Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5452 Page 1 of 20
`
`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-1783-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et
`al.,
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendants.
`
`[Doc. No. 68]
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Case No.: 18-CV-1784-CAB-BLM
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`et al.,
`
`[Doc. No. 65]
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Case No.: 18-CV-1786-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`[Doc. Nos. 86, 93]
`
`ZTE CORPORATION et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`On June 19-20, 2019, the Court held a hearing to construe certain disputed terms and
`
`phrases of the patents at issue in this lawsuit. Having considered the submissions of the
`
`parties, the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth at the hearing and herein,
`
`the Court enters the claim constructions listed below.
`
`1
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`LG 1011
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5453 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,5541
`
`The ‘889 patent and the ‘554 patent (a continuation of the ‘889 patent) are for a
`
`System and Method for Conserving Battery Power in a Mobile Station. The patent
`
`addresses the need in the art as of 2003, for “a way to prolong the lifetime of a mobile
`
`station [cordless phone or cell phone] without having to use a battery with an increased
`
`capacity.” [Doc. No. 1-2, at Col. 1:21-26, 35-37.] The system and method accomplish this
`
`by reducing the power consumption of the display of an activated mobile station when the
`
`display is not needed, particularly during a telephone call thereby saving needless power
`
`consumption. [Id., at Col. 1:47-51.]
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘889 patent
`
`11
`
`and the ‘554 patent.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Claim 1 [of ‘889 patent]. A mobile station, comprising:
`A display;
`A proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of proximity of an
`external object; and
`A microprocessor adapted to:
`(a) Determine whether a telephone call is active;
`(b) Receive the signal from the proximity sensor; and
`(c) Reduce power to the display if (i) the microprocessor determines that a telephone
`call is active and (ii) the signal indicates the proximity of the external object;
`wherein
`The telephone call is a wireless telephone call;
`The microprocessor reduces power to the display while the signal indicates the
`proximity of the external object only if the microprocessor determines that the
`wireless telephone call is active; and
`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.
`
`
`
`[Id., at Col. 4:2-25.]
`
`
`
`
`
`1 These patents are filed in case 18cv1783 at Doc. Nos. 1-2 and 1-3.
`
`2
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5454 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Claim 7 [of ‘554 patent]. A mobile station, comprising:
`a display;
`a proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of the first condition,
`the first condition being that an external object is proximate; and
`a microprocessor adapted to:
`(a) determine, without using the proximity sensor, the existence of a second
`condition independent and different from the first condition, the second condition
`being that a user of the mobile station has performed an action to initiate an
`outgoing call or to answer an incoming call;
`(b) in response to a determination in step (a) that the second condition exists, activate
`the proximity sensor;
`(c) receive the signal from the activated proximity sensor; and
`(d) reduce power to the display if the signal from the activated proximity sensor
`indicates the first condition exists.
`
`[The mobile station as recited in claim 1,] wherein the proximity sensor begins
`detecting whether an external object is proximate substantially concurrently with
`the mobile station initiating an outgoing telephone call.
`
`[Doc. No. 1-3 at Col. 4:2-22, 40-43.]
`
`
`The ‘889 and ‘554 Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`A.
`
`signal indicative of proximity of an external object;
`a signal indicative … that an external object is proximate
`
` The parties agree that the proximity sensor is adapted to generate a signal that
`
`indicates an external object is within predetermined range. [Doc. No. 1-2 at Abstract
`
`and Col. 1:44-4.] Defendants, however, sought additional language in the construction that
`
`the sensor generates “a signal that indicates an external object is or is not detected to be
`
`within a predetermined range.” The Court declined to include the proposed or is not
`
`language.
`
`The plain language of the claim states the sensor generates a signal when an external
`
`object is proximate. Nothing in the claim or the specification supports a construction that
`
`a signal is generated to indicate the absence of a proximate external object. If there is no
`
`external object sensed, then no signal is generated. The signal may cease when an object is
`
`no longer proximate (Id. at Col 4:16-18, the microprocessor reduces power to the display
`
`3
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5455 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`“while the signal indicates the proximity of the external object”). Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction creates a requirement that the proximity sensor generate a signal that indicates
`
`an external object is not within a predetermined range. This is not supported by the claim
`
`language or the specification. The Court construes “a signal indicative of proximity of an
`
`external object” and “a signal indicative … that an external object is proximate” as a signal
`
`that indicates an external object is within predetermined range.
`
`B.
