Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2528 Page 1 of 83
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC 3
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L.
`Major
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1784-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICEUSA,INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1785-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATIONand
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`1
`
`LG 1018
`
`1
`
`LG 1018
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2529 Page 2 of 83
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC 2
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1786-CAB-BLM
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`4
`
`Vv.
`
`5|||ZTE CORPORATION,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`©}|ZTE (TX) INC.,
`7
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2530 Page 3 of 83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TL INTRODUCTION000. cec cece cece cece cee ceeecceeeeesceceeeceneeeeeceacecsaeseaecesaeesaeeeseeeseeeesseeees 1
`
`Il. LEGAL STANDARD 2... cci cece cecccceec ce cee cece eeeeececeeeeeeeeeeeeceaeeceeeeeaeeesaeeeseeesseeeseeeseersees 2
`
`A.
`
`The scope ofa patent is defined by the plain import of its claims. _................... 2
`
`B. Acclaim term is
`givenits full ordinary and customary meaning unless the
`patentee: (i) clearly otherwise defined the term, or (11) unequivocally disclaimed the
`l scope of the term.-.............2.cccceeeeccecceeccceeseecceeceseeeceeeeecceeceseeecesseesceecesseeceesseseeeeseees 2
`
`Ill. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING THE GORIS PATENTS....0.2.0..........-- 3
`
`A. Background of the Inventions «.00......00.......ccccceceecceceeceececeeeceeceeseeeceseseceeeessseeeeeees 3
`
`“a signal indicative ofproximity of an external object” and “a signalindicative
`B.
`of the existence ofa first condition,
`the first condition being that an external object
`TS PLOXUMAC”ooo...e cece ceceeseceeceeeeececessaecesceseeeeeecaeeescesseeceeceneeescesseeseeseneeeeeteseeees
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842 _........ 11
`
`A. Background ofthe Invention. ............0....c.ccccceceecceceeecceceeceeeeeeeeceecetseeeeeeseeeeeess 11
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art 2200000 13
`
`C.
`
`“Inverse Fourier transformer”...........0...2.:cceecceeeeceeeeceeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 13
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDINGU'S. PATENT NO. 8,416,862............ 21
`
`A. Background ofthe Invention. ............0....c.ccccceceecceceeecceceeceeeeeeeeceecetseeeeeeseeeeeess 21
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art 2200000 22
`
`B._“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`produce the transmitter beamforming information”........00000....000ccceeeeececeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 22
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450 .......... 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Backgroundof the Invention. .........00...00.eecceceeccceeeceeeeeceeseeceeseecenseceeseesensseseaees 27
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .2...00.. oo. ceec cc eeeccccccceeeceeneeceneeeeenseesenecesneees 29
`
`“channel estimate matrices” / “matrix based on the plurality of channel
`C.
`estamates” ooo... oo... eee cece cece cc ec eceecceeeceeeee eee e eee eceeeeeeeceeceeeeeeecececeeececeeceeeceeeeeeteeeesteseetesteeees 29
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2531 Page 4 of 83
`
`D.
`
`VD)”
`
`yenetiicients derived from performing a singular value matrix decomposition
`
`34
`
`bo
`
`VIL. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U:S. PATENT NO. 6,941,156......... 37
`
`A. Background of the Invention. .......2.2200000.2000 cece cence eee eee cee eeeeeeeeeees 37
`
`B.
`
`“simultaneous communication paths from said multimodecell phone”.......... 37
`
`C. “a module to establish simultaneous communication paths fromsaid
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF
`communication functionality” 2.222000... eee cece cece cece cece eee eceeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeee 44
`
`The “module to establish simultaneous communications” term is not
`1.
`governed by § 112, 9 6.0... cece cece cece seen ceenaceceacecenseeceseeceescecsaecteseeeteneeeenee 45
`
`Ifthe Court determines that the presumption has been rebutted, and § 112, {
`2.
`6 applies, Defendants’ disclosed structure is improperly narrow.......................--- 8
`
`“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell phone
`D.
`functionality and said RF communication functionality, operable to switch a
`communication path established on oneofsaid 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”
`
`1.
