless networking configuration for an Orthogonal
`1.
`Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme”(cl. 1) ........20000000.ee eee eee 4
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“extended long training sequence”(cls. 1, 19) ...00000000eeee 7
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence”(cls. 1, 4, 14, 19)... 9
`
`“legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a legacy
`4.
`wireless networking protocol standard”(cl. 14)....0.......cccccceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteees 10
`
`C.
`
`USS. Patent No. 8,416,862 -2.......ccecceeceeceeececceeee cence eesceeeceeseeeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeens 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“a baseband processing module operable to... .” (cl. 9)...eee ll
`
`“the baseband processing module is operable to .. .” (cl. 10)................... 16
`
`D. US. Patent No. 6,941,156 20.2.0... cece cee cecc cece c eee eeee cece ceeeeeeceeeeseeceeceeeeeseeensees 17
`
`1.
`
`“acell phone functionality” (cl. 1) ........ecc eee e cece cc ceceeceeeeeeseeceeeesseeeeteees 17
`
`“RF communication functionality” (cl. 1) .....00..cec cc eeeeceeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeteees 20
`2.
`“a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`3.
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF
`communication functionality” (Cl. 1)...........ceececceeecccceeeecceeeeeceeeceeeneceeeeseeeeeeees 22
`
`“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell
`4.
`phonefunctionality and said RF communication functionality, operable to
`switch a communication path established on one of said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality, with another
`communication path later established on the otherof said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality”(cl. 1)... 24
`
`TV. CONCLUSION... ...cccccceccccecccceccecccecec ees cececeeeeeeeeecececeeseeecaceeeseeeeeceeceeereeseeenees 25
`
`1
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMetal.
`
`3
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`NNNMNYBDBDRRRRReeeeeanN—&WwNYS&FCSOoOoHDDwF&FWDPYKSS&S
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’] Game Tech.
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 20.00 cccec ccc ceececcceeenncceceneneececenssaseeeenes 22, 23,25
`
`AugmeTechs., Inc. v. Yahoo!Inc.
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) oo... ceec cece cceecce cence ceneceenseecesseeeenseseeneeesees 17,27
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
`743 F. Supp. 2d 305 (D. Del. 2010), aff'd, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........... 3
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Ine.
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)occ 4,5,9,10
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 222000...eee cece eee eeeeeeteeeeeeteees 18
`
`Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp., Inc.
`674 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......ccccececcecccecceeceeseeeceeeceeceeeceeseeeseteeeeseeeseteees 16
`
`EONCorp. Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 2... cee ceeceeec cee ceececeec cence ceeceeeceeeeeececeeeeceeseeseeeseeensees 21
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 022.000. .oe occ cee cece cece cece eee tee ec eteeeceeeeeeeteeeeees 18, 27
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights ofAm., Inc.
`663 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .2.......ccccccceccesceesceecceecceeccecceecceseceseceeeeseeeseeeeeeseenes4
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost Comme’nsLtd.
`2016 WL 212676 (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2016), aff'd, 685 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir.
`QOVT) ooeeecccceccceceececccecenseceeseeseececeanscesacecesaeecesseeeessceceeeecsseeceensseseseseesanes 13, 14, 21, 24
`
`Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisoft, Inc.
`97 F. Supp. 3d 965 (W.D. Tenn. 2015) oo... ceceeceeeeceeeececenseeeeneeceneseesenes 14
`
`A-W Tech, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.
`758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 222200 eeeeeeeeeeeeteneees 3
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing PatentLitig.
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cur. 2011) oo... cecc cee ccceec cece cence cence eesseeeenseecenscesensecensaeensneees 3
`
`il
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMet al.
`
`4
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) o22202occce tees eceeeeeeteeeees 4
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2002.22. ceecceceecccceececeecccenscecnescecenceceesseeeenecessaeeens 1,2,3
`
`Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cur. 2017) .2..... cece cece cece cence eesececeeceeeneeeceseecensseseneecensaeessaeees 2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`S572 US. 898 (2014)ooo.ne eee eeeeneeeceneeecenseeetnseeenneseee 1,7
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ooo... cece cecccceececceecceeeeeeceseceeneccesceeeneceseeseessseennes 16
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`No. 9:09-cv-111, 2011 WL 11757163 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2011)... 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir, 2005) o0202 000. cece cee cence eee ceee cee eee eee cetseeeeeeeeeenees 7
`
`Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd.
