Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1043 Page 1 of 4
`
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406); jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070
`Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Michael McKeon (DC Bar No. 459780;
`admitted pro hac vice); mckeon@fr.com
`Christian Chu (SBN 218336); chu@fr.com
`Stephen A. Marshall (DC Bar No. 1012870;
`admitted pro hac vice); smarshall@fr.com
`R. Andrew Schwentker (DC Bar No. 991792;
`admitted pro hac vice); schwentker@fr.com
`Daniel A. Tishman (DC SBN 1013923;
` admitted pro hac vice) tishman@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Phone: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG ELECTRONICS
`INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH
`U.S.A., LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE
`RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`LG DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`Date: January 16, 2020
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBER RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`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
`
`1
`
`LG 1025
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1044 Page 2 of 4
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics
`U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A., LLC (collectively,
`“Defendants” or “LG”) will and hereby do respectfully move this Court for entry of
`an order granting the their Motion For Summary Judgment On Indefiniteness (the
`“Motion”).
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, including the exhibits attached thereto, and
`all other papers and arguments submitted in connection with this matter and all
`matters of which the Court may take judicial notice.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1045 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Joanna M. Fuller
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406)
`Attorney for Defendants
`Email: jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070
`Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Michael McKeon (DC Bar No. 459780;
`admitted pro hac vice)
`mckeon@fr.com
`Christian Chu (SBN 218336)
`chu@fr.com
`Stephen A. Marshall (DC Bar No.
`1012870; admitted pro hac vice)
`smarshall@fr.com
`R. Andrew Schwentker (DC Bar No.
`991792; admitted pro hac vice)
`schwentker@fr.com
`Daniel A. Tishman (DC SBN 1013923;
`admitted pro hac vice) tishman@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Phone: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics
`Inc., Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and
`LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A.,
`LLC
`
`
`Dated: November 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1046 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`SIGNATURE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on November 22, 2019 to all counsel of record who are
`deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system,
`pursuant to Local Rule 5.4. Any other counsel of record will be served by
`electronic mail, facsimile, or overnight delivery.
`
`Executed on November 22, 2019 at San Diego, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Joanna M. Fuller
`
`Joanna M. Fuller
`Attorney for Defendants
`Email: jfuller@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`3
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1047 Page 1 of 33
`
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406); jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070
`Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Michael McKeon (DC Bar No. 459780;
`admitted pro hac vice); mckeon@fr.com
`Christian Chu (SBN 218336); chu@fr.com
`Stephen A. Marshall (DC Bar No. 1012870;
`admitted pro hac vice); smarshall@fr.com
`R. Andrew Schwentker (DC Bar No. 991792;
`admitted pro hac vice); schwentker@fr.com
`Daniel A. Tishman (DC SBN 1013923;
` admitted pro hac vice) tishman@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Phone: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG ELECTRONICS
`INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH
`U.S.A., LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`Case No. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM
`LLC,
`LG DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`Date: January 16, 2020
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Bencivengo
`PER CHAMBER RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`SEPARATELY BY THE COURT
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE
`RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1048 Page 2 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................ 1
`II.
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 ............................................................................ 2
`Technology Background for the ’435 Patent ........................................... 2
`A.
`“location of said portable cell phone proximate a user” (cl. 1) ............... 3
`B.
`1.
`Terms of Degree Like “Proximate a User” Are Indefinite If They
`Fail to Provide Objective Boundaries ............................................ 4
`The Intrinsic Evidence Demonstrates that the Phrase “Proximate a
`User” Has No Objective Boundaries ............................................. 5
`Inventor Testimony Confirms the Absence of any Objective
`Boundaries ..................................................................................... 7
`“designated sensor” (dependent cl. 8) ...................................................... 9
`C.
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,549,792 .......................................................................... 11
`Technology Background for the ’792 Patent ......................................... 11
`A.
`“active movement” (cl. 1, 9, 15) ............................................................ 11
`B.
`C.
`“ring detection unit adapted to provide a ring indication to said
`controller” (cl. 1, 4) ................................................................................ 14
`The “ring detection unit” term is a means-plus-function
`1.