`
`substantially concurrently
`
` Defendants argue that a person of skill in the art could not understand the scope of
`
`claim 1 of the ‘889 patent and claim 7 of the ‘554 patent because the claims require the
`
`proximity sensor begin detecting whether an object is proximate “substantially
`
`concurrently” with the mobile station initiating or receiving a telephone call. Defendants
`
`contend that the patent provides no standard for determining what is encompassed by
`
`“substantially concurrently.” Defendants therefore argue the claims are indefinite and
`
`invalid. The Court is not persuaded.
`
`The Court construes “concurrently”
`
`to have
`
`its ordinary meaning of
`
`“simultaneously” or “at the same time.” The use of a relative term such as “substantially”
`
`does not render the patent claim so unclear as to prevent persons skilled in the art from
`
`determining the claim scope. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). When such a word is used the court must determine whether the patent provides
`
`some standard for measuring the degree. Words of degree—such as “substantially”—are
`
`not considered indefinite so long as intrinsic evidence “provides objective boundaries for
`
`those of skill in the art.” See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370–71
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`“Substantially” as a word of degree is generally understood to mean “essentially” or
`
`“mainly.” In the context of the claims and the patents, the Court finds this phrase not to be
`
`indefinite and that a person of skill in the art would understand that the proximity sensor
`
`will begin detecting the proximity of an external object essentially at the same time the
`
`mobile station receives or makes a call.
`
`4
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5456 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`II. U.S. Patent No. 7,039,4352
`
`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.” [Doc. No. 33-8 at 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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`with the use thereof. [Id. at Col. 1:63-67.]
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff requested construction of the following term in bold of the ‘435 patent.
`
`Claim 1. 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
`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.
`
` [Id. at Col. 8:2-15.]
`
`Plaintiff sought clarification that the limitation of a network adjusted transmit power
`
`level as a function of a “position to a communications tower” is based on the transmit signal
`
`strength of a communications path between the communications tower and the portable
`
`cell phone. [Id. at Col. 3:39-41.] Plaintiff therefore proposed that position to a
`
`communications tower be construed as “transmit signal strength of a communications
`
`path between the communications tower and the portable cell phone.” Defendants offered
`
`that the network adjusted transmit power level as a function of the position of the cell phone
`
`
`
`2 This patent is filed in case 18cv1786 at Doc. No. 33-8.
`
`5
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5457 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`to a communications tower is unambiguous to one in the art and required no construction
`
`or explanation. The Court agrees and declines to construe, or explain, the claim term.
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 6,941,1563
`
`The ‘156 patent is an Automatic Hand off for Wireless Piconet Multimode Cell
`
`Phone. Filed in 2001, the background of the invention describes existing multimode cell
`
`phones with the capability to make a telephone connection using a cellular network or
`
`alternatively using a short-range RF frequency such as a Bluetooth wireless piconet
`
`network. It additionally describes such phones functioning as walkie-talkies, connecting
`
`to a similarly capable handset using a short-range RF frequency such as Family Radio
`
`System Band. [Doc. No. 1-5 at Col. 1:13-22, Col. 2:37-52, Col. 7:44-44.] The patent
`
`further describes how the convenience of being able to switch from one connection mode
`
`to another was inhibited by the necessity that the user “must first terminate any existing
`
`telephone call, and then manually switch the mode of the 3-1 telephone” and then
`
`14
`
`reestablish the call. [Id. at Col. 1:31-45.]
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
` The patent is directed at an apparatus and methods to provide a smooth switchover
`
`and interactions between the separate modes of operation with minimal or even
`
`unnoticeable disruption of the participants or content of the telephone conversation. [Id.
`
`18
`
`at Col. 1:46-48; Col. 3:26-33.]
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘156 patent.
`
`Claim 1. A multimode cell phone, comprising
`a cell phone functionality; and
`an RF communication functionality separate from said cell phone functionality;
`a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF
`communication functionality; and
`
`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
`
`
`
`3 This patent is filed in case 18cv1783 at Doc. No. 1-5.
`
`6
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5458 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`communication functionality, with another communication path later established on
`the other of said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality.
`
`
`[Id. at Col. 8:15-31.]
`
`The ‘156 Claim Constructions
`
`A.
