`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.1280 Pagelof 63
`
`Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819), wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406), jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.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 DEVICE USA, INC.
`
`[Additional Counsel listed on signaturepage]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv—01783—CAB—BLM
`
`LLC,
`
`V.
`
`[LEAD CASE]
`
`Plaintiff:
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`CO
`CATIONS’
`
`3:133 19'20’ 2019
`ITS“?
`Cflmm 4C am
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A- Bencivengo
`
`\OOON‘IQU‘I-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNI—‘I—‘I—II—II—‘I—II—II—II—II—IOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLfl-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`LLC,
`
`V-
`
`_
`_
`Plamtlffa
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`
`(SI-IENZHEN) CO., LTD, and
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01784—CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Hon. Cathy A- Bencivengo
`
`Date:
`Time:
`
`June 19—20, 2019
`9:00 am.
`
`Courtroom:
`
`4C
`
`Judge:
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv—l783—CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`LG 1017
`
`1
`
`LG 1017
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.1281 PageZof 63
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`Case No. 3:18—cv—01785—CAB—BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date:
`
`June 19—20, 2019
`
`(Tjgfimm :30 am:
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A- Bencivengo
`
`Hon. Cathy A- Bencivengo
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01786—CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date:
`Time:
`
`June 19—20, 2019
`9:00 am.
`
`Courtroom:
`
`4C
`
`Judge:
`
`LLC,
`
`V-
`
`_
`_
`Plamtlffa
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC"
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`
`LLC,
`
`V.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA)
`INC, ZTE (TX) INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`\OOON‘IQU‘I-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—II—II—Ir—nr—Ir—II—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLfl-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`Case No. 3: lS—cv—l783—CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 0524.119 PagelD.1282 PageSof 63
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1
`
`II. U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554 ________________________________________________ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background _________________________________________________________________________ 1
`
`“a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” / “a signal
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`
`that an external object is proximate” _______________________________________________________ 2
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842 ____________________________________________________________________________ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background ......................................................................... 4
`
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer” ................................................................ 5
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450 ............................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ......................................................................... 9
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 11
`
`“channel estimate matrices” / “matrix based on the plurality of channel
`
`estimates” / “matrix based on said plurality of channel estimates” ...... 12
`
`D.
`
`“coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix
`
`decomposition (SVD)” .......................................................................... 17
`
`V. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,416,862 ........................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 19
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 20
`
`“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`
`to produce the transmitter beamforming information” ......................... 20
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT N0. 6,941,156 .......................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 24
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 24
`
`“simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone”
`(cl. 1) ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`D.
`
`“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) .............................................. 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Is Subject to § 112 1] 6 (Means-Plus-Function) ........ 34
`
`Corresponding Function and Structure ....................................... 37
`
`i
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv—l783—CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 0524119 PagelD.1283 Page4of 63
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`E.
`
`“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said
`cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality?
`operable to sw1tch a communicatlon path established on one of said cell
`
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, with
`another communication path later established on the other of said cell
`phone functionallty and said RF communication functionality” (c1. D41
`1.
`This Term Is Subject to § 112 1] 6 (Means-Plus-Function) ........ 41
`
`2.
`
`Corresponding Function and Structure ....................................... 43
`
`7 VII.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 ....................................................................... 46
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 46
`
`“position to a communications tower” .................................................. 47
`
`10 VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 51
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`__
`11
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv—1783—CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 0524.119 PagelD.1284 PageSof 63
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 Cases
`4
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 Ged. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 38
`
`5
`
`6 August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd-,
`7
`655 F.3d 1278 Ged. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 16
`
`8 ChefAm., Inc. v. Lamb Weston, Inc,
`9
`358 F.3d 1371 Ged. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 50
`
`10 Embretx, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp,
`11
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ____________________________________________________________________________ 47
`
`12 Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Celico P’ship,
`13
`778 F.3d 1320 Ged. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 31
`
`14 GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 Ged. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 1, 48
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`Helmsdery’er v. Bobrick Washroom Equip” Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ____________________________________________________________________________ 15
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) .................................................................. 7
`
`19 Philhps v. AWH Corp,
`20
`415 F.3d 1303 Ged. Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 1, 18, 26, 47
`
`21 Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Ca,
`22
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 31
`
`23
`24
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 31
`
`25 Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp,
`418 F.3d 1379 Ged. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 14
`
`26
`27 Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm ’tAm. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 Ged. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 8, 47, 48
`
`28
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 3:18—cv—1783—CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.1285 Pagefiof 63
`
`Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Ca,
`
`681 F. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2017) _________________________________________________________________ 41, 46
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339 036d. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................passim
`
`W8 Gaming Inc. V. In? Game T20.31.,
`
`184 F.3d 1339 036d. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 38
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv—l783—CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.1286 PageYOf 63
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ii—ni—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff BNR sued the Defendants (Coolpad, Huawei, Kyocera, and ZTE),
`
`alleging certain cell phones and tablets 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 has asserted 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 informed by the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. A WH
`
`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.
`
`1].
`
`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.1 They pertain to a mobile station (e.g., a cordless or cellular
`
`telephone) that includes “a proximity sensor .
`
`.
`
`. adapted to cause [the] power
`
`consumption of the display to be reduced when the display is within a
`
`predetermined range of an external object.” ”889 (Doc. No. 1-3)2 at Abstract, 1:21-
`
`26, 1:42—46; see also id. at 3: 13—15, 3:20-32. Their common specification teaches
`
`that, during a telephone call, the display “is not needed” when “the display [is] near
`
`to an object, in particular to the ear” ofa user. See id. at 1:47—51, 1:55—58, 1:62—2:1,
`
`2:18—24, 3: 12—39, 3:55—58. The patents disclose activating a proximity sensor during
`
`1 Because the Goris patent specifications are the same, for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier—issued ’889 patent.
`2 Doc. Nos. referenced herein refer to BNR v. Huawei, 3: lS-cv—1784 unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`1
`
`Case No. 3: l8—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-ev-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.1287 PageBof 63
`
`\oqum-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLfl-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`incoming and outgoing calls. Id. at Abstract, 3:7—15, 3:33—35, 3:48—55, Figs. 3, 4.
`
`The proximity sensor detects whether an external object is “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 predetermined range, “the
`
`power consumption of 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 moves out ofrange
`
`(e.g., when the user moves the phone away from his or her ear), the proximity
`
`sensor detects that event as well, and the “the display 150 is switched back on.” Id.
`
`at 2:6—9, 3:26-32.
`
`B.
`
`“a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” I “a signal
`
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`293
`
`that an external object is proximate
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`BNR’s Construction
`
`within a predetermined range”
`
`“a signal that an external object is or is
`not within a predetermined range”
`
`“a signal that an external object is
`
`Claim 1 of the ’889 patent recites “a proximity sensor adapted to generate a
`
`signal indicative of proximity of an external object.” Claims 1 and 14 of the ”554
`
`patent recite “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.” Through their continuing negotiations, the parties have narrowed this
`
`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 must that signal also be capable of indicating that an external
`
`3 The parties have agreed to a construction of “the signal is 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
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05i24I19 PagelD.1288 Pagegof 63
`
`object is no longer (or is not) within the predetermined range as well (as Defendants
`
`contend).
`
`The claims of the Goris patents demonstrate that Defendants” construction is
`
`correct. For example, claim 1 of the ”889 patent requires the proximity sensor to
`
`“detect[] whether an external object is proximate” to the display. Id. at 4:21-22.
`
`The use of “whether” indicates alternatives, i.e., the sensor either determines that an
`
`external object is proximate or it determines that the external object is not
`
`proximate- As further recited in claim 1, the proximity sensor is “adapted to
`
`generate a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” based on its
`
`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 signal is “a signal that an external object is or is not
`
`within a predetermined range.”
`
`Sometimes, that signal will state “yes, the external object is proximate.” See
`
`supra n.3. But other times, the claimed 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 have the “is not proximate” state. Claim 2
`
`recites “increasing power to 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 of the display ifthe signalfrom the activatedproximity sensor
`
`indicates that the proximity condition no longer exists.” Id. at 4:62—64 (emphasis
`
`added)- In other words, both of these claims expressly require the signal generated
`
`by the proximity sensor also be capable of indicating that the external object is not
`
`proximate (and then more power will go to the display of the mobile station). By
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—ll—ll—‘l—ll—ll—lt—lt—lOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ii—ni—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1289 Page 10 of 63
`
`excluding the “or is not” state of the claimed signal, BNR’s proposed construction
`
`contradicts this explicit claim language.
`
`The Goris patents” common specification 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 response to 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 diagrams that
`
`show (at 304 and 404) the determination made by the proximity sensor. Id. at 2:49—
`
`52, Figs. 3, 4. The proximity sensor determines whether an external object is
`
`proximate. The result is either “yes” or “no.” Id. Only Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the claims and specification.
`
`III. U.S. PATENT N0. 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 and then, later, decoded by the receiver essentially using an inverse of
`
`the encoding technique. As background, the ’842 patent states that “both the
`
`802.1 la 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
`
`4 The “802.11” standards are a set of communication protocols promulgated by the
`Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (“”.IEEE) “802” refers to [BEE
`802 local area network (“LAN”) protocol standards, while “802.1 1” are a subset of
`
`the media
`802 standards that specify two layers of the network protocol “stack”
`access layer (“”MAC) and the physical access layer (“PHY”)—for implementing
`
`wireless local area networks (“WLAN”) WiFi communications in certain
`
`4
`
`Case No. 3: l8—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\oqum-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—ll—ll—ll—ll—lOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLfl-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1290 Page 11 of 63
`
`spreading a single data stream over a band of sub—carriers, each of which is
`
`transmitted in parallel.” Id. at 2:12—14. “In 802.11a/802.11g, each data packet starts
`
`with a preamble which includes a short training sequence followed by a long
`
`training sequence. The short and long training sequences are used for
`
`synchronization between the sender and the receiver.” Id. at 2:30—34. These
`
`training sequences use a form of modulation known as Binary Phase Shift Keying or
`
`BPSK, in which a +1 maps to transmitting the sub-carrier with a 0-degree phase
`
`shifi and a -1 maps to transmitting the subcarrier with a ISO—degree phase shift. The
`
`’842 patent purports to address a “need to create a long training sequence of
`
`minimum peak—to-average ratio [(‘PAPR’)] that uses more sub-carriers without
`
`interfering with adjacent channels.” Id. at 2:36—38. According to the patent, its
`
`approach “decreases power back—off” and “should be usable by legacy devices in
`
`order to estimate channel impulse response and to estimate carrier frequency offset
`
`between a transmitter and a receiver.” Id. at 2:41—43, 4:4—6.
`
`B.
`
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`BNR’s Construction
`
`an inverse Fourier transform.”
`
`“a circuit and/or software that performs a
`defmed mathematical fimction that
`
`“Plain and ordinary meaning,
`alternatively to the extent the Court
`
`transforms a series of values from the
`frequency domain into the time domain”
`
`determines that a specific
`construction is warranted: circuit
`
`and/or software that at least performs
`
`The parties agree that an Inverse Fourier Transformer can 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 branded as
`“Wi—Fi” products. Amendments and improvements to the base standards get
`
`additional letter designations, such as 802.11a or 802.11b. See, e.g.,
`http ://www.ieee802.org/1 l.
`
`5
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—il—ll—ll—ll—lOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1291 Page 12 of 63
`
`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. “[T]he Inverse Fourier Transformer
`
`processes the extended long training sequence from the signal generator and
`
`provides an optimal extended long training sequence.” Id. 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 defmed 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 long training sequence and if 56 active sub-carriers are being used,
`
`signal generating circuit generates .
`
`.
`
`. and stores the expanded long training
`
`sequence in sub-carriers -28 to +28.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. The inventive long training sequence is
`
`inputted into an Inverse Fourier Transform 206.” Id. at 4:41-52 (emphasis added).
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below, has the Inverse Fourier Transform 206 outlined in red.
`I"
`._. .______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`6
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—ll—ll—Il—il—Ir—Ir—Ir—IOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1292 Page 13 of 63
`
`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)].” Id. at 4:61-64 (emphasis added). The
`
`specification teaches that a frequency domain signal is 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 of parallel time domain
`
`streams is 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 proposal that 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 1] 192..5 First, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`5 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 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 manner directly adverse to ZTE, ZTE must
`
`7
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—ll—ll—Il—il—Il—Ir—Il—IOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1293 Page 14 of 63
`
`customary meanings as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read
`
`in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thomer v. Sony
`
`Compact. Entm 'tAm. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nowhere does the
`
`specification mention an Inverse Fourier Transformer operating on anything other
`
`than a one-dimensional signal. Nowhere does the specification disclose the Inverse
`
`Fourier Transformer operating on a space or spatial signal, or any other variable
`
`other than time or frequency.