`limitation ...................................................................................... 15
`The ’792 patent does not disclose corresponding structure, and the
`“ring detection unit” term is therefore indefinite ......................... 18
`“wherein said controller is adapted to affect the state of said wireless
`handset based on an output from said accelerometer and said ring
`indication” / “wherein the controller is adapted to . . . affect a state of
`said wireless transceiver based on a change in a motion history” (cl. 4,
`9) ............................................................................................................. 23
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`i
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1049 Page 3 of 33
`
`E.
`
`“influencing a transition between an on-hook and an off-hook state
`based on a comparison to a prior history of said motion characteristic”
`(cl. 14) .................................................................................................... 24
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 25
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`ii
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1050 Page 4 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 10
`Abdou v. Alphatec Spine, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-1804 BEN RBB, 2014 WL 6611422 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014)4, 5, 7
`Adv. Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 22
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 4, 6, 7, 14
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 18
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC,
`899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 15, 16, 19, 20
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 14, 25
`Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 14, 21
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.,
`663 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 4
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 9, 10
`High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`No. 09-02269-CM, 2012 WL 3202696 (D. Kan. Aug. 3, 2012) ........................ 15
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-0522-JRG, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) ............... 4
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`iii
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1051 Page 5 of 33
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`No. 07-CV-361-BBC, 2008 WL 4613054 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 4, 2008) ............... 15
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 18, 19
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014)..................................................................................... passim
`Nexus Display Techs. LLC v. Dell Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-0762-RWS, 2015 WL 5578735 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2015) ............. 4
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc.,
`No. 8:16-0545 SJO, 2019 WL 1966664 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019) .................. 15
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 21
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 15
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 21
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 23
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 15, 18, 19
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................... passim
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`iv
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1052 Page 6 of 33
`
`TABLE OF COMMON ABBREVIATIONS IN THIS BRIEF
`
`’792 patent
`’435 patent
`
`Bims Decl.
`
`LG
`
`POSITA
`
`Williams Decl.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,792
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D., submitted as Ex. 9 of the
`Declaration of Joanna Fuller in Support of LG’s Motion
`Defendants LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A.,
`Inc., and LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A., LLC
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D., submitted as Ex. 2
`of the Declaration of Joanna Fuller in Support of LG’s
`Motion
`
`NOTE: All emphases in this brief have been added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`v
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1053 Page 7 of 33
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The objective of the definiteness legal statutory requirement is clear: a patent
`must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors
`regard as their invention. Patent claims “must be precise enough to afford clear notice
`of what is claimed, thereby ‘appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.’”
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 909 (2014) (bracketed text in
`original). Absent such precision, “there would be ‘[a] zone of uncertainty which
`enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims.” Id.
`at 909-10 (brackets in original). Put simply, when those skilled in the relevant art are
`unable to delineate the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty, the claims
`cannot survive the statutory mandate. Here, the patentee was in the best position to
`write its claims outside of the zone of uncertainty, but it nevertheless succumbed to
`the “powerful incentives to inject ambiguity into [its] claims” in order to have more
`flexibility in any future litigation. Id. at 910. Phrases from the ’435 and ’792 patents
`like “proximate,” “designated sensor,” “active movement,” “ring detection unit,”
`“affect the state,” and “influencing a transition,” when read in light of the claims and
`specification, all suffer from an insurmountable ambiguity that renders the relevant
`claims invalid as indefinite. For the reasons provided below, LG respectfully requests
`entry of summary judgment against the ’435 and ’792 patents.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, patent claims must “particularly point[] out and
`distinctly claim[] the subject matter” regarded as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
`Claims must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with
`reasonable certainty,” considered in light of the specification and prosecution
`history. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901, 910 (holding that “a patent is invalid for
`indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent,
`and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in
`the art about the scope of the invention”). This standard requires that a patent must
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`1
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1054 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`“be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby apprising the
`public of what is still open to them.” Id. at 909. In other words, “[t]he claims, when
`read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective
`boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766
`F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims that fail to do so are indefinite under § 112
`and are invalid. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 902.1
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435
`A. Technology Background for the ’435 Patent
`Because the Court is already familiar with the ’435 patent from a related
`litigation, LG only discusses the background relevant to the indefiniteness challenges
`presented by this motion. See Bell N. Research, LLC v. Coolpad Techs., Inc., No. 18-
`CV-1783-CAB-BLM, 2019 WL 3766688, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019).
`As the Court previously noted, “[t]he ’435 patent is for a Proximity Regulation
`System for use with a portable cell phone and a method of operation thereof.” Id. at
`*2. Filed in 2001, this patent tried to address “health concerns [that] have arisen due
`to the power used to transmit the radio frequency of cell phones when operated close
`to the body of a cell phone user.” [Ex. 1 (’435 patent) at 1:36-39.] “For example,
`when held close to the ear, many users have health concerns about the high levels of
`radio frequency energy causing damage to brain cells.” [Id. at 1:39-41.]
`As a proposed solution, the ’435 patent discloses a cell phone that could
`“automatically reduce the transmit power level . . . when located near a human body
`thereby decreasing the perception of health risks associated with” its use. [Id. at 1:63-
`67.] According to the ’435 patent, its disclosed “portable cell phone 200” includes a
`“power circuit 240” and a “proximity regulation system 210,” which includes a
`“location sensing subsystem 220” and a “power governing subsystem 230.” [Id. at
`4:19-31.] These systems are depicted in Figure 2, shown in the right inset below. [Id.
`
`
`1 The legal standard for indefiniteness under § 112 ¶ 6 is discussed in IV.C, infra.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`2
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1055 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`at Fig. 2.] As described in the patent, the
`“power circuit” 240 may be a “typical power
`circuit” that provides a transmit power level.
`[Id. at 3:31-34.]
`In operation, a “network adjusted
`transmit power level may be reduced to a value
`determined by the proximity transmit power
`level when the location of the portable cell
`phone 200 is within the vicinity of the user’s
`head” or “within the vicinity of a user’s body.”
`[Id. at 5:29-36.] The
`location sensing
`subsystem “determines a location of the portable cell phone 200 proximate a user,”
`such as whether the “portable cell phone 200 is proximate the head of the user.” [Id.
`at 4:45-61.] In turn, the “proximity regulation system 210 determines a proximity
`transmit power level of the portable cell phone 200 based on the location of the
`portable cell phone 200 proximate a portable cell phone user.” [Id. at 4:31-34; see
`also id. 3:43-54.]
`B.
`“location of said portable cell phone proximate a user” (cl. 1)
`LG’S POSITION
`BNR’S POSITION
`Indefinite
`Not indefinite. BNR will oppose Defendants’ motion on
`indefiniteness and will submit its evidence that at that
`time, as contemplated by the Court’s order and the
`applicable rules of motion practice.
`
`
`
`A key aspect of the ’435 patent’s purported invention is a determination that
`the cell phone’s location is “proximate a user,” as shown by the following limitation
`in asserted claim 1 (the sole independent claim): “a location sensing subsystem that
`determines a location of said portable cell phone proximate a user.” [’435 patent at
`cl. 1.] Because the phrase “proximate a user” involves a term of degree, knowing
`how close to a user the claimed cell phone must be located is critical to determine
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`3
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1056 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`whether the limitation is satisfied. [Ex. 2 (Williams Decl.) at ¶ 36.] Yet, the intrinsic
`evidence does not provide any objective standard to determine whether the location
`of a cell phone is “proximate a user.” As the evidence shows, a POSITA would not
`understand the phrase to be objectively bounded. [Id. at ¶¶ 36-43.]
`1.
`Terms of Degree Like “Proximate a User” Are Indefinite If
`They Fail to Provide Objective Boundaries
`Federal Circuit “case law is clear that the objective boundaries requirement [of
`§ 112 ¶ 2] applies to terms of degree.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). Although a term of degree may be “definite where it provide[s]
`enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention[,]”
`“a term of degree fails to provide sufficient notice of its scope,” and is thus indefinite,
`“if it depends on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion.” Interval
`Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370-71 (internal quotation omitted) (holding term
`“unobtrusive manner” indefinite, because the “phrase is highly subjective and, on its
`face, provides little guidance to one of skill in the art”); see also Nexus Display Techs.
`LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 14-CV-0762-RWS, 2015 WL 5578735, at *8-9 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`22, 2015) (finding “closely matching the auxiliary data rate” indefinite because “the
`specification fails to provide objective boundaries for determining whether a data rate
`‘closely matche[s]’ another data rate”); Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-0522-JRG, 2014 WL 4230037, at *26 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) (holding
`“quite small” indefinite). Thus, when using terms of degree, the patent “must provide
`some standard for measuring that degree such that the claim language provides
`enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.”
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc., 663 F. App’x 938, 940 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at
`1370-71.
`In Abdou v. Alphatec Spine, Inc., No. 12-CV-1804 BEN RBB, 2014 WL
`6611422 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014), Judge Benitez found indefinite a term of degree
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`4
`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1057 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`very similar to the phrase “proximate a user” at issue here. In Abdou, the claim
`required “identifying a target location within the spinal segment, wherein the target
`location is in proximity to a first vertebral bone.” Id. at *8. As the court explained,
`“the relationship term[] . . . ‘in proximity,’ describes the distance between the target
`location apparatus and the first vertebral bone.” Id. However, “neither ‘in proximity’
`nor any other language in the specification otherwise defines what the proximity
`would be in any specific way.” Id. at *9. “Absolute precision is not necessary, but
`some objective boundaries are required.” Id. Because “[t]he ‘in proximity to’
`language . . . does not state with reasonable certainty what that proximity is,” the court
`invalidated it as indefinite. Id. (citing Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1351, 1370).
`2.
`The Intrinsic Evidence Demonstrates that the Phrase
`“Proximate a User” Has No Objective Boundaries
`As in Abdou, the phrase “proximate a user” in the ’435 patent does not state
`with reasonable certainty what that proximity is, and is therefore indefinite.
`The claim language does not provide any objective boundaries to measure the
`degree of required proximity; it merely recites the phrase “proximate a user,” without
`any further clarifying language. [’435 patent at cl. 1; Williams Decl. at ¶ 36.]
`Consulting the specification is unhelpful for three reasons. First, the written
`description suggests that the degree of proximity varies depending on the body parts
`of interest. For example, the specification mentions cell phone RF radiation health
`risks when “close to the ear or head” or “located near the mid-section.” [’435 patent
`at 1:42-46.] Depending on the cell phone’s “vicinity” to particular body parts, the
`patent recommends distinct signals that can represent a cell phone’s proximity to
`those different body parts. [See, e.g., id. at 6:67-7:6 (“[V]arious control signals may
`be designated to correspond to different locations of the portable cell phone proximate
`the portable cell phone user. For example, one control signal may represent that the
`portable is in the vicinity of the user’s head. Another control signal may be used to
`represent that the portable cell phone is in the vicinity of the user’s body.”).] The
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`5
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1058 Page 12 of 33
`
`variations based on the body parts and the patent’s descriptive substitutes for
`“proximate” add to, rather than diminish, the lack of reasonable certainty surrounding
`the required degree of proximity to a user. [Williams Decl. at ¶ 38.]
`Second, while the specification discloses sensors for measuring a cell phone’s
`proximity to a user’s head or body, they do not speak to the required degree of
`proximity. [Id. at ¶¶ 39-40.] Indeed, the patent describes sensors that “may be used
`to indicate the proximity of the portable cell phone 200 to the user’s body,” and
`mentions an inductively coupled loop and a contact sensor as possible embodiments
`for the sensors. [’435 patent at 4:62-5:12.] While these sensors, along with the
`“location sensing subsystem,” may be involved in determining proximity (see, e.g.,
`’435 patent at claim 8), they do not help a POSITA understand how “proximate a
`user” is sufficient. [Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 39-40.] For example, it is unclear whether
`the term of degree is met by the phone being an inch, a foot, a yard, or a mile from a
`user. There is no disclosed point of comparison to determine how proximate is
`enough. This lack of objective baseline is analogous to Berkheimer, where the
`Federal Circuit found the term “minimal redundancy” indefinite based on the lack of
`objective boundaries. 881 F.3d at 1363-64. As the Berkheimer court explained in
`rejecting
`the patentee’s argument
`that
`the
`instrument exhibiting “minimal
`redundancy” provides an objective baseline, “the issue is not what must exhibit
`minimal redundancy, but rather how much is minimal.” Id. at 1364. Likewise here,
`merely identifying the sensors to measure proximity does not clarify the degree of
`proximity, especially given the lack of any point of comparison in the patent to
`determine this requirement. See id.
`Third, although the patent mentions the operation of a cell phone (such as a cell
`phone “in a data transfer operation mode” or “in a headset operation mode”) or the
`location of the phone (such as being located “on a belt clip” or “in a cradle”), [’435
`patent at 4:53-61, 5:13-23], these indications are insufficient to provide any objective
`boundaries for the claimed phrase “proximate a user.” [Williams Decl. at ¶ 41.] At
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`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
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1059 Page 13 of 33
`
`best, some of these indications, when present, may possibly reveal that the cell phone
`is located away from a user’s head or body. [See, e.g., ’435 patent at 5:21-23 (“[T]he
`portable cell phone 200 is away from the body of the user when the portable cell
`phone 200 is in a cradle.”), 5:58-62 (“[T]he location sensing subsystem 220
`determines that the portable cell phone 200 is not within the vicinity of the head of
`the user upon receiving indication from the headset operation mode input 250.”),
`5:37-42 (“[T]he proximity transmit power level may match . . . the maximum transmit
`power level . . . when the portable cell phone 200 is operating in the headset operation
`mode or the data transfer mode.”); Williams Decl. at ¶ 41.] But these indications do
`not provide any objective criteria or points of comparison to assess whether the cell
`phone is “proximate a user” so as to cause a potential health concern. [Williams Decl.
`at ¶ 41]; see also Abdou, 2014 WL 6611422, at *9 (finding “some meaning” or “some
`guidance” insufficient). And the absence of these indications does not resolve
`whether the cell phone is sufficiently near, close to, within the vicinity, or away from
`the user. [Williams Decl. at ¶ 41.]
`Finally, the prosecution history does not add any clarity to the required
`proximity, thus failing to explain how much proximity is required. [Williams Decl.
`at ¶ 42]; see also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1364 (indicating that the prosecution history
`“does not explain how much redundancy is permitted”). The phrase “proximate a
`user” was not the subject of any discussions during the prosecution of this patent
`between 2001 and 2006, which occurred nearly a decade before the Supreme Court
`adopted the “reasonable clarity” legal standard.
`In sum, the intrinsic record shows that the phrase “proximate a user” has no
`objective boundaries, and is thus indefinite. See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371.
`3.
`Inventor Testimony Confirms the Absence of any Objective
`Boundaries
`While the lack of objective criteria in the intrinsic evidence is dispositive, id.,
`the testimony of the named inventors confirms that the phrase “proximate a user”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MSJ ON INDEFINITENESS (CASE NO. 3:18-CV-2864-CAB-BLM)
`
`7
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM Document 82-1 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.1060 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`lacks reasonable certainty.
`During their depositions, Mr. Mooney and Mr. McDowell, the two named
`inventors, could not identify any objective standard or commonly accepted concept
`for the degree of proximity required to practice their invention. [See, e.g., Ex. 3
`(Mooney Depo Tr.) at 144:15-22 (“Q. Is there any objective standard for determining
`how close a cell phone needs to be to be considered proximate a user? . . . A. I’m not
`aware of -- of any standard, nor would I be.”); Ex. 4 (McDowell Depo Tr.) at 284:4-
`8 (“Q. Can you tell me any objective standard for determining how close a cell phone
`needs to be to the user for it to be considered proximate a user? A. I don’t know.”).]
`In fact, both inventors admitted that they did not try to figure out the degree of
`proximity that could cause a potential health issue at the time of the alleged invention.
`For example, named inventor Philip Mooney explained:
`In inventing this we did not even try to define these terms because
`transmit power and things like that and health effects, those were
`things that were still -- you know, first of all, transmit power is
`determined by regulation as well as technology available and all
`kinds of stuff. So we were not trying to define these terms or define
`what near meant . . . The nearer the phone is to the brain the higher
`the radiation is going into the brain, but in terms of health effects
`and what was considered a safe or an unsafe level, I have no ability
`to state.
`[Ex. 3 (Mooney Depo Tr.) at 145:5-146:3; see also Ex. 4 (McDowell Depo Tr.) at
`286:10-22 (“Q. Could an engineer from your field determine the relevant distance
`without any definite proof of the RF radiation hea