`
`cell phone functionality
`
` Cell phone functionality is a term used by the patentee to describe an existing mode
`
`of communication link made via a wireless cellular network, and the Court construes it
`
`as such. [Id. at Col.1:31-33, “a 3-in-1 cell phone conventionally provides establishment of
`
`a telephone call with a wireless cell phone network”; Col. 3:49-63, Fig. 1.] Defendants
`
`argue that no structure is provided for this limitation, however the Court finds that such
`
`wireless cellular network communications were known in the art, the patent employs such
`
`network communications but claims no improvement to the wireless cellular network, and
`
`further description is unnecessary.
`
`B. RF communication functionality
`
` RF communication functionality is a term used by the patentee to describe an
`
`existing mode of communication link made via short-range radio frequencies (such as
`
`a BLUETOOTH piconet network or Family Radio System Band), and the Court construes
`
`it as such. [Id. at Col. 1:13-18, Col. 2:37-Col. 3:12, Col. 7:31-44.] Defendants argue that
`
`no structure is provided for this limitation, however the Court finds that such short-range
`
`radio frequency communications discussed in the patent were known in the art, the patent
`
`employs such short-range radio frequency communications but claims no improvement of
`
`such modes and further description is unnecessary.
`
`C.
`
`[to establish] simultaneous communications paths
`
` The parties agreed in part that “simultaneous communications paths” means “two or
`
`more communication links at the same time” from the multimode cell phone. The claim
`
`language provides the further limitation that these simultaneous paths, or links, are
`
`established using both the cell phone functionality (i.e., a wireless cellular network) and
`
`the separate RF communication functionality (i.e., a short-range radio frequency). The
`
`7
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5459 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Court therefore finds Defendants’ proposed construction that the links be defined as
`
`“distinct and different” is superfluous in the context of the entire claim which requires they
`
`use different and separate modes of connection.
`
`Defendants further proposed as part of the construction that the two or more
`
`communications links are made between the multimode cell phone and a far-end
`
`communication device at the same time, thereby incorporating into the construction a
`
`definition of “to establish.”4 Plaintiff alternatively proposed that the two or more links
`
`from the multimode cell phone be active. Although the parties disagreed with each other’s
`
`proposed additional language, the Court is not persuaded they are necessarily different, in
`
`so far as they define “to establish” as part of the claim limitation, to establish
`
`simultaneous communications paths.
`
`The patent describes the invention as “a technique for transferring an active
`
`telephone call from cordless telephone mode [RF communication functionality] to cell
`
`phone mode (and vice versa) in a 3-in-1 cell phone.” [Id., at Col. 3:26-28; Fig.2.] The
`
`multi-mode cell phone establishes an active connection (a telephone call using the multi-
`
`mode phone’s RF mode) to a far-end device, that can be any telephonic device, multi-mode
`
`or single mode. [Id., Col. 4:12-17.] The multi-mode cell phone then establishes a second
`
`active communication path in a different mode (the cellular network mode) that connects
`
`with the far-end device at the same time the first communication path is still active. After
`
`the second connection is established, the connection on the first communication path is
`
`terminated. The phone call proceeds uninterrupted by the change of mode. [Id., Fig. 2;
`
`Col. 4:50- Col. 5:6.] The communication path, or link, is established when it is actively
`
`23
`
`connected to the far-end device.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
` In accordance with the claim language, the teachings of the patent, and the
`
`prosecution history the Court construes to establish simultaneous communication paths
`
`
`
`4 “To establish simultaneous communications paths” is the function of the module claimed in this
`limitation and discussed further in the construction of module, infra.
`
`8
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5460 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`from said multimode cell phone as making two or more communications links from
`
`the multimode cell phone to a far-end communication device at the same time.
`
`D.
`
`a module to establish simultaneous communications paths from said
`
`multimode cell phone
`
` The Court determines that “module” in the context of this claim is subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. Under section § 112 ¶6, an applicant is permitted to make use of means-
`
`plus-function language, to express a claim limitation as a means or step for performing a
`
`specified function without claiming the structure. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Such limitations are construed as the scope of the
`
`structure, materials or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed
`
`function or equivalents thereof. Id. In making the determination of whether a limitation is
`
`subject to the strictures of § 112 ¶6 the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or the
`
`absence of the word “means” but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure.
`
`15
`
`Id. at 1348.
`
`The entire claim limitation is “a module to establish simultaneous communications
`
`paths from said multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF
`
`communication functionality.” [Doc. No. 1-5 at Col. 8:20-23.] This format is consistent
`
`with traditional means-plus-function claims limitations, replacing “means” with “module”
`
`and reciting the function to be performed. “Module” is a well-known nonce word that can
`
`operate as a substitute for “means” in the context of § 112 ¶6. Williamson, 792 F.3d at
`
`1350. In this case ‘module” does not provide any indication of structure for providing the
`
`function of establishing simultaneous communications paths from said multimode cell
`
`phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality.
`
`Having determined that “module” is subject to § 112 ¶6, the court must determine
`
`what structure, if any, disclosed in specification corresponds to the claimed function. If
`
`the patentee fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure the claim is indefinite.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5461 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`In accordance with the claim, this module is part of the multimode cell phone. It is
`
`distinct from the claim limitations of cell phone functionality [id. at Fig. 1, (100a)], RF
`
`communication functionality [id. at Fig. 1, (100b)], and the automatic switch over module
`
`[id. at Fig. 1, (101)]. The module of the multimode cell phone, that establishes
`
`simultaneous communications paths using cell phone and RF communication functionality
`
`is not identified in any figure. There is no direct reference in the specification to this
`
`module.
`
`There is reference to the “automatic switch over module” in the specification. [Id.
`
`at Col. 1:51-61; 3:56-60, Col. 4:1-6; Fig 1, (101).] The word module appears nowhere else
`
`in the specification. This reference is however to a separate claim limitation from the
`
`“module” that establishes the simultaneous communications paths. The claimed “automatic
`
`switch over module” operates to switch from an established communications path to the
`
`13
`
`later established communications path.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Plaintiff identified the following portions of the patent as disclosing the structure
`
`that corresponds to the claimed module’s function of establishing the simultaneous
`
`communication paths: Figs. 1, 3; Col. 3:48-4:49; 4:54-5:62; 6:3-55; 6:60-8-5. [See
`
`18cv1783, Doc. No. 63-1 at 44.] This absurdly overinclusive designation fails to identify
`
`a sufficiently definite structure that corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as “corresponding structure” if the
`
`intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the
`
`claim. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. Plaintiff cites to the entirety of figures 1 and 3,
`
`which include a multitude of unrelated structures, and large blocks of the specification that
`
`encompass structures separate from the multimode cell phone that provide many different
`
`functions. The Court will not scour the Plaintiff’s submission to locate, or otherwise
`
`ascertain from the blanket proffer made by Plaintiff what structure of the multimode cell
`
`phone
`
`is disclosed
`
`to provide
`
`the function of establishing
`
`the simultaneous
`
`27
`
`communications paths.
`
`28
`
`10
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5462 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Although the patent discloses a number of steps that may be performed by hardware
`
`or software not contained in the multimode cell phone to create a cellular network
`
`connection and an RF connection between the phone and a far-end device, the claimed
`
`“module” of the multimode cell phone device remains a mystery. It is not sufficient to
`
`simply state that one of ordinary skill in the art would “know this is a structure for RF
`
`communications through a genus of RF communication types well known in the art.” [Doc.
`
`No. 63-1 at 42.]
`
`The ‘156 patent fails to disclose any structure of the multimode cell phone that
`
`corresponds to the function to “establish simultaneous communications paths from said
`
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF communication
`
`functionality.” The Court therefore finds Claim 1 of the ‘156 patent invalid for
`
`indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. Defendants’ corresponding motion for summary
`
`judgment on this claim is GRANTED.
`
`E.
`
`an automatic switch over module
`
`The Court determines that “an automatic switch over module” in the context of this
`
`claim is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. The entire claim limitation is “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.” [Doc. No. 1-5 at Col. 8:24-31.]
`
`This format is consistent with traditional means-plus-function claims limitations,
`
`replacing “means” with “module” and reciting the function to be performed. The prefix
`
`“automatic switch over” does not impart structure into the term module. The detail that
`
`this module of the multimode cell phone will switch the communication path of the
`
`multiphone cell phone from cell phone mode to RF mode, or vice versa, automatically,
`
`27
`
`does not impart any structure.
`
`28
`
`11
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5463 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`The “automatic switch over module” is referenced in the specification. [Id. at Col.
`
`3:56-60, Col. 4:1-6; Fig 1, (101).] It is mentioned in the Summary of Invention:
`
`[in] accordance with the principles of the present invention, a multimode cell phone
`comprises a cell phone functionality, and an RF communication functionality
`separate from the cell phone functionality. An automatic switch over module is in
`communication with both the cell phone functionality and the RF communication
`functionality. The automatic switch over module operates
`to switch a
`communication path established on either the cell phone functionality or the RF
`communication functionality, with another communication path established on the
`other of the cell phone functionality and the RF communication functionality.
`
`[Id. at Col. 1:51-61.]
`
`Similarly, it is discussed briefly in the Detailed Embodiment:
`
`[importantly, an automatic switch over module 101 is in communication with each
`communication path functionality, e.g., with the cell phone functionality 110a, the
`piconet cordless telephone functionality 100b, and the walkie-talkie functionality
`100c.… [While] operating in a cell phone mode, the automatic switch over module
`101 of the multimode cell phone 100 may detect walkie-talkie communications
`activity from the far party’s multimode cell phone 100 and establish a
`communication link therebetween even while the two parties remain in cell phone
`communication.
`
`[Id. at Col. 3:56-60, Col. 4:1-6; Fig. 1.]
`
`These are the only direct references in the patent to the “automatic switch over
`
`module” and the function of establishing the simultaneous communications link described
`
`above is not the claimed function of this module, but that of the separately claimed
`
`“module” limitation discussed in the preceding section.
`
`Plaintiff identified the following portions of the patent as disclosing the structure
`
`that corresponds to the function of switching the established communication paths: Figs.
`
`1, 3; Col. 3:48-4:49; 4:54-5:62; 6:3-55; 6:60-8-5. [See 18cv1783, Doc. No. 63-1, at 48.]
`
`This is the same designation made for the “module” limitation discussed in the previous
`
`section. Plaintiff’s designation of the same broad and overinclusive passages as the
`
`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
`
`12
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5464 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`disclosed structure for two separate claim limitations underscores that the patent fails to
`
`identify a sufficiently definite structure that corresponds to this claimed function as well.
`
`Although the patent discloses a number of steps that may be performed by hardware
`
`or software not contained in the multimode cell phone to switch from a cellular network
`
`connection to an RF connection, or vice versa, between the multimode cell phone and a
`
`far-end device, the claimed “automatic switch over module” of the multimode cell phone
`
`device is not identified with sufficiently definite structure. It is just a black box in Fig 1.
`
`Nor is it sufficient to simply state that one of ordinary skill in the art would “know this is
`
`a structure for RF communications through a genus of RF communication types well
`
`known in the art.” [Doc. No. 63-1 at 46.]
`
`The ‘156 patent fails to disclose any structure of the multimode cell phone that
`
`corresponds to the function “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.” The Court therefore finds Claim 1 of the ‘156 patent
`
`invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. Defendants’ corresponding motion for
`
`summary judgment on this claim is GRANTED.
`
`IV. U.S. Patent No. 7,990,8425
`
` The ‘842 patent is for a device that generates backward-compatible long training
`
`sequences for wireless communication networks. The patent addresses the need “to create
`
`a long training sequence of minimum peak-to-average ratio that uses more sub-carriers
`
`[than the existing standard compliant devices] without interfering with adjacent channels”
`
`and “be usable by legacy devices in order to estimate channel impulse response and to
`
`estimate carrier frequency offset between a transmitter and a receiver.” [Doc. No. 1-4, at
`
`25
`
`Col. 2:8-16; 37-43.]
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`5 This patent is filed in case 18cv1783 at Doc. No. 1-4.
`
`13
`
`18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.5465 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘842 patent.
`
`Claim 1. A wireless communications device, comprising
`a signal generator that generates an extended long training sequence; and
`an
`Inverse Fourier Transformer operatively coupled
`to
`the
` generator,
`wherein the Inverse Fourier Transformer processes the extended long training
`sequence from the signal generator and provides an optimal extended long
`training sequence with a minimal peak-to-average ratio, and
`wherein at least the optimal extended long training sequence is carried by a
`greater number of subcarriers than a standard wireless networking
`configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
`scheme.
`
`signal
`
`
`Claim 14. 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.
`
`[Id. at Col. 5:37-49; Col. 6:28-32.]
`
`‘842 Claim Constructions
`
`A.
`
`an extended long training sequence
`
`Defendants contend this phrase is indefinite and has no understandable meaning to
`
`a person of skill in the art. Plaintiff contends it would be clear to person of skill that an
`
`extended, or expanded, long training sequence in the context of the entirety of the claim
`
`language and the specification is a training sequence that uses more active subcarriers than
`
`an existing standard. The Court finds that an extended, or expanded, long training sequence
`
`is one longer than the long training sequence that was the known s