`890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018) -22000. oo. cece cece cence cee cette eceeeeeeteneees 8
`
`SarifBiomed. LLC v. Brainlab, Inc.
`2015 WL 5072085 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2015)... eec cece eceeecceeececeeeecenseeeneeeeeees 14
`
`Soque Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Keyscan, Inc.
`2010 WL 2292316 (N.D.Cal. June 7, 2010)...cece eceecceeeeeceeeecenseecneseeeees 15
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cur. 2015) ooo... ccccc cece cece cece ceeeeeecseeeeeseeeeescecensseseneecensaeesseeees 7
`
`Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo ofAm., Inc.
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 222200 eeeeteeeeeeeees 19
`
`UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co.
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) oo.....cceccccecccccece cence ceeeeeeceseeeesseeeenseecesseesensecensaeeseneees 2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......cccce cece ceeececeececeneecceeeceseaeceesscecnsseectiseeesspassim
`
`iil
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMet al.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § V1 2 occ cece cceeecceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
`
`ceceeceeeseceeeeceeeeseeeeeeseeeseseeseeseeeeeeeseneees 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, 9 6 oocecccccc ccc ceccccce sess vesseeeeseesseees
`
`oc ccesececceneesceceeeeeeeeeceeseeeeeeeeceeeespassim
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMetal.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants herebyfile their Joint for Motion Summary Judgment on
`
`Indefiniteness pursuant to the Court’s statements made during the April 24, 2019
`
`Status Hearing. See Ex. A (Apr. 24, 2019 Hr’g Tr.) at 9:9-10:9.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, patent claims must “particularly point|| out and
`
`distinctly claim|] the subject matter” regarded as the invention. Claims, viewed in
`
`light of the specification and prosecution history, must “inform those skilled in the
`
`art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v.
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). Claimsthat do notare indefinite
`
`under § 112, rendering them invalid. Jd. at 2125.
`
`il. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Goris Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,554)!
`
`1.
`
`“A mobile station, comprising:... the proximity sensor begins
`detecting whether an external'tobject is proximate substantially
`concurrently with the mobile station initiating an outgoing
`wireless telephone call or receiving an incoming wireless
`telephonecall.” (’889 cl. 1)?
`
`Underthe line of Federal Circuit cases beginning with JPXL Holdings, L.L.C.
`
`vy. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005), claim 1 of the 889 patentis
`
`indefinite because its use of method steps in an apparatus claim makesit unclear
`
`whether infringement occurs when a device is manufactured or when a useractually
`
`uses it in an infringing manner. See Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`874 F.3d 1307, 1313-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reciting relevant case law).
`
`Claim 1 of the 889 patent recites a “mobile station” comprising a proximity
`
`sensor, “wherein: ... the proximity sensor begins detecting whether an external
`
`' Because the Goris patent specifications are the same, for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier-issued ’889 patent.
`? The termsreferenced herein are identified in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction
`Chart Worksheet and Hearing Statement Pursuant to P_L-.R. 4.2. BNR v. Huawei,
`3:18-cv-1784, Doc. No. 58-1 (Jt. CC Worksheet) App. A.
`1
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMeftal.
`
`7
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`object is proximate substantially concurrently with the mobile station [performing
`
`the method step of] initiating an outgoing wireless telephonecall or receiving an
`
`incoming wireless telephonecall.” See ’889 (Doc. No. 1-3)° at claim 1. Because the
`
`mobile station requires user action in order to initiate or receive a wireless telephone
`
`call, it is unclear whether infringement occurs whenonesells a mobile station with a
`
`proximity sensor capable ofthis functionality, or whether infringement occurs when
`
`a user of the mobile station initiates or receives an incoming wireless telephonecall.
`
`As such, claim | is indefinite.
`
`Althoughan apparatusclaim that describes a capability of the apparatus 1s not
`
`prohibited by IPXL, see UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816,
`
`826-27 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the method step of claim 1 does not describe the mere
`
`capability of the mobile station—it describes a step that must be performed by the
`
`user of the mobile station. The specification is clear that a user must perform the
`
`methodstep of “initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call.” °889 at 3:33-35
`
`(“[F]or an outgoing call, the proximity sensor 140is activated by pressing a key on
`
`the keypad 160 to establish the outgoing call to a thirdparty.”). Thus, the wherein
`
`clause in claim | requires the user of the mobile station to take action. See In re
`
`Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(“Katz seeks to distinguish JPXZ on the ground that the term ‘wherein’ does not
`
`signify a method step but instead defines a functional capability. We disagree and
`
`uphold the district court’s ruling. Like the language used in the claim at issue in
`
`IPXL (‘wherein ... the user uses’), the language used in Katz’s claims (‘wherein...
`
`callers digitally enter data’ and ‘wherein ... callers provide ... data’) is directed to
`
`user actions, not system capabilities.”); H-W Tech, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc., 758
`
`F.3d 1329, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding indefinite an apparatus claim that
`
`> Doc. Nos. referenced herein refer to BNR v. Huawei, 3:18-cv-1784 unless
`otherwise noted. Pin point cites are made to the ECF generated page numbers.
`2
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMeftal.
`
`8
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`recited method steps of “wherein said user completes a transaction” and “wherein
`
`said user selects one of said variety of offers’’).
`
`Tellingly, claim | does recite a “capability” limitation elsewhere—
`
`specifically, a “proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of proximity
`
`of an external object’—butby contrast does not use this “adapted to” language to
`
`describe the “mobile station initiating an outgoing wireless telephonecall or
`
`receiving an incoming wireless telephonecall.” Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira,
`
`Inc., 743 F. Supp. 2d 305, 329 (D. Del. 2010), aff'd, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Had the patentees wished to state that the composition was merely ‘capable of
`
`being formedinto a perfusion, they could easily havesaid so explicitly.”).
`
`In short, claim 1 is an apparatus claim with a user-performed methodstep,
`
`leaving the public unclear as to when infringement occurs. It is indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`“substantially concurrently” (’889 cls. 1, 8; °554 cls. 7, 13)
`
`The term “substantially concurrently” is indefinite because “substantially” is a
`
`term of degree for which neither the specification nor the claims provide any
`
`objective boundaries. See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018) (defining terms such as “minimal”or “substantial” as terms of degree).
`
`Whenusing terms of degree, the patent “must provide ‘somestandard of measuring
`
`that degree’ such that the claim language provides “enoughcertainty to oneofskill
`
`in the art when read in context of the invention.’” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v.
`
`Lights ofAm., Inc., 663 F. App’x 938, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Interval Licensing LLC
`
`v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This standard for measurement
`
`must be in the form of “objective boundaries.” Id.
`
`Here, nothing in the claim languagenorthe specification provides any
`
`objective boundary for determining the temporal degree allowedfor “substantially
`
`concurrent[]” activation of sensor detection andinitiation or receipt ofa call.
`
`Instead, the only portions of the specification that provide any possible guidance
`
`teach that “[i]n response to the acceptance of the mcomingcall 210 or automatically,
`
`3
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM eftal.
`
`9
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`the proximity sensor 140 is activated to monitor a proximity 230 to an external
`
`object.” °889 at 3:12-14. Similarly, “for an outgoing call, the proximity sensor 140
`
`is activated by pressing a key on the keypad 160 to establish the outgoingcall to a
`
`third party.” °889 at 3:33-35.
`
`Whendealing in terms of degree, the operative question is whether the
`
`intrinsic evidence providesskilled artisans with some point of comparison suchthat
`
`they are able to determine the objective boundaries of the term. See Berkheimer,
`
`881 F.3d at 1364 (finding “minimal redundancy” indefinite because the only
`
`examplesin the specification included “no redundancy,” giving those skilled in the
`
`art no point for comparison and thus no objective boundaries). Like Berkheimer,
`
`neither the claims nor the specification provide any objective means for comparison
`
`between activation that occurs “substantially concurrently”to initiating or receiving
`
`a call and activation that does not occur “substantially concurrently”to initiating or
`
`receiving a call (i.e., there is no guidance as to how much time maypass between
`
`activation and initiating or receiving a call before the two do not occur
`
`“substantially concurrently”). As neither the specification nor the claims teach
`
`objective boundaries for “substantially concurrently,” the term is indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`USS. Patent No. 7,990,842
`1.
`“a standard wireless networking configurationforan
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme”(cl. 1)
`Claim | comprises an “optimal extended long training sequence”that “is
`
`carried by a greater numberof subcarriers than a standard wireless networking
`
`configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme.” This
`
`term’s reliance on a “standard wireless networking configuration”fails as indefinite
`
`becausethere is no explanation as to which configuration is contemplated by this
`
`term, leaving a person ofskill in the art (POSITA) without reasonable certainty as to
`
`its scope.
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM eftal.
`
`4
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`The intrinsic evidence does not specify what constitutes a “standard” wireless
`
`networking configuration nor provide objective boundaries for determining the
`
`scope of this term. The specification does not use the terms “standard wireless
`
`networking configuration,” “wireless networking,” or “configuration.” Nor does the
`
`specification use the word “standard”in a way that sufficiently clarifies the scope of
`
`this term. The word “standard,” as written in claim 1, is an adjective describing the
`
`“wireless networking configuration.” Yet the patent nowhere describes what a
`
`“standard” wireless networking configuration is. Indeed, elsewhere, the patent only
`
`uses the word “standard”as a noun to refer to protocols such as 802.11. This use
`
`10
`
`appearsin the specification’s “Description of Related Art,” which includes solely
`
`the following references: “a particular wireless communication standard,” “different
`
`standards or different variations of the same standard,” “802.11 standard,”“a newer
`
`version of the standard,” and “802.1 1a and 802.11g standards.” *842 (Doc No.1-5)
`
`at 1:31-2:10. But the patentee did not choose that usage in claim 1. Notably, the
`
`patentee knew howto draft claims using the word “standard” as a noun. See ’842 at
`
`cls. 13, 14, 15 (reciting a “legacy wireless networking protocol standard”). Absent
`
`any objective boundaries, this term is indefinite.
`
`If the grammar ofthis term is overlooked and the Court finds the patentee
`
`used the word “standard”as a noun,the claim is still indefinite. Because the
`
`specification uses the word “standard”in describing the 802.1 1a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
`
`and 802.1 1n standards (°842 at 1:31-2:10), a POSITA could in theory interpret
`
`“standard” as an 802.11 wireless standard issued by the IEEE. Ex. B (Wells Op.
`
`Decl.) at § 40-42. And, becausethe standard 1s “for an [OFDM] scheme,” a
`
`POSITA could interpret the standard as limited to 802.11 standards that include
`
`OFDMconfigurations—including,at least, 802.11a, 802.11g, and 802.11n. Ex. B
`
`(Wells Op. Decl.) at { 43-44. But there’s nothingin the specification to suggest the
`
`inventors acted as their own lexicographers and so limited the term. Thefailure of
`
`this term to identify the scope of what qualifies as a “standard” makes the scope
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMeftal.
`
`5
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`ambiguous. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910 (stating, a patent must “inform those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty”). It
`
`remains unclear whetherall or just a subset of these standards are claimed and
`
`whether other standards are included or not. See, e.g., Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v.
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “molecular
`
`weight”is indefinite, where it “could refer to any of the three weight measures’).
`
`Andif all or just a subset could be claimed,there is no clarity as to which standard
`
`meets this claim under any given circumstance.
`
`BNR’s proposed alternative construction,“a standard issued by a Standard
`
`Setting Organization (for example, IEEE or 3GPP) utilizing an [OFDM] scheme,”
`
`emphasizes precisely the overbreadth of the claim language. BNR’s constructionis
`
`so broad it well exceeds the scope of disclosure in the ’842 patent, as it is not limited
`
`to any point in timeorto the standards recited. Under BNR’s construction, the term
`
`apparently could encompass any of the numerous standards that use OFDM in
`
`addition to OFDM-basedstandards issued by many different standard setting
`
`organizations. Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at § 50; Ex. C
`
`(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE 802.11) (showing sixteen 802.11 OFDM-based
`
`
`
`standards); Ex. D (h 1
`
`
`
`division multiplexing) (showing at least twenty OFDM-basedstandards). Further,
`
`BNR’s construction would cover future standards not known or contemplated by a
`
`POSITAasof the invention date, thus raising written description and enablement
`
`issues. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(stating
`
`that a term is given the meaning that it would have to a POSITA “at the time ofthe
`
`invention, 1.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application’).
`
`BNR attempts to justify this broad reach based on the following statement in
`
`the specification: “Different wireless devices in a wireless communication system
`
`may be compliant with different standardsor different variations of the same
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM eftal.
`
`6
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`standard.” Ex. E (Madisetti Op. Decl.) at { 160 (citing ’842 at 1:50-52).4* However,
`
`that statement does not describe the invention or connect it to the term at issue.
`
`Finally, BNR’s proposed construction raises a printed matter doctrineissue,
`
`as 1t attempts to incorporate the actual texts of various standards into the claim in
`
`order to decipher, at least, the numberof subcarriers. See, e.g., Praxair Distrib., Inc.
`
`v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding
`
`claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight
`
`unless the printed matter is functionally related to its substrate).
`
`2.
`
`“extended long training sequence”(cls. 1, 19)
`
`The *842 patentfails to sufficiently inform as to the scope of the term an
`
`“extended” long training sequence. Thespecification does not define or use this
`
`term, and the term “extended” appears nowherein the specification. BNR appears
`
`to argue that the key characteristic of the “extended long training sequence”is the
`
`number of subcarriers, as BNR offers the following alternative construction for this
`
`term: “a training sequence that uses moreactive subcarriers than an earlier version
`
`of the same standard.” Nonetheless, the lack of objective boundariesas to the
`
`numberof subcarriers sufficient to establish the long training sequence as an
`
`“extended” one renders this term indefinite. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1364
`
`(requiring objective boundaries for terms of degree).
`
`Claim | states that “a signal generator” generates the “extended long training
`
`sequence,” andthat it is processed by an “Inverse Fourier Transformer[(IFT)].”
`
`°842 at cl. 1. The specification, however, uses different terms for the output from
`
`
`
`‘ Pursuant to the Court’s Consolidation Order dated February 2, 2019 and direction
`to the parties during the April 26, 2019 Claim Construction Status Hearing,
`Defendants are filing consolidated Claim Construction and Indefiniteness Briefs.
`Doc. No. 60; Ex. A at 3; Apr. 26, 2019 Status Hr’g Tr. at 9:9-10:9. Given BNR’s
`disclosure of Dr. Madisetti’s opinions in a mannerdirectly adverse to ZTE, ZTE
`must address BNR’s positionsin this consolidated brief. However, ZTE maintains
`and does not waive its objections to BNR’s use of Dr. Madisetti for the reasonscited
`in its Motion to Strike. BNR v. ZTE, 3:18-cv-1786, D.L. 84 (filed May 8, 2019).
`7
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLMeftal.
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`the signal generator / input to the IFT: “expandedlong training sequence,”
`
`“inventive long training sequence,” and “long training sequence.” See, e.g., °842 at
`
`2:47-3:24; 4:4-59. Yet the patent elsewhere suggests that the “extended long
`
`training sequence”differs from the “long training sequence.” °842 at cl. 16. Even
`
`looking to those terms, the term is indefinite. For example, the specification states
`
`that the “expandedlong training sequence and the optimal long training sequence
`
`are stored on more than 52 sub-carriers.” °842 at Abstract, 2:55-58. This might
`
`suggestthat a long training sequenceis “expanded”ifit is on more sub-carriers than
`
`a set number. However, that set number changes throughoutthe specification. See
`
`°842 at 2:67-3:3 (“The expanded long training sequenceandthe optimal expanded
`
`long training sequence are stored on more than 56 subcarriers.”’), 3:12-15 (“*... stored
`
`on more than 63 sub-carriers”). In practice, the numberof possible subcarriers can
`
`vary by orders of magnitude. See, e.g., Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at ¢ 50 (‘TEEE
`
`802.16 (WiMAX)is an OFDM-based standard issued by IEEE that specifies various
`
`subcarrier configurations up to 2,048 subcarriers.”’).
`
`BNR’s proposed construction does not resolve the indefiniteness problem.
`
`BNR’s expert overlooks the patent’s failure to use this term 1n the specification, and,
`>
`
`
`instead, summarily concludes that “extended” means “longer”
`
`a term that also
`
`does not appear in the specification. See, e.g., Ex. E (Madisetti Op. Decl.) at § 170.
`
`Not only does BNR’s construction fail to specify (or provide any bounds to) the
`
`requisite numberofactive sub-carriers, but BNR’s construction introduces an
`
`additional groundfor indefiniteness in referring to an “earlier version of the same
`
`standard,” thus expanding the scope of the claim to encompassfuture standards not
`
`describedat all in the specification. This phrase does not appear in the patent, andit
`
`is impossible to discern what an “earlier version of the same standard”is without
`
`knowing whatthe “same standard”is. See, e.g., Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at § 67.
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM eftal.
`
`8
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`3.
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence”(cls. 1, 4, 14, 19)
`
`Despite claiming an “optimal extendedlong training sequence,” the *842
`
`?
`
`
`
`patent never uses this term. Moreover, the term employs two “termsof degree’
`
`“optimal” and “extended”—withoutproviding objective boundaries to these terms.
`
`See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1364. These failings render this term indefinite.
`
`According to claim 1, the “extended long training sequence,” discussed
`
`above,is processed by “the Inverse Fourier Transformer |[(IFT)]” to provide this
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence.” °842 at cl. 1. The patent, however,
`
`refers to an “optimal expanded long training sequence”as the output of the IFT.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 2:51-67 (emphasis added). Even lookingto this other phrasing, the
`
`term is indefinite for the same reasons provided abovefor the term “extended long
`>
`
`
`training sequence’
`
`i.e., a failure to provide objective boundaries as to the number
`
`of subcarriers sufficient to establish the long training sequence as an “extended” one
`
`under whateverstandardis alleged to infringe. Indeed, BNR’s expert appears to
`
`contend that this “optimal” term is merely a variation of the “extended long training
`
`sequence” term. See, e.g., Ex. E (Madisetti Op. Decl.) at § 166 (including the
`
`“optimal” termsin his consideration of the “extended long training sequence”
`
`terms). Further, while the dependent claims should narrow claim 1, they further
`
`muddy the waters, as one indicates that the “optimal extendedlong training
`
`sequenceis carried by at least 56 active sub-carriers,” while in anotherit “is carried
`
`by at least 63 active sub-carriers.” °842 at cls. 2,5. It is insufficient that claim 1
`
`indicates that the “optimal extended long training sequenceis carried by a greater
`
`numberofsubcarriers than a standard wireless networking configuration for an
`
`[OFDM] scheme”—whichisitself indefinite, as discussed above—asthat provides,
`
`at most, an ambiguous lower bound.
`
`The word “optimal”is also undefinedin the specification. Although BNR’s
`
`position is that the optimal sequence hasthe “minimalpeak-to-average ratio,’ BNR
`
`relies merely on vague discussions in the patent—noton any definitions of whatis
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM eftal.
`
`9
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`“optimal.” See, e.g., Ex. F (Madisetti Reb. Decl.) at {J 114, 116. Moreover, the
`
`specification appears to place additionalrestrictions on this sequence. See, e.g.,
`
`°842 at 4:14-18 (stating that the sequence “utilized the same +1 or -1 binary phase
`
`shift key (BPSK) encoding for each new sub-carrier” and that “the long training
`
`sequence of 802.1 1a or 802.11g systems is maintained in the present invention’).
`
`Further, because claim | states that it “provides an optimal extended longtraining
`
`sequence with a minimalpeak-to-averageratio,” BNR’s construction would render
`
`the term “optimal” superfluous.
`
`4.
`
`“legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a
`legacy wireless networking protocol standard”(cl. 14)
`
`Claim 14 states: “The wireless communications device according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the optimal extended long training sequenceis longer than a long training
`
`sequence used by a legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a
`
`legacy wireless networking protocol standard.”
`
`The specification describes “legacy devices” as “devices that are compliant
`
`with older versions” of the 802.11 standard, “[w]hen devices that are compliant with
`
`multiple versions of the 802.11 standard are in the same WLAN.” 7842 at 1:62-65.
`
`The term “legacy,” therefore, is relative, and has no precise scope without guidance
`
`as to the standards-compliance of other devices. See also Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at
`
`955. If devices compliant with 802.11a and 802.11g are in the same WLAN,the
`
`802.1 1a devices would be “legacy”; while, if 802.11g and 802.1 1n are in the same
`
`WLAN,the 802.11g devices would be “legacy.” Id.
`
`BNR’s proposed alternative construction does not remedy the indefiniteness.
`
`BNR proposes “a wireless local area network device using an earlier version of a
`
`standard issued by a Standard Setting Organization (SSO)(for example, IEEE or
`
`3GPP).” BNR’s useof “earlier version” is no more helpful than the term “legacy”
`
`used in the claim, and suffers from the same indefiniteness problem. Ex. B (Wells
`
`Op. Decl.) at 957. Further, BNR’s reliance on “a standard issued by [an SSO]”is not
`
`10
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM eftal.
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`OoDODTDmHBRWwWPe
`
`NmNMMBMNMNHDDBRDORDORDOeeeaeeoNDONNBeWYYYKFOoUOmHYHDHfFWDPYKSS&S
`
`limited to any point in time,is not limited to the standardsrecited in the ’842 patent,
`
`andis not limited to the types of standards (IEEE, 802.11) recited in the ’842 patent.
`
`Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.)