`
`The “automatic switch over module”term is not governed by § 112,96. ...51
`
`Ifthe Court determines that the presumption has been rebutted, and § 112, 1
`2,
`6 applies, Defendants’ disclosed structure is improperly narrow.......................--- 5
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 ....... 61
`
`A. Background ofthe Invention. ...........00....cccccccceceeceececceceeseceeeeeecccecetseeeeeseeeeeess 61
`
`A.
`
`“position to a communications toWe®”...............2.ccceeceeceeeeeeeeeeesececesesseeeeteseeeeees 63
`
`TX. CONCLUSION(000. ..ee cece ccecccceccceeeccee cee ceeeeeeeeeeeeececeeeeaceceeceeceneeeeeaseeeeaeeeseneeeeneseeee 71
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2532 Page 5 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) o0.....cccccce cece eecceeceeecceeceeecececeeeseeeeeeceeceseeeseeeeseeenees 20
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2222... ccc ece cece c ee ececeeececcececeeeeeceeeeceteseceeeseeeneeeeeee 52
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 2222... ccecc cece cece cece cece ceeececeeeeceeeseceeeeceteseceeeseeeneeeeees 18
`
`Bal Seal Eng’g Co. v. Qiang Huang, No. 10cv819-CAB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`84516 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) 222. eeececce cece ceeccc eee eeceeeeeeeeeeeceneeeeececesseeeeeeeenees 48, 55
`
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.,
`
`No. C 07-1359, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14842 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) .....00..2..... 20
`
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. CLR. Bard, Inc.,
`
`922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990) o2..eo.ceccccccceecceccceecceeeceeeeceeceeeseecaeeeseeeeeeceeceeeseceeeeseeeeaes 18
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`
`No. 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549
`
`(S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) .o....c.ccccccccccccccecccccccenseecceneeceecesaeecensaeecesensaeeeetensececenaes passim
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,
`
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 20.2... ccce cece cece ceesceeeece cece ceceeeeceeeeceeseceeeeeeseseeess 65, 67
`
`CCSFitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2022... cece cece cece ceeee cece cecenececeeeeceececeseceeeseeeeeeeeeees 2
`
`Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp. ofAm., Inc.,
`
`674 Fed. Appx. 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017)... ....ceccecceeccceeeceeeeceeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeesneeeeess 11
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) oo... cecceecc ce ceecc cece eceeceeeeceeceeeeeeseneeeeeeeeeeeseeeetees 64, 67, 70
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 22... ..ecceccecccecceecceeecceeceeeececeeceeeeeceaeceseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeesees 34
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`il
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2533 Page 6 of 83
`
`CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP,
`
`112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir, 1997) ooo... eccccecccececeecceecceeececeseeeececeeceseeeceaeceseeeseeeeeeeseeeseeeees 11
`
`Dayco Prods. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`
`258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 0....eccccccec cece ceecccecceeeccecceeeececeeeeeseeeeeeeesceseseseseeeseeenees 17
`
`Digital Biometrics v. Identix, Inc.,
`
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..... cece ceccceccceecceecceeeceeeceeeececenceseeeeeaeceseeeseeeeseeeseeesseeens 11
`
`Digital-Vending Servs., Int’], LLC v. Univ. ofPhoenix, Inc.,
`
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 220... cee cece cece ccc cece cece cece cence cee ceceeeceeetneetnees 43
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 220... eee cece cece cece ence cece cece eee cence cee ceteeeeeneeeneeenaes 18
`
`Julius Zorn, Inc. v. Medi Mfg.,
`
`No. 3:15-CV-02734-GPC-RBB,2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35826
`
`(S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) ......cccccccecccceeccccecceceeeceeeeeceeeeeeeeeceeeeseeeeeseeeeeseeeeeeeeeereeseeeeeees 26
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 222... eeecccecccececcecceecceeeceeeeeceececeeceeeeeceeeceeceeeeeeeeeeseeeneeees 56
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir, 1999) oo... ceecceccececeecceescececeeeseceececeeceseeeeececeseeeeseceseeeeeeeesseeeees 3
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2222.2... cece eee c cee ee eee cence cence ceeeeeceeesceteneceeeeseseneeeeeee 33
`
`L.B. Plastics, Inc. v. Amerimax Home Prods..,
`
`499 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2007) -202. 2.2... cee cee ceecccceeececeeccceeececeeeeceeeeeceeeecensececeseeeenesereaees 17
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) oo... ecceeceececeeecee cee ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeseeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeees 9, 34
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir, 1995) oo... cececcccecccececcecececeececeeeseeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeneceeeeeeseeseneeeesneeeeess 2
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) oo... ceececceececceeceeecceeecceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeseeeeeeesteeeeees 46, 52
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`iv
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2534 Page 7 of 83
`
`Micro Chem, Ine. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 20... occ cece ccc eccce cece cece ceceeseeeceecesseeeeeeensececessseeeeeees passim
`
`Nazomi Communs., Inc. v. ARMHoldings, PLC,
`
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..... eee cecceccecceccceccececcecceeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecesseeeseeens 9,11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 20.0... cece cccceccecceeseceeceeesceecesseceeecensseecerensseeeess passim
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Aziont,
`
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir, 1998) 2222. ..00 cece cee cece eeeceeceee cece eeeceeeeececeeeeseeeeteseeensseeess 2, 36
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton,
`
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2222.ce cece cece ecceeeceeeeeceeeeeeteseceesseeeeeeeeees 32
`
`RiverwoodInt'l Corp. v. RA. Jones & Co.,
`
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2.2... .eeeeccecceceeccee cee ceeeeceeeeeceececeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneteeees 17
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2o....ececee cece ceeceeceecceeeececeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeteteeeseeeeeeeeeees 46, 52
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V.,
`
`365 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004) oo......cccc ce ceeccceecceceeecceeeeeeeeeceeeeeseeeeeeeeececeeeeeseesseeeeeees 2
`
`Scripps Research Inst. V. Illumina, Inc.,
`
`No. 16-cv-661 JLS (BGS), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60928
`
`(S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) -2..... 2c. cececcce cece ceceec cee eceeeececeeececnceeeeseeceeseeeeseeeseseees 24, 25
`
`Serrano v. Telular Corp.,
`
`111 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir, 1997) oo... cece cece cence cence eeeeeeeeeeceeteeeeeteeeeeeee 48, 49, 55, 60
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.,
`
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 22.2... .ececceeccceeece cece ceeeeceeeeeceeceseeeeeseeceeeeeeseeeeeeeeesneeeeees 16
`
`TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int'l,
`
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 29, 2019)... eee ce cceeceeeeeeeeeceeeeeeceeeeeeeeneeeees 46, 48, 52, 55
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 0....eccccccec cece ceeccceceeecceeceeeececeeeeeseeeeeeeeseeseseseseesseeees 2,3
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Vv
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2535 Page 8 of 83
`
`TurboCare Div. ofDemag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) oo... cece cece eee cec cece eee ceeeeceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeseeeesneeeeees 20
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) o2..e.cecccccceceecccecececceeeceeeeeeeeceeeeeseeeseeeneeeeneeees 3, 24,31
`
`White v. Dunbar,
`
`119 ULS. 47 (1886) 0.2 ecccecee cece c cece cece ccc ee ceceeceeeeeceeeeeseeeeeeceacesseeeeaecesaeeseeeeeeseeeeeeeeeees 2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) o.2...2cccec cece cceeecceecceeeececeeececeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeteeceseseeees 46, 52
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § L202) oo cece cece ccc cee nce ceeec cece eeceeeecececeeesseeeceseeceseeceneceesseeeeessceseeeeens 2
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`vi
`
`8
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`I
`
`J
`
`US. Patent No. 7,319,889 to Goris, et al., issued January 15,
`2008
`Excerpts of the Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,319,889.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,204,554 to Goris,et al., issued June 19, 2012
`Excerpts of the Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`8,204,554.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,990,842 to Trachewsky,et al., issued August
`2, 2011
`US. Patent No. 8,416,862 to Aldana,et al., issued April 3, 2013
`U.S. Patent No. 7,957,450 to Hansen, et al., issued June 7, 2011
`U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 to Mooney, issued September 6, 2005
`Excerpts of the Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`6,941,156
`US. Patent No. 7,039,435 to McDowell, et al., issued May 2,
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2536 Page 9 of 83
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`°
`3
`
`5
`‘
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`D
`
`14
`
`IS
`16
`
`M7
`18
`
`19
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`33
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`7
`
`28
`
`aa
`
`Excerpts of the Certified File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,039,435
`Amended Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti In Support of
`Plaintiff's Claim Constructions dated May 2, 2019 (“Madisetti
`Op. Decl.)
`Rebuttal Declaration ofDr. Vijay Madisetti In Support of
`Plaintiff's Claim Constructions dated May 8, 2019 (“Madisetti
`Rebuttal Decl.”
`Sur-Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti In Support of
`Plaintiffs Claim Constructions dated May 16, 2019 (“Madisetti
`
`.
`Excerpts from the May 19, 2019 Deposition of Paul Min, Ph.D.
`“Main Dep.”
`
`Excerpts from Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells,
`Ph.D. dated May 8, 2019 (“Wells Rebuttal Decl.”
`Excerpts from William Yee, Mobile Communications
`Engineering — Theory and Applications, McGraw Hill (2d ed.
`1997)
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`9
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2537 Page 10 of 83
`
`i
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`T
`
`Vv
`
` 5
`
`Description
`
`U.S. 6,498,924 (“Vogel”
`Ronald N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform andits
`Applications (3" ed., 2000
`Discrete Fourier Transform based Multimedia Colour Image
`Authentication for Wireless Communication (DFTMCIAWC)
`Spatial Channel and System Characterization
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2538 Page 11 of 83
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order of October 15, 2018, Plaintiff
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC’s (“BNR”) hereby submits its Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief in the following cases, consolidated for pretrial purposes: Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. Coolpad Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-1783; Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-1784; Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. Kyocera Corporation, et al., No. 3:18-cv-1785; and Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. ZTE Corporation, et al., No. 3:18-cv-1786.'
`
`The consolidated cases involve eight patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,319,889 (‘the
`
`°889 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,204,554 (“the °554 Patent’); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,990,842 (“the °842 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 (“the ’862 Patent”); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,957,450 (“the °450 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 (“the 7156
`
`Patent’); U.S. Patent No. 8,792,432 (“the °432 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`(“the °435 Patent’) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents’).
`
`BNR’s proposed constructions adhere to the well-known principles of claim
`
`construction andare based on the plain and ordinary meaningof the terms atissue,
`
`taking into account the specification’s teachings. Defendants’ proposed constructions,
`
`on the other hand, generally seek to import extraneouslimitations or ignore key
`
`disclosures in an attempt to manufacture non-infringement and invalidity positions.
`
`Because BNR’sconstructionsare consistent with the canonsofpatent law and
`
`properly balance granting the full scope of applicants’ invention while ensuring that
`
`the public has propernotice of the scope of the invention, BNR respectfully requests
`
`that the Court adoptits proposed constructions for the disputed terms described below.
`
`' BNR’s expert’s opinions cited herein are offered against the Huawei, Coolpad, and
`Kyocera Defendant Groups.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2539 Page 12 of 83
`
`If. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction is the process by which “the meaning and scope ofthe patent
`
`claims asserted to be infringed”is determined. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). This is a task
`
`for the Court. Jd. at 979.
`
`A. The scope of a patent is defined by the plain import of its claims.
`
`It is fundamental patent law that a patent’s claims define the patent’s scope.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Thus, “the
`
`claim construction inquiry .
`
`.
`
`. begins and ends. .
`
`. with the actual words of the claim.”
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V., 365 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)); Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc., No. 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS),
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017). Given the express
`
`statutory purposeof the patent claim—“to particularly point| out and distinctly
`
`claim[]” the invention—1tis “unjust to the public, as well as an evasion of law,to
`
`construe it in a mannerdifferent from the plain import of its terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312 (quoting White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52 (1886)); 35 U.S.C. § 112(2).
`
`Specifically, limiting the claims by the exemplary embodiments described in the patent
`
`documentis “one of the cardinal sins of patent law.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320. This is
`
`true even if the patentee described only one embodimentin the patent. Jd. at 1323.
`
`B. A claim term is given its full ordinary and customary meaning unless the
`patentee: (i) clearly otherwise defined the term, or (ii) unequivocally
`disclaimedthe full scope of the term.
`
`“The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as understoodby a person ofordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
`
`specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313); accord CCS
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Generally
`
`speaking, we indulge a heavy presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2540 Page 13 of 83
`
`customary meaning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “There are only two
`
`exceptions to this rule: 1) when a patenteesets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavowsthe full scope of the claim term either
`
`in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord K-2 Corp. v.
`
`Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of a disputed claim term 1s presumed to be the correct one subject
`
`to... a different meaningclearly and deliberately set forth in the intrinsic material.”
`
`(citations omitted)). Ultimately, “[t]he patentee is free to choose a broad term and
`
`expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee
`
`explicitly redefines the term or disavowsits full scope.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367.
`
`Ill. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REGARDING THE GORIS PATENTS
`
`A. Backgroundof the Inventions
`
`The *889 and °554 Patents, the “Goris Patents,” belong to the same patent
`
`family; the °554 Patent is a continuation of the ’889 Patent. Each patentis entitled
`
`“System and Method for Conserving Battery Power in a Mobile Station” and claims
`
`priority to an earlier application filed on June 17, 2003.
`
`The Goris Patents relate to inventions that help reduce cell phone consumption
`
`of battery power. The specification notes that “the stand-by time, as well as the talk-
`
`time, of a mobile station depend on the lifetime of a (rechargeable) battery inserted
`
`within the mobile station and hence, on the load and/or on the capacity of the battery.”
`
`(Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 1:27—30; Ex. C; °554 Patent at 1:28—31.) The specification
`
`further notes the problems in the prior art stemming from increasing the capacity of the
`
`battery: “batteries having increased capacities are often larger, heavier or more
`
`expensive, none of which are desirable attributes for a portable, affordable mobile
`
`station.” (Ex. A, °889 Patent at 1:31—35; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 1:32-36.)
`
`Thus, the Goris Patents describe “a way to prolong the lifetime of a mobile
`
`station without having to use a battery with an increased capacity,” and they do so by
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`3
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2541 Page 14 of 83
`
`focusing on the powersupply to the display of the phone. (Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 1:35—
`
`37; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 1:36—38.) The claims are drawn to systems and methods that
`
`include (amongother things) use of a proximity sensor and processor “adapted to
`
`cause power consumption ofthe display to be reduced when the display is within a
`
`predetermined range of an external object,” such as a user’s ear. (Ex. A, °889 Patent at
`
`1:44-46; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 1:45—47; see also, e.g., Claim 1.) The specification
`
`explains that “by reducing the power consumptionofthe display of an activated
`
`telephoneset in [the] case [that] the display is not needed, 1.e., in particular during a
`
`telephonecall, current is saved instead of needlessly consumed from the (recharge-
`
`able) battery. Accordingly, the spared available battery power maybesignificant,
`
`especially for color displays, resulting in an overall increasement of the stand-by
`
`and/or talk time of the telephoneset.” (Ex. A,’889 Patent at 1:47—54; Ex. C, °554
`
`Patent at 1:48—55.)
`
`B. “a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” and “a signal
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`that an external object is proximate”
`
`sas
`
`.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. To the_|“a signal that an external object is or
`extent the Court determinesthat a
`is not within a predetermined range”
`specific construction 1s warranted,
`BNR proposes:
`
`“a signal that an external objectis
`
`within a predetermined range”
`comprising:
`
`These terms appear in the following claims in the Goris Patents, and thereis a
`
`difference in language between the °889 Patent term and the *554 Patent terms:
`
`°889 Patent Claim 1
`
`°554 Patent Claim 1
`
`°554 Patent Claim 14
`
`A mobile station,
`comprising:
`
`A mobilestation,
`comprising:
`
`A mobile station,
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2542 Page 15 of 83
`
`7889 Patent Claim 1
`
`°554 Patent Claim 1
`
`°554 Patent Claim 14
`
`a display;
`
`a display;
`
`a display;
`
`a proximity sensor adapted|a proximity sensor adapted| a proximity sensor adapted
`to generate a signal
`to generate a signal
`to generate a signal
`indicative of proximity of|indicative of the
`indicative of the
`an external object; and
`existence of a first
`existence of a first
`condition, the first
`condition being that an
`external objectis
`proximate: and
`
`condition, the first
`condition being that an
`external objectis
`proximate: and
`
`a microprocessor adapted
`to:
`
`(a) determine whethera
`telephonecall is active;
`
`a microprocessor adapted
`to:
`
`a microprocessor adapted
`to:
`
`(b) receive the signal from
`the proximity sensor, and
`
`sensor; and
`
`(a) determine,
`(a) determine, without
`independently of the
`using the proximity
`(c) reduce powerto the
`sensor, the existence of a
`determination whether the
`external objectis
`display if (1) the
`second condition
`proximate, the existence of
`independentanddifferent
`microprocessor
`from the first condition,
`a second condition
`determinesthat a
`telephonecall is active and|the second condition being|different from thefirst
`(11) the signal indicates the
`condition, the second
`that a user of the mobile
`proximity of the external
`station has performed an
`condition being that a user
`object; wherein:
`action to initiate an
`of the mobile station has
`outgoing call or to answer
`performed an action to
`an incomingcall;
`initiate an outgoing call or
`to answer an incoming
`call;
`
`the telephonecall is a
`wireless telephonecall;
`
`(b) in response to a
`determination in step (a)
`that the second condition
`exists, activate the
`proximity sensor;
`
`the microprocessor
`(b) in responseto a
`reduces powerto the
`determination in step (a)
`display while the signal
`indicates the proximity of
`that the second condition
`the external object only if
`exists, activate the
`
`the microprocessor (c) receive the signal from|proximity sensor;
`the activated proximity
`determinesthat the
`wireless telephonecall is
`sensor; and
`active; and
`
`(c) receive the signal from
`the activated proximity
`
`the proximity sensor
`begins detecting whether
`
`(d) reduce powerto the
`display if the signal from
`the activated proximi
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2543 Page 16 of 83
`
`°554 Patent Claim 1
`
`°554 Patent Claim 14
`
`°$89 Patent Claim 1
`
`an external objectis
`proximate substantially
`concurrently with the
`mobile station initiating an
`outgoing wireless
`telephonecall or receiving
`
`an incoming wirelesscall.
`
`sensor indicates that the
`first condition exists.
`
`(d) reduce powerto the
`display if the signal from
`the activated proximity
`sensorindicates that the
`first condition exists.
`
`The only dispute regarding the definition of this claim term centers on
`
`Defendants’ insertion of the three words “oris not,” effectively requiring that the
`
`proximity sensor be adapted to generate a signal when an external object is not within
`
`a predetermined range. But Defendants cannotpoint to any support in the intrinsic
`
`record that requires the proximity sensor ofthese three claims to be adapted to
`
`generate a signal to show that somethingis not there. Nor do the Defendantscite any
`
`extrinsic evidence, including any expert testimony,that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would interpret the claim term to require a signal indicating the absenceof an
`
`object within a predetermined range. On the contrary, the specification invariably
`
`refers to a determination that an external object is within a predetermined range. For
`
`instance, in the specification:
`
`e
`
`“The proximity sensor is coupled to the chassis and causes the power
`
`consumption to be reduced whenthe display is within a predetermined
`
`range of an external object.” (Ex. A, ’889 Patent at Abstract; Ex. C, ’554
`
`Patent at Abstract.)
`
`e “ a proximity sensor coupled to the chassis and adapted to cause a
`
`power consumption ofthe display to be reduced when the display is
`
`within a predeterminedrange of an external object.” (Ex. A, °889 Patent
`
`at 1:43-46; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 1:44-47.)
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`6
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2544 Page 17 of 83
`
`e “Ifthe proximity sensor 140 detects an external object (such as the user's
`
`ear) within the monitored range...” (Ex. A, °889 Patent at 3:20—22; Ex. C,
`
`°554 Patent at 3:21—23.)
`
`e
`
`“ _ detecting an attachmentofthe set, in particular of the display of said
`
`set near to an object, in particular to the ear...” ((889 Patent at 2:20—22;
`
`Ex. C, °554 Patent at 2:21—23.)
`
`e
`
`“Ifthe proximity sensor 140 detects an external object (such as the user's
`
`ear) within the monitored range...” (Ex. A, °889 Patent at 3:20—22; Ex.
`
`C, °554 Patent at 3:21—23.)
`
`e “...the proximity sensor 140 detects proximity to an external object...”
`
`(Ex. A, °889 Patent at 3:36—37; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 3:37—-38.)
`
`e
`
`“._.the proximity sensor 140 again detects an object. . .” (Ex. A, °889
`
`Patent at 3:57—58; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 3:57—-58.)
`
`Similarly, the file histories for the Goris Patents evidence no requirementofa signal
`
`that an object is not there. (Ex. B; Ex. D.)
`
`Even in a scenario wherethe external object is moved away from the display or
`
`proximity sensor, which the patent specifically contemplates, there is no requirement
`
`that the proximity sensor must generate a “negative signal”(1.e., a signal that
`
`somethingis not within a predetermined range). For example, the specification states,
`
`“the means may be further adapted to switch-on the display in responseto a detection
`
`that the set, preferably the display of the set, is moved away from any object, in
`
`particular from the ear.” (Ex. A, °889 Patent at 2:6—9; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 2:7—10; see
`
`also Ex. A, 889 Patent at 3:48—-58; Ex. C, °554 Patent at 3:48—58.) Nothing in the
`
`patent forecloses an embodiment where the absence ofa signal that an external object
`
`1s proximate would allow the display to switch back on. In fact, the specification
`
`describes an embodimentthat is wholly consistent with the absence ofa signal
`
`indicating proximity to an external object:
`
`PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`Cage 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 66 Filed 05/24/19 PagelD.2545 Page 18 of 83
`
`Moreover,ifthe proximity sensor 140 ts directly activated by an incomingcall
`or automatically activated, the display can be kept in a Switched-off condition as
`long as the mobile station 110 is, for example, within a pocket (not referenced)
`or the like and is only switched on when the user retrieves the mobile station
`110 from the pocket to enable the user to look on the display 150 for an
`information aboutthe calling party. If the user then wants to accept the call and
`thence places the mobile station 110 proximate an external object, such as his
`ear, the proximity sensor 140 again detects an object, causing the display again
`to be switchedoff.
`
`(Ex. A, ’889 Patent at 3:48—68 (emphasis added); Ex. C, °554 Patent at 3:48—58.)
`
`These disclosures, coupled with the fact that there is nothing in the claim language
`
`itself to indicate that a negative signal is required, supports BNR’s proposal. See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
`
`meaningof a disputed term.”’) (citation omitted).
`
`Moreover, focusing on the disputed language in Claim | and 14 of the *554
`
`Patent yields further support to BNR’s interpretation that the generated signal need
`
`only indicate that an external object is within a predetermined range: “a signal
`
`indicative of the existence ofa first condition, the first condition being that an external
`
`object is proximate” (emphasis added). Here, the claim language makesit clear that the
`
`subject of the signalis “that an external object is proximate.” Defendants’ attempt to
`
`insert an “or is not”into this very clear language describing the signal is unsupported.
`
`In the parties’ claim construction exchanges,the sole piece of evidence that
`
`Defendants haverelied upon to support the “is or is not” portion of their proposed
`
`definition is Claim 2 of the °554 Patent:
`
`The mobile station of Claim 1, further comprising increasing power to the
`display if the signal from the activated proximity sensorindicates that the first
`condition no longerexists.
`
`Defendants argue that because this dependent claim requires that the increasing
`
`of powerto the display is conditional on “the signal from the activated proximit