Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1476
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, UNWIRED
`PLANET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, AND
`PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-66-JRG
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`P.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Patent Rule 4-1 and the Court’s Docket Control Order (Dkt. 50), Plaintiffs
`
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, Unwired Planet, LLC,
`
`Unwired Planet International Limited, and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiffs” or “PanOptis”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) hereby file this
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`TERMS ON WHICH THE PARTIES AGREE [P.R. 4-3(A)(1)]
`
`In accordance with Patent Rule 4-2(c), the parties met and conferred to narrow the list of
`
`disputed claim terms and phrases for their P.R. 4-1 lists and P.R. 4-2 exchange of preliminary
`
`claim construction and extrinsic evidence. The parties were able to reach an agreement on the
`
`meaning of the claim terms or phrases set forth in Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1012
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1477
`
`II.
`
`INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS AND
`EVIDENCE FOR DISPUTED TERMS [P.R. 4-3(A)(2)]
`
`Exhibit B sets forth Plaintiffs’ and Apple’s proposed respective constructions of each
`
`disputed claim term or phrase of the patents-in-suit. Included in Exhibit B is an identification of
`
`all references from the specification and prosecution history that each party believes supports its
`
`proposed constructions and an identification of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence known to
`
`each party on which each party intends to rely either to support its proposed construction of each
`
`claim term or phrase or to oppose another party’s proposed construction of each claim term or
`
`phrase.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING LENGTH [P.R. 4-3(A)(3)]
`
`The parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing will take three hours, with time
`
`split equally between Plaintiffs and Apple.
`
`IV. WITNESSES, INCLUDING EXPERTS, FOR THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`HEARING [P.R. 4-3(A)(4)]
`
`The parties do not expect to present live testimony of witnesses at the Claim Construction
`
`Hearing. As noted in Exhibit B, the parties may submit the expert declarations included herewith
`
`in Exhibit B from Dr. Vijay Madisetti and Dr. Mark Mahon (in support of Plaintiffs) and Dr.
`
`Jonathan Wells, Mark Lanning, and Dr. R. Michael Buehrer (in support of Apple).
`
`V.
`
`OTHER ISSUES [P.R. 4-3(A)(5)]
`
`The parties are currently unaware of any other issues which might appropriately be taken
`
`up at a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1478
`
`Dated: December 12, 2019.
`
`/s/ Samuel F. Baxter
`
`
`
`Samuel F. Baxter ‒ Lead Counsel
`Texas State Bar No. 1938000
`sbaxter@McKoolSmith.com
`Jennifer Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`jtruelove@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Telecopier: (903) 923-9099
`
`Kevin L. Burgess
`Texas State Bar No. 24006927
`kburgess@McKoolSmith.com
`Steven J. Pollinger
`Texas State Bar No. 24011919
`spollinger@McKoolSmith.com
`Seth R. Hasenour
`Texas State Bar No. 24059910
`shasenour@mckoolsmith.com
`Christine M. Woodin
`Texas State Bar No. 24100051
`cwoodin@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 692-8700
`Telecopier: (512) 692-8744
`
`Mike McKool
`Texas State Bar No. 13732100
`mmckool@McKoolSmith.com
`Holly E. Engelmann
`Texas State Bar No. 24040864
`hengelmann@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 978-4000
`Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1479
`
`Jason Sheasby (pro hac vice)
`jsheasby@irell.com
`Hong Zhong, PhD
`hzhong@irell.com
`Elliot Z. Chen (pro hac vice)
`echen@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Ave of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`Telephone: (310) 203-7096
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Ingrid M. Haslund Petersen (pro hac vice)
`ipetersen@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Dr., Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 717-6359
`
`M. Jill Bindler
`Texas Bar No. 02319600
`jbindler@grayreed.com
`GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 954-4135
`Facsimile: (469) 320-6901
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY,
`LLC, OPTIS CELLULAR
`TECHNOLOGY, LLC, AND PANOPTIS
`PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC
`
`/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
`Mark D. Selwyn
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone:
`(650) 858-6000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 858-6100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1480
`
`Mindy Sooter (pro hac vice)
`mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2600
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone:
`(720) 274-3135
`Facsimile:
`(720) 274-3133
`
`Timothy Syrett (pro hac vice)
`timothy.syrett@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone:
`(617) 526-6000
`Facsimile:
`(617) 526-5000
`
`Brittany Blueitt Amadi (pro hac vice)
`brittany.amadi@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone:
`(202) 663-6000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 663-6363
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone:
`(903) 934-8450
`Facsimile:
`(903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1481
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
`
`been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on December 12, 2019.
`
`/s/ Samuel F. Baxter
`Samuel F. Baxter
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 1
`
`Exhibit A to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`ACK/NACK control signals to.”
` “after mapping the multiplexed signals [in step (b) ], mapping
`
`step (a)], mapping the multiplexed signals to.”
` “after placing the first control signals and the data signals [in
`
`“mapping ACK/NACK control signals to”
`
`1, 8
`
`“mapping the multiplexed signals to”
`
`1, 8
`
`signals.”
`the data signals are placed at a rear part of the multiplexed
`signals are placed at a front part of the multiplexed signals and
`in which one is directly after the other, wherein the first control
`“first control signals and data signals are mapped with a sequence
`
`part of the multiplexed signals”
`signals and the data signals are placed at a rear
`are placed at a front part of the multiplexed
`data signals, wherein the first control signals
`“serially multiplexing first control signals and
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Term
`
`1, 8
`
`Claims
`
`2.United States Patent No. 8,102,833 (“The ’833 Patent”)
`
`coding scheme”
`“transport format, transport block size, payload size, or modulation and
`
`“transport format”
`
`27, 28, 29
`1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 16,
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Term
`
`Claims
`
`1.United States Patent No. 8,385,284 (“The ’284 Patent”)
`
`Exhibit A: Agreed Terms
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1482
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Exhibit A to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`uplink signal”
`“based on a received
`
`6
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Term
`
`Claims
`
`3.United States Patent No. 9,001,774 (“The ’774 Patent”)
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1483
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 1
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`positions and supporting evidence in response to any change of position by any other party, or for other good cause.
`through claim construction discovery. In addition, each party reserves the right to amend, correct, or supplement its claim construction
`1 All parties reserve the right to rely upon any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by any other party, and any evidence obtained
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12:1-67, 16:4-17:9, Figs. 1, 2, 5-8.
`6:1-12, 6:34-39, 7:25-43, 8:1-11:6, 11:12-65,
`’154 Patent at 1:15-53, 2:36-4:10, 5:9-67,
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`PL-UPPO_000584351).
`2006-0133210 (APL-UPPO_000584309 -
`Translation of priority application KR 10-
`
`
`
`
`
`POAP_00000147.
`POAP00000102, POAP_00000131 –
`POAP_0000050, POAP_00000063 -
`8,005,154, including at POAP_0000002 -
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`via higher layer signaling”
`information for the downlink control channel
`Function: “configuring transmission
`
`
`
`112(6)
`Structure: Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`via higher layer signaling”
`information for the downlink control channel
`Function: “configuring transmission
`the following construction:
`be governed by § 112 ¶ 6, Plaintiffs propose
`However, to the extent this term is found to
`
`hardware with software programmed, to
`Structure: hardware programmed, or
`
`
`
`not indefinite.
`meaning, and is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6 and
`the term should carry its plain and ordinary
`Therefore, no construction is necessary, and
`1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)).
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d
`F.3d 1014, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
`See, e.g., Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek s.a.r.l., 859
`term does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`extractor”), Plaintiffs contend that this claim
`sufficient structure (a “control information
`Because the claim term itself recites
`
`
`
`signaling”
`channel via higher layer
`for the downlink control
`transmission information
`extractor for configuring
`“control information
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`37
`
`Claims
`
`United States Patent No. 8,005,154 (“The ’154 Patent”)
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit B: Disputed Claim Terms and Evidence1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1484
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`United States Patent No. 8,019,332 (“The ’332 Patent”)
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. R. Michael Buehrer.
`
`UPPO_002569293).
`(APL-UPPO_002569282 - APL-
`Description (Release 8), TS 36.201 (2006-11)
`Network; LTE Physical Layer - General
`Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`UPPO_000571711).
`UPPO_000571628 - APL-
`FDD Spectra at 10, 24, Table 5 (2006) (APL-
`Joint Proposal for 3GPP2 Physical Layer for
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. Mark Mahon.
`Switched Networks,” at 310-311.
`Rahbar, “Quality of Service in Optical Packet
`(2002), at 203.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition
`
`equivalents thereof.
`8 and at 9:1-33, 11:12-65 and 12:33-58, and
`shown and described in Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, and
`downlink control channel; for example, as
`extract transmission information for the
`
`
`
`EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`12:33-58, and 12:64-67; claims 31-38.
`1:15-35, 6:1-12, 9:1-33, 10:4-37, 11:12-65,
`’154 Patent at Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 and at
`
`PL-UPPO_000584351).
`2006-0133210 (APL-UPPO_000584309 -
`Translation of priority application KR 10-
`
`
`
`
`
`File history of ’154 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 1485
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`2016). (APL-UPPO_002435955-6007.)
`59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 99-5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22,
`BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-cv-
`Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Regarding Claim Construction in Optis
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`042.)
`Nov. 22, 2016). (APL-UPPO_002436008-
`No. 2:16-cv-59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 99 (E.D. Tex.
`LLC, et al. v. BlackBerry Corporation, et al.,
`to P.R. 4-5(a) in Optis Cellular Technology,
`Opening Claim Construction Brief Pursuant
`PanOptis Patent Management, LLC’s
`Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and
`Expert testimony of Mark Lanning.
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`D,” below.
`“wherein Yk is defined by: Yk=(A*Yk-1)mod
`All intrinsic evidence cited for the term
`
`10:32-34, 14:15-18, 19:42-45.
`7:45-50, 7:64-8:3, 8:5-29, 9:5-62, 10:3-9,
`2:43-44, 3:21-32, 4:46-67, 5:51-57, 6:12-67,
`14 (and related text), 1:28-2:10, 2:14-22,
`’332 patent at Abstract, claims 1-20, Figs. 1-
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`C or L·(Yk mod C)”
`“given by one of: L·[(A·Yk+B) mod D] mod
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(2002), at 346.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition
`Function Definition,” R1-081675.
`LG Electronics, “Way Forward on Hashing
`TSG RAN WG1#52bis, Mar. 2008.
`PDCCH search space,” R1-081567, 3GPP
`LG Electronics, “Randomization Function for
`Expert testimony of Dr. Vijay Madisetti.
`
`6:33-7:27; 8:7-10:20; 20:16-30; Claims 1-10.
`’332 Patent at Abstract; 1:15-18; 2:23-3:40;
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`pages 9-14, 27.
`Provisional application No. 61/037,000 at
`
`
`
`
`
`EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`operation”
`and a modulo ‘C’
`of Yk for the subframe k
`“given by using a variable
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 1486
`
`1, 6
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`(APL-UPPO_002496801-53.)
`U.S. Provisional Patent No. 61/029,576.
`and related text.
`10:1-12:10, 12:29-30, 12:51-59, Tables 2-6
`5:51-57, 6:12-67, 7:45-50, 8:38-42, 9:62-63,
`2:43-44, 3:37-40, 4:1-17, 4:46-67, 5:5-8,
`14 (and related text), 1:28-2:10, 1:62-2:22,
`’332 patent at Abstract, claims 1-20, Figs. 1-
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Indefinite.
`
`2017). (APL-UPPO_002435892.)
`59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 108 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9,
`BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-cv-
`in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`2016). (APL-UPPO_002436043-057.)
`59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 101-1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22,
`BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-cv-
`Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`D.Sc. Regarding Claim Construction in Optis
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl,
`22, 2016). (APL-UPPO_002436058-73.)
`cv-59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 101 (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`v. BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-
`5(c) in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al.
`Claim Construction Brief Pursuant to P.R. 4-
`PanOptis Patent Management, LLC’s Reply
`Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and
`
`(2002), at 346.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition
`Function Definition,” R1-081675.
`LG Electronics, “Way Forward on Hashing
`TSG RAN WG1#52bis, Mar. 2008.
`PDCCH search space,” R1-081567, 3GPP
`LG Electronics, “Randomization Function for
`Expert testimony of Dr. Vijay Madisetti.
`
`
`
`EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`Yk=(A*Yk-1)mod D)”
`“wherein Yk is defined by:
`
`1, 6
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 1487
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`TSG RAN WG1#52bis, Mar. 2008.
`PDCCH search space," R1-081567, 3GPP
`LG Electronics, "Randomization Function for
`Feb. 2008.
`Outcome of offline discussions," R1-081101,
`Ericsson, "PDCCH blind decoding—
`UPPO_002494249-86.)
`European patent 2592779.
`UPPO_002494172-209.)
`European patent 2093953. (APL-
`UPPO_002494210-48.)
`European patent 2464065.
`UPPO_002497329-781.)
`English translations thereof. (APL-
`7,973,004, including at pp. 100-181 and
`Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No.
`UPPO_002497782-809.)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,973,004. (APL-
`UPPO_002496944-7328.)
`including at pp. 295-300. (APL-
`Prosecution history of the EP2093953 Patent,
`(APL-UPPO_002491343-96.)
`00754, Ex. 1003, including ¶¶ 113-114.
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, IPR2017-
`Declaration of Paul Min, Ph.D, Blackberry v.
`(APL-UPPO_002496854-943.)
`U.S. Provisional Patent No. 61/037,000.
`
`’904 Patent Claims 1-3, 5-7.
`and 8,717,904; ’377 Patent Claims 1-4, 7-10;
`File Histories of U.S Patent Nos. 8,213,377
`
`
`
`
`
`14; Claims 1 and 6.
`43; 20:16-30; Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13,
`12:10; 12:29-39; 13:23-37; 14:28-37; 16:38-
`8:3; 8:7-49; 9:49-67; 10:3-11:22; 11:37-
`4; 4:9-16; 6:12-18; 6:33-7:8; 7:28-39; 7:64-
`’332 Patent at 1:15-18; 3:1-40; 3:61-64; 4:1-
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`pages 9, 11-21, 23-24, 27-28, 30.
`Provisional application No. 61/037,000 at
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 1488
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`2008.
`081481, 3GPP TSG RAN1 #52bis, Mar.
`PDCCH search space definitions," R1-
`Qualcomm Europe, "Remaining issues on
`Meeting #51, R1-074910, Nov. 2007.
`Format Signaling", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1
`Aggregation Size Dependent Transport
`Panasonic, "System Level Analysis for CCE
`073456, TSG-RAN WG1#50, Aug. 2007.
`CCE Aggregation and Blind Detections", R1-
`NEC Group, "DL Control Channel Structure:
`074583, Nov. 2007.
`Search Space", 3GPP TSG RAN1#51, R1-
`PDCCH Blind Detection for Split PDCCH
`Motorola, "Search Space Definition:Reduced
`RAN1#50bis, Oct. 2007.
`Search Space," R1-073996, 3GPP TSG
`PDCCH Blind Detection for Split PDCCH
`Motorola, "Search Space Definition: Reduced
`TSG RAN1#50, Aug. 2007.
`L1/L2 Control Channels," R1-073373, 3GPP
`Motorola, "Search Space Definition for
`TSG RAN WG1 #51bis meeting, Jan. 2008.
`PDCCH scrambling," R1-080405, 3GPP
`complexity reduction with UE specific
`Mitsubishi Electric, "Blind detection
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 1489
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Donald E. Knuth, The Art of Computer
`2016). (APL-UPPO_002436043-057.)
`59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 101-1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22,
`BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-cv-
`Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`D.Sc. Regarding Claim Construction in Optis
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl,
`22, 2016). (APL-UPPO_002436058-73.)
`cv-59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 101 (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`v. BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-
`5(c) in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al.
`Claim Construction Brief Pursuant to P.R. 4-
`PanOptis Patent Management, LLC’s Reply
`Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and
`2016). (APL-UPPO_002435955-6007.)
`59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 99-5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22,
`BlackBerry Corporation, et al., No. 2:16-cv-
`Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Regarding Claim Construction in Optis
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`042.)
`Nov. 22, 2016). (APL-UPPO_002436008-
`No. 2:16-cv-59-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 99 (E.D. Tex.
`LLC, et al. v. BlackBerry Corporation, et al.,
`to P.R. 4-5(a) in Optis Cellular Technology,
`Opening Claim Construction Brief Pursuant
`PanOptis Patent Management, LLC’s
`Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and
`Expert testimony of Mark Lanning.
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 1490
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Presentation. (APL-UPPO_002494321.)
`M. Scott, Univ. of Texas - CS314 - Course
`UPPO_002494291.)
`including pp. 467-471. (APL-
`SOLUTIONS (2d. ed 2001) (excerpts),
`Lewis & Loftus, JAVA - SOFTWARE
`(Mar. 14, 2013). (APL-UPPO_002494009.)
`Presentation - Introduction to Computation
`D. Barrington, U.Mass - CMPSCI250
`UPPO_002494166.)
`Recursion (Excerpts) (1990). (APL-
`C. Burch, CMU, Course Presentation -
`UPPO_002494024.)
`computing (3d ed. 1999). (APL-
`C. Burch, CMU - Surveying the field of
`UPPO_002495228.)
`Presentation – Lecture 8. (APL-
`A. Taylor, et al., Stanford, CS 106b
`UPPO_002494001.)
`class XII (excerpts) (2001). (APL-
`A. Alisha, Computer Science with C++ for
`(June 1988). (APL-UPPO_000576815.)
`Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 6
`Combined Random Number Generators,”
`Pierre L’Ecuyer, “Efficient and Portable
`pp. 9-25. (APL-UPPO_000575191.)
`Programming, Vol. 2 (2d. ed.1981), including
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 1491
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. James E.
`Expert testimony of Dr. R. Michael Buehrer.
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`15:29-41; 15:52-60; 27:20-55; Tables 1-8.
`6:65-7:05; 7:06-14; 7:47-57; 10:56-64;
`’284 Patent at claims 1, 3, 14, 17; Abstract;
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`“explicitly signaled”
`
`“identifying” explicitly or implicitly.
`context of the ‘284 patent as “signaling” or
`“indicating” should be understood in the
`but not exclusively, for the purpose of,” and
`“reserved for” should be understood as “kept,
`further parsing is needed for the term,
`No construction necessary. If, however,
`
`
`
`EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`Expert testimony of Dr. Mark Mahon.
`
`
`
`“reserved for indicating”
`
`1, 14
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`United States Patent No. 8,385,284 (“The ’284 Patent”)
`
`3.
`
`
`
`(2019). (APL-UPPO_002494287.)
`Int’l Conf. Sci. Engin. Vol. 2, pp. 245-248
`x n Matrix Using Cofactor Expansion, Proc.
`Algorithm to Determine the Determinant of n
`R. Hidayat, Implementation of a Recursive
`UPPO_002497810.)
`including Chapter 7 and pp. 665-667. (APL-
`SOLVING USING JAVA (4th ed. 2010),
`M. Weiss, DATA STRUCTURES & PROBLEM
`UPPO_002495315.)
`and Algorithm Analysis. (APL-
`M. Weiss, Univ. of Chile - Data Structures
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 1492
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`“Processing unit” is subject to means-plus-
`
`ECF 94-2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20 2017)
`Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-CV-123,
`Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v. Huawei
`PH.D. Regarding Claim Construction in Optis
`Declaration of Alexander M. Haimovich,
`2018).
`CV-123, ECF No. 114 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order in
`2018).
`CV-123, ECF No. 301 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Trial Testimony of Dr. James E. Womack in
`POAP_00109335-POAP_0010965.
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2018); Bates Nos.
`Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-CV-123
`Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v. Huawei
`8,208,569 and 8,385,284 served in Optis
`Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`Expert Report of Dr. James E. Womack
`POAP_00103962-POAP_00104016.
`(E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018); Bates Nos.
`Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-CV-123,
`Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v. Huawei
`Nos. 8,208,569 and 8,385,284 served in Optis
`Womack Regarding Validity of U.S. Patent
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`believe Apple is justified to treat two
`No construction necessary. Plaintiffs do not
`
`determining based on the
`“processing unit for
`
`1
`
`15:29-60, 16:46-21:3, Tables 3-8, Fig. 5.
`’284 Patent at 6:65-8:54,10:21-34, 12:55-58,
`
`
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 1493
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`123, (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018); Bates Nos.
`Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-CV-
`Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v. Huawei
`Nos. 8,208,569 and 8,385,284 served in Optis
`Womack Regarding Validity of U.S. Patent
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. James E.
`Expert testimony of Dr. R. Michael Buehrer.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`27:61-28:12, Figures 5, 8, 9, Tables 1-8
`15:13-15; 15:29-60; 16:46-21:03; 22:45-59;
`14:05; 13:66-14:08; 14:23-26; 14:43-52;
`9:2-18; 10:21-34; 11:6-42; 12:55-58; 13:54-
`20; 4:28-31; 6:44-49; 6:65-8:54; 7:08-14;
`’284 Patent at claims 1, 14; 3:29-4:08; 4:17-
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`112(6).
`Structure: Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
`represented in the control information field”
`representing a range of values that can be
`which consists of a number of bits
`determining the control information field,
`protocol data unit conveying user data, and
`initial transmission or a retransmission of a
`format of and a redundancy version for an
`received control channel signal a transport
`Function: “determining based on the
`function claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`this clause:
`corresponding structures, acts or materials for
`and identify the following functions, and
`expanded to include at least the entire clause,
`Plaintiffs believe that the term must be
`construction of this full term is necessary,
`To the extent that the Court determines
`
`112, (cid:997) 6 and is not indefinite.
`Further, the second part is not governed by §
`by two other claim elements as a single term.
`disparate parts of claim 1 that are separated
`
`
`
`
`
`to the transport format and redundancy
`12:55-58, 22:45-59 and that data is correlated
`such as shown and described in Figure 5,
`data within a joint field of a transmission
`described at 10:21-34 by determining the
`redundancy version is made such as
`determination of the transport format and the
`according to an algorithm in which a
`hardware with software programmed,
`Structure: hardware programmed, or
`
`
`
`protocol data unit conveying user data”
`initial transmission or a retransmission of a
`format of and a redundancy version for an
`received control channel signal a transport
`Function: “determining based on the
`
`
`
`Part I (as construed by the Court):
`
`information field.”
`represented in the control
`of values that can be
`of bits representing a range
`which consists of a number
`control information field,
`for the determination of the
`unit is further configured
`. wherein the processing
`conveying user data, and . .
`protocol data unit
`a retransmission of a
`for an initial transmission or
`and a redundancy version
`signal a transport format of
`received control channel
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 1494
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`2017)
`17-CV-123, ECF 94-2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`PH.D. Regarding Claim Construction in
`Declaration of Alexander M. Haimovich,
`2018).
`17-CV-123, ECF No. 114 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
`in Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`21, 2018).
`17-CV-123, ECF No. 301 (E.D. Tex. Aug.
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Trial Testimony of Dr. James E. Womack in
`POAP_00109335-POAP_0010965.
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2018); Bates Nos.
`Device USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-CV-123
`Wireless Technology, LLC, et al. v. Huawei
`8,208,569 and 8,385,284 served in Optis
`Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`Expert Report of Dr. James E. