\oqum-DIUJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLfl-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819), wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406), jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON PO
`
`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,
`LLC,
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-01783—CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE]
`
`Plamtlffi
`
`V.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YUI .ONG COMPUTER
`
`FOR SUNRVIARY JUDGE/[ENT ON
`“DEFINITENESS
`
`COWCATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`June 19, 2019
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUNIENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC’
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv-01784—CAB-BLM
`DEFENDANTS’ NIEMORANDIM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUIWMARY JUDGMENT 0N
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 2019
`
`Date:
`
`Case No- 3: 18-cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1
`
`LG 1019
`
`1
`
`LG 1019
`
`

`

`(SI-IENZHEN) CO_, LTD., and
`
`Courtroom: 4C
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC_,
`
`Judge:
`
`Hon. Cathy A. Beneivengo
`
`June 19, 2019
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC, Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA)
`lNC, ZTE (TX) INC,
`
`Defendants_
`
`\oqum-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLfl-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUNIENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3: lS-cv-01785—CAB—BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NIEMORANDUIW OF
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUD/INIARY JUDGIVIENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`Judge:
`
`Hon. Cathy A. Benelvengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUNIENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3: 18—cv—01786—CAB—BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NIEMORANDUM OF
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUNIMARY JUDGE/TENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 2019
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`
`Judge:
`
`Hon. Cathy A. Benelvengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUNIENT UNLESS ORDERED
`
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`Case No- 3: 18-cv-l783-CAB—BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD _________________________________________________________________________________________ l
`
`1]]. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Goris Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,554) ............................ 1
`
`1.
`
`“A mobile station, comprisingz. .. the proximity sensor begins detecting
`
`whether an external object is proximate substantially concurrently with the
`mobile station initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or receiving an
`
`incoming wireless telephone call.” (’889 cl. 1) ................................................... 1
`
`2.
`
`“substantially concurrently” (”889 cls. 1, 8; ’554 cls. 7, 13) ....................... 3
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,990,842 ............................................................................... 4
`
`“a standard wireless networking configuration for an Orthogonal
`1.
`Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme” (cl. 1) .............................................. 4
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“extended long training sequence” (cls. 1, 19) ............................................ 7
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence” (cls. 1, 4, l4, l9) ..................... 9
`
`“legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a legacy
`
`wireless networking protocol standard” (cl. 14) ................................................ 10
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 ............................................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“a baseband processing module operable to .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`(cl. 9) .......................... 11
`
`“the baseband processing module is operable to .
`
`.
`
`(cl. 10) ................... 16
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 ............................................................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“a cell phone filnctionality” (c1. 1) ............................................................. 17
`
`“RF communication fimctionality” (c1. 1) ................................................. 2O
`
`“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) ................................................................. 22
`
`4.
`
`“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 of said cell phone
`functionality 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) ....................... 24
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`i
`
`3: 18—cv—1783—CAB—BLM et al.
`
`3
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`1—11—11—1
`
`FOP—“O
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTYLtd. v. Int’l Game Tech.
`
`521 F-3d 1328 (Fed. Cir- 2008) ................................................................. 22, 23, 25
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.
`755 F-3d 1326 (Fed. Cir- 2014) ....................................................................... 17, 27
`
`Aveniis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
`
`743 F- Supp. 2d 305 (D. Del- 2010), afl’d, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ----------- 3
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
`
`881 F-3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) _________________________________________________________________ 4, 5, 9, 10
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. DesireZLearn, Inc.
`
`574 F-3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) _____________________________________________________________________________ 18
`
`Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen G712, Inc.
`674 F- App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`EON Corp. Holdings LLC v. ATd’c TMobiliiy, LLC
`785 F-3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
`
`ePius, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
`700 F-3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 18, 27
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights ofAm, Inc.
`663 F- App”); 938 (Fed. Cir- 2016) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost Commc ’ns Ltd.
`2016 WL 212676 (1). Ariz- Jan. 19, 2016), afl’d, 685 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) ________________________________________________________________________
`
`---------------------------- 13, 14,21,24
`
`Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisofi, Inc.
`97 F. Supp- 3d 965 mm. Term- 2015) ___________________
`
`---------------------------------------------- 14
`
`H—W Tech, L. C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.
`
`758 F-3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...............................
`
`................................................ 3
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir- 2011) -------------------------------
`
`------------------------------------------------ 3
`
`ii
`
`3: l8—cv—1783—CAB—BLM et al.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) _______________________________________________________________________________ 4
`
`IPH Holdings, LL. C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`572 US. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................. 1, 7
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 16
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`No. 9:09-cv—111, 2011 WL 11757163 (ED. Tex. Jan. 31, 2011) ......................... 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 7
`
`Praxoir Distrib, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd.
`890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 8
`
`SarifBiomed. LLC v. Brainlab, Inc.
`2015 WL 5072085 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2015) .......................................................... 14
`
`Soque Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Keyscan, Inc.
`2010 WL 2292316 (ND. Cal. June 7, 2010) ......................................................... 15
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 7
`
`Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo ofAm., Inc.
`
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 19
`
`UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co.
`
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................passim
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`iii
`
`3: 18—cv—1783—CAB—BLM et al.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Statutes
`
`35 U-S.C. § 112 ...................................................
`
`......................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S_C_ § 112,116 ____________________________________________
`
`________________________________________________passim
`
`iv
`
`3: 18—cv—1783—CAB—BLM et al.
`
`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
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘l—‘l—ll—ll—‘l—Il—ll—lr—Ir—IOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants hereby file 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.
`
`1].
`
`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). Claims that do not are indefmite
`
`under § 112, rendering them invalid. Id. at 2125.
`
`III. ARGUNIENT
`
`A.
`
`Goris Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,554)1
`
`I.
`
`the proximity sensor begins
`”A mobile station, comprisinfg:
`detecting whether an externa object is proximate substantially
`concurrently with the mobile station initiating an outgoing
`wireless telephone call or receiving an incoming wireless
`telephone call. ” (’889 cl. 1) 2
`
`Under the line of Federal Circuit cases beginning with IPXL Holdings, LL. C.
`
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005), claim 1 of the ’889 patent is
`
`indefinite because its use of method steps in an apparatus claim makes it unclear
`
`whether infringement occurs when a device is manufactured or when a user actually
`
`uses it in an infringing manner. See Mastermine Soflware, 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
`
`1 Because the Goris patent specifications are the same, for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier—issued ’889 patent.
`2 The terms referenced 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-BLM et al.
`
`7
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`object is proximate substantially concurrently with the mobile station [performing
`
`the method step of] initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or receiving an
`
`incoming wireless telephone call.” See ’889 (Doc. No. 1—3)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 when one sells a mobile station with a
`
`proximity sensor capable of this functionality, or whether infringement occurs when
`
`a user of the mobile station initiates or receives an incoming wireless telephone call.
`
`As such, claim 1 is indefinite.
`
`Although an apparatus claim that describes a capability of the apparatus is not
`
`prohibited by IPXL, see UitimatePointer, LL. 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
`
`method step of “initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call.” ’889 at 3:33—35
`
`(“[F]or an outgoing call, the proximity sensor 140 is activated by pressing a key on
`
`the keypad 160 to establish the outgoing call to a thirdparty”). Thus, the wherein
`
`clause in claim 1 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 IPXL on the ground that the term ‘wherein’ does not
`
`signify a method step but instead defmes a functional capability. We disagree and
`
`uphold the district court’s ruling. Like the language used in the claim at issue in
`
`IPE (‘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—WTech, L. C. v. Overstock. com, Inc, 758
`
`F.3d 1329, 1335—36 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding indefmite an apparatus claim that
`
`3 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-BLM et at.
`
`8
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Il—Ib—Ir—Ir—Ir—Ir—Ir—IOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`recited method steps of “wherein said user completes a transaction” and “wherein
`
`said user selects one of said variety of offers”).
`
`Tellingly, claim 1 does recite a “capability” limitation elsewherei
`
`specifically, a “proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of proximity
`
`of an external obj ect”—but by contrast does not use this “adapted to” language to
`
`describe the “mobile station initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or
`
`receiving an incoming wireless telephone call.” Avenris Pharma SA. v. Hospira,
`
`Inc, 743 F. Supp. 2d 305, 329 (D. Del. 2010), afl’d, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Had the patentees wished to state that the composition was merely ‘capable of‘
`
`being formed into a perfusion, they could easily have said so explicitly”).
`
`In short, claim 1 is an apparatus claim with a user—performed method step,
`
`leaving the public unclear as to when infringement occurs. It is indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`“substantially concurrently” (’889 cls. i, 8; ’554 615. 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).
`
`When using terms of degree, the patent “must provide ‘some standard of measuring
`
`that degree’ such that the claim language provides ‘enough certainty to one of skill
`
`in the art when read in context of the invention. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v.
`
`Lights 0fAm., Inc, 663 F. App”); 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 language nor the specification provides any
`
`objective boundary for determining the temporal degree allowed for “substantially
`
`concurrent[]” activation of sensor detection and initiation or receipt of a call.
`
`Instead, the only portions of the specification that provide any possible guidance
`
`teach that “[i]n response to the acceptance of the incoming call 210 or automatically,
`
`3
`
`3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM ei ai.
`
`9
`
`

`

`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 outgoing call to a
`
`third party.” ”889 at 3:33-35.
`
`When dealing in terms of degree, the operative question is whether the
`
`intrinsic evidence provides skilled artisans with some point of comparison such that
`
`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
`
`examples in 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. 3., there is no guidance as to how much time may pass 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.
`
`US. Patent No. 7,990,842
`
`I.
`
`“a standard wireless networking configurationfor an
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Mu tiplexing scheme” (cl. 1)
`
`Claim 1 comprises an “optimal extended long training sequence” that “is
`
`carried by a greater number of 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
`
`because there is no explanation as to which configuration is contemplated by this
`
`term, leaving a person of skill in the art (POSITA) without reasonable certainty as to
`
`its scope.
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`4
`
`3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`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 802.1]. This use
`
`appears in 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 802.1 lg standards-” ’842 (Doc No. 1—5)
`
`at 1:3 1—2: 10. But the patentee did not choose that usage in claim 1. Notably, the
`
`patentee knew how to 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 of this term is overlooked and the Court fmds the patentee
`
`used the word “standard” as a noun, the claim is still indefinite. Because the
`
`specification uses the word “standard” in describing the 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
`
`and 802.11n standards (’842 at 1:31—2: 10), a POSITA could in theory interpret
`
`“standard” as an 802.11 wireless standard issued by the [BEE EX. B (Wells Op.
`
`Decl.) at 1111 40—42. And, because the standard is “for an [OFDM] scheme,” a
`
`POSITA could interpret the standard as limited to 802.11 standards that include
`
`OFDM configuration%including, at least, 802.11a, 802.11g, and 802.11n. EX. B
`
`(Wells Op. Decl-) at W 43—44. But there’s nothing in the specification to suggest the
`
`inventors acted as their own lexicographers and so limited the term. The failure of
`
`this term to identify the scope of what qualifies as a “standard” makes the scope
`
`3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM er al.
`
`5
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`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 whether all 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”).
`
`And if 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 construction is
`
`so broad it well exceeds the scope of disclosure in the ’842 patent, as it is not limited
`
`to any point in time or to the standards recited. Under BNR’s construction, the term
`
`apparently could encompass any of the numerous standards that use OFDM in
`
`addition to OFDM—based standards issued by many different standard setting
`
`organizations. Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at 1 50; Ex. C
`
`thttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE 802.11) (showing sixteen 802.11 OFDM-based
`
`
`
`standards); Ex. D h
`
`s://en.wiki edia.or
`
`
`
`/wiki/Ortho onal fre uenc -
`
`
`
`division multiplexing} (showing at least twenty OFDM—based standards). Further,
`
`BNR’s construction would cover future standards not known or contemplated by a
`
`POSITA as of 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 of the
`
`invention, i.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 standards or different variations of the same
`
`3: 18-cv-l783-CAB-BLM er al.
`
`6
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`standard.” Ex. E (1V1adisetti Op. Decl.) at 1] 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 doctrine issue,
`
`as it attempts to incorporate the actual texts of various standards into the claim in
`
`order to decipher, at least, the number of subcarriers. See, e.g., Praxaz'r Distrib” Inc.
`
`v. Mallinckrodr Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd, 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 @ed. 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. I, 19)
`
`The ’842 patent fails to sufficiently inform as to the scope of the term an
`
`“extended” long training sequence. The specification does not define or use this
`
`term, and the term “extended” appears nowhere in 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 more active subcarriers than an earlier version
`
`of the same standard.” Nonetheless, the lack of objective boundaries as to the
`
`number of 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 1 states that c‘a signal generator” generates the “extended long training
`
`sequence,” and that it is processed by an “Inverse Fourier Transformer [(IFT)].”
`
`’842 at cl. 1. The specification, however, uses different terms for the output from
`
`
`
`4 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 manner directly adverse to ZTE, ZTE
`must 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. BNR v. ZTE, 3: 18—cv—1786, D.I. 84 (filed May 8, 2019).
`7
`3: 18-cv-l783-CAB-BLM er al.
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`the signal generator / input to the EFT: “expanded long 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 “expanded long training sequence and the optimal long training sequence
`
`are stored on more than 52 sub-carriers.” ’842 at Abstract, 2:55-58- This might
`
`suggest that a long training sequence is “expanded” if it is on more sub—carriers than
`
`a set number. However, that set number changes throughout the specification. See
`
`’842 at 2:67-33 (“The expanded long training sequence and the 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 number of possible subcarriers can
`
`vary by orders of magnitude. See, e.g., Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at 11 50 (“IEEE
`
`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 in 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 1] 170.
`
`Not only does BNR’s construction fail to specify (or provide any bounds to) the
`
`requisite number of active sub-carriers, but BNR’s construction introduces an
`
`additional ground for indefiniteness in referring to an “earlier version of the same
`
`standard,” thus expanding the scope of the claim to encompass future standards not
`
`described at all in the specification. This phrase does not appear in the patent, and it
`
`is impossible to discern what an “earlier version of the same standard” is without
`
`knowing what the “same standard” is. See, e.g., Ex. B (Wells Op. Decl.) at 11 67.
`
`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`8
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ii—Ii—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`3.
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence” (cls. I, 4, I4, 19)
`
`Despite claiming an “optimal extended long training sequence,” the ”842
`
`7
`
`
`
`patent never uses this term. Moreover, the term employs two “terms of degree’
`
`“optimal” and “extended”7without providing 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 [([F'UT’ to provide this
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence.” ”842 at C]. 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 looking to this other phrasing, the
`
`term is indefmite for the same reasons provided above for 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 whatever standard is 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 (Nladisetti Op. Decl.) at 11 166 (including the
`
`“optimal” terms in 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 extended long training
`
`sequence is carried by at least 56 active sub—carriers,” while in another it “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 sequence is carried by a greater
`
`number of subcarriers than a standard Wireless networking configuration for an
`
`[OFDM] scheme””—which is itself indefmite, as discussed above—as that provides,
`
`at most, an ambiguous lower bound.
`
`The word “optimal” is also undefined in the specification. Although BNR”s
`
`position is that the optimal sequence has the “minimal peak—to—average ratio,” BNR
`
`relies merely on vague discussions in the patent—not on any definitions of what is
`
`9
`
`3: 18-cv-l783-CAB-BLM er al.
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`\OOON‘IQUI-b-UJNr—I
`
`NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—Ir—Ib—Ib—Ir—nr—Ir—Ir—nr—nOOflQLh-hUJNF'OKOOOQQLh-b-UJNr—‘O
`
`“optimal.” See, e.g., Ex. F (Madisetti Reb. Decl.) at 111] 114, 116- Moreover, the
`
`specification appears to place additional restrictions 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 802.11a or 802.11g systems is maintained in the present invention”).
`
`Further, because claim 1 states that it “provides an optimal extended long training
`
`sequence with a minimalpeak-to-average ratio,” 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. l4)
`
`Claim 14 states: “The wireless communications device according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the optimal extended long training sequence is 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.” ”842 at 1:62-65.
`
`The term “legacy,