`
`Second, the Inverse Fourier Transformer has a specified direction. The
`
`specification teaches that the “FFT [(fast Fourier transform)] module 36 converts
`
`the serial time domain signals intofrequency domain signals.” ’842 at 5:8—9
`
`(emphasis added). The specification also teaches that the “Inverse Fourier
`
`Transform 206 may be an inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT).” Id. at 4:53—55
`
`(emphasis added). If there were no specified direction, there would be no need for
`
`an inverse transform.
`
`Defendants’ proposal clarifies 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 domain representation as defined by the
`
`mathematical function of an inverse Fourier Transform. “OFDM is a frequency
`
`division multiplexing modulation technique for transmitting large amounts of digital
`
`data over a radio wave. OFDM works by spreading a single data stream over a band
`
`of sub-carriers, each of which is transmitted in parallel.” Id. at 2:10-14. The very
`
`nature of OFDM, as described by the 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 which is transmitted in parallel via the Inverse
`
`address BNR’S positions in this consolidated brief. However, ZTE maintains and
`
`does not waive its 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: l8—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ii—Ii—ni—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1294 Page 15 of 63
`
`Fourier Transformer converting the frequency domain signal to 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. Beamforming is like shining a beam of light at an intended area. In
`
`contrast to antennas which transmit a radio frequency (“”RF) signal in all directions,
`
`beamforming is a technique using multiple antennas to focus an RF signal (a
`
`“beam”) toward the intended receiver. Ex. C (Min Op- Decl.) at 1 41. As a result, a
`
`stronger signal is available to the intended receiver.
`
`’450 moo. No. 33—6) at 1:37—
`
`41; 3:8—14.
`
`In general terms, beamforming requires coordinating the arrival of the
`
`transmitted signals at the receiving device. To implement this technique, the
`
`transmitting device mathematically modifies the signals to be transmitted by each
`
`antenna using a beamforming “matrix.”‘5 lmportantly, to construct an appropriate
`
`beamforming matrix, the transmitting device must obtain information about the
`
`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 concept is 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
`
`5 A “matrix” is a two—dimensional array of values. An example of a 2><2 matrix,
`1
`2
`which is a matrix that includes two rows and two columns, is: [3
`4 .
`
`9
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1295 Page 16 of 63
`
`transmitted from antennas 212, 214, 216. Id. at 11:41—54. The characteristics ofRF
`
`channels 242 through which the signals are transmitted may be represented
`
`mathematically by a matrix, H, which is another two—dimensional array 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- Id. 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.7 Due to signal fading effects on the RF channel, the
`
`7 The patentee chose the 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. “Hg” is used to identify an RF “channel estimate
`matrix which is computed by a receiving mobile terminal.” Id. at 8:52—56. “H(t)” is
`
`used to identify H “as a fimction of time,” where “t” refers to the RF channel
`characteristics at a specific instant in time. Id. at 4:5—9. “”Hup 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 (i.e-, channel
`for signals transmitted from the receiving mobile terminal to the transmitting mobile
`
`terminal). Id. at 4:66—52. “”Hm 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 (112., channel for signals transmitted
`from the transmitted mobile terminal to the receiving mobile terminal). Id. at 5:2-
`5:7.
`
`10
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ca
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—ll—ll—‘l—ll—ll—ll—ll—lOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05f24119 PagelD.1296 Page 17 of 63
`
`values in the matrix H may rapidly change. Id. at 3:49—53; 8:36—39. To assist in the
`
`beamforming process, the receiving mobile terminal may periodically send feedback
`
`information to the transmitting mobile terminal. Id. at 1:30—34. To do so, the
`
`receiving terminal computes a channel estimate matrix Hm based on the signals
`
`received. Then, the receiving mobile terminal performs a singular value
`
`decomposition (SVD) on the channel estimate matrix. Id. at 7:67-85. SVD is a
`
`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 VH.8 Ex. D (Min Reb. Decl.) at 1] 57. The receiving mobile terminal may
`
`then transmit back to the transmitting mobile terminal coefficients of the SVD—
`
`derived matrices (U, S, and VH) as “feedback information.” ’450 at 7:67—85; 8:28—
`
`33.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`The parties” experts generally agree on the level of ordinary skill for the ’450
`
`Patent and their opinions are not affected by any differences. Ex. D (Nlin Reb.
`
`Decl.) at 1] 51; Ex. E (Madisetti Reb. Decl.) at 1] 71. Dr. Min states that a POSITA
`
`would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering,