Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.3827 Page 1 of 6
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Case No.: 18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECRONICS MOBILE
`RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INDEFINITENESS
`[Doc. 82]
`
`On January 16, 2020, the Court held a hearing to construe certain disputed terms and
`
`phrases of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,285 and U.S. Patent No. 6,549,792, at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`The Court further heard argument on defendant’s motion for summary judgment that
`
`certain claims of the ‘792 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435 are indefinite and therefore
`
`invalid. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and
`
`for the reasons set forth at the hearing and summarized herein, the Court enters the claim
`
`constructions listed below and denies the motion to summary judgment.
`
`1
`
`18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`LG 1026
`LG Electronics v. Bell Northern Research
`IPR2020-00319
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.3828 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction Order
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 7,945,2851
`
`The ‘285 patent is for an apparatus and method of “Integrating a Digital Encoded-
`
`Audio Bit Stream Player in a Radio-Frequency Telephone Handset.” The ‘285 patent is a
`
`continuation of an application filed on October 7, 2004 which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,702,363, which is a continuation of an application filed on November 23, 1999, which
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,945,284. The patents are directed at cordless telephones and a
`
`need to “expand the uses of a cordless telephone beyond that afforded by conventional
`
`cordless telephones.” (Col. 1:56-57.) Specifically, integrating a digital audio bit stream
`
`player within the remote handset or matching base unit of a cordless phone. (Col. 1:61-
`
`65.)
`
`During the prosecutions of the ‘284 and ‘363 patents, the applicants repeatedly
`
`distinguished prior art references by stating the prior art related to cellular telephones
`
`connected to cellular rely towers and not cordless telephones. The applicants emphatically
`
`reiterated to the examiner that the remote handset and matched base unit of the invention
`
`was not a cellular telephone and a cellular relay tower, and inventions within the “cellular
`
`telephone art” did not apply to their invention. [Doc. No. 83-4 at 4-5; Doc. No. 83-5 at 4-
`
`5; Doc. No. 83-12 at 4, 6.]
`
`The claims of the ‘284 and ‘363 patents are for cordless telephones. In their February
`
`16, 2010 application for the ‘285 patent, the applicants claimed the cordless telephone of
`
`the invention as a “radio-frequency telephone handset.” The applicants however
`
`represented to the patent examiner that no new matter was introduced in this application to
`
`retain the 1999 priority filing date. Having previously, repeatedly and strenuously
`
`represented that these patents are not in the cellular telephone arts and that the base unit of
`
`the handset is not a cellular relay tower, the Court finds that by claiming the disclosed
`
`
`
`1 Doc. No. 1-11.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.3829 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`cordless telephone of the invention as an RF telephone handset and an RF unit connected
`
`to a network, the applicants cannot recapture that which they disclaimed.
`
`The Court therefore construes:
`
`1. RF telephone handset as the remote handset of a cordless telephone using
`
`radio-frequency technology; and
`
`2. RF unit connected to a network as the matching base unit of a cordless
`
`telephone using radio-frequency technology.
`
`In light of the construction limiting the RF telephone handset and base unit to a
`
`cordless phone, the Court declined to reach the construction issue regarding the step of
`
`“muting the digital encoded-audio bit stream music playing from the digital encoded-audio
`
`bit stream player when the RF telephone handset received a telephone call,” as moot.
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 6,549,7922
`
` The ‘792 patent is for an Accelerometer Influenced Communication Device. Filed
`
`in 1999, the patent is directed at an apparatus and method for enhancing the operation of
`
`wireless telephones. Claim 1 of the patent claims
`
`A cordless telephone, comprising:
`a handset with an accelerometer;
`a transceiver;
`a controller; and
`a ring detection unit adapted to provide a ring indication to said controller;
`wherein there is a transition of said cordless telephone between an on-hook state
`and an off-hook state based on an output of said accelerometer showing an active
`movement of said handset.
`
`
`Claim 9 of the patent claims
`
`A wireless handset, comprising:
`a wireless transceiver;
`a controller; and
`an accelerometer,
`
`
`
`2 Doc. No. 1-10.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.3830 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wherein the controller is adapted to receive an output from the accelerometer
`showing an active movement of said wireless telephone and affect a state of said
`wireless transceiver based on a change in a motion history.
`
`Based on the plain language of the claim and the specification, the Court construed
`
`cordless telephone as a telephone comprising a remote handset and corresponding
`
`matched base unit.
`
`Also based on the plain language of the claim and the specification, the Court
`
`construed motion history as a stored pattern of movement or lack of movement.
`
`B. Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness
`
`Defendant contended that certain terms of the ‘792 patent and the ‘435 patent fail to
`
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty as
`
`required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, therefore rendering the claim indefinite and invalid. Nautilius
`
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`
`1. The ‘792 Patent
`
`Defendant argued that the ring detection unit of claims 1 and 4 of the ‘792 patent
`
`is a “means plus function” element, pursuant to § 112 ¶ 6, and no corresponding structure
`
`for this unit is provide in the specification thereby rendering the claims indefinite. Plaintiff
`
`argued that “ring detection” provides sufficient structural information for the unit to apprise
`
`one of skill in the art that it is an integrated circuit or portion thereof in the handset and
`
`such circuitry was well known in the art at the time the patent was filed. The Court was
`
`not persuaded, considering the totality of the specification, that § 112 ¶ 6 applied to this
`
`element. Defendant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that these claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`are indefinite.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Defendant also argued that the term active movement that appears in claims 1, 9
`
`and 15 of the ‘792 patent is indefinite because no one of skill in the art can ascertain from
`
`the patent what level of movement meets the requirement of “active.” The Court however
`
`concluded in the context of the invention a person of skill would understand active, not as
`
`a level of movement, but a temporal qualifier, meaning current or present movement.
`
`4
`
`18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.3831 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`Defendant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that these claims are
`
`indefinite.
`
`Defendant also argued that the terms to affect the state or influencing a transition,
`
`found in claims 4, 9, and 14 of the ‘792 patent are indefinite. The Court found in the
`
`context of the invention and the specification as a whole a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand these terms to mean changing the state of the handset from on-hook to off-hook
`
`or vice versa depending on information received from components of the handset.
`
`Defendant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that these claims are
`
`indefinite.
`
`2. The ‘435 Patent3
`
`The ‘435 patent is for a Proximity Regulation System for use with a portable cell
`
`phone and a method of operation thereof. Filed in 2001, the patent is directed at increased
`
`health concerns regarding the power used to transmit the radio frequency of cell phones
`
`when operated close to the body of the cell phone user. “For example, when held close to
`
`the ear, many users have health concerns about the high level of radio frequency energy
`
`causing damage to brain cells.” [Col. 1:14-40.] The patent claims a system and method to
`
`automatically reduce the transmit power level of a portable cell phone when located near a
`
`human body thereby decreasing the perception of health risks associated with the use
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`thereof. [Col. 1:63-67.]
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Claim 1 of the ’435 patent claims
`
`A portable cell phone, comprising:
`a power circuit that provides a network adjusted transmit power level as a function
`of a position to a communications tower; and
`a proximity regulation system including:
` a location sensing subsystem that determines a location of said portable cell phone
`proximate a user; and
` a power governing subsystem, coupled to said location sensing subsystem, that
`determines a proximity transmit power level of said portable cell phone based on
`
`
`
`3 Doc. No. 1-9.
`
`5
`
`18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.3832 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`said location and determines a transmit power level for said portable cell phone
`based on said network adjusted power level and said proximity transmit power level.
` [Col. 8:2-15.]
`
`The defendant argued that the patent provides no limitations or ranges for what
`
`would constitute proximate a user and claim 1 is therefore indefinite. The Court is not
`
`persuaded. In the context of the invention, considering the entirety of the claim, proximate
`
`a user does not require a particular distance from a user, but rather is a reference point for
`
`a measurement. The location sensing subsystem determines the location (i.e., distance) of
`
`the phone from the user. Based on that location and the power level based on the position
`
`of the phone to a communications tower, the power governing subsystem adjusts the power
`
`level for the phone. Proximate a user describes a variable used to determine the location
`
`of the phone, where it is in relation to the user to obtain a distance.
`
`The defendant also argued that designated sensor in dependent claim 8 is indefinite.
`
`As a matter of judicial economy and to avoid unnecessary claim construction, the Court
`
`declined to reach this argument and deemed it withdrawn without prejudice. If plaintiff
`
`pursues infringement of Claim 8 of the ‘435 patent, defendant may renew this argument.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: January 21, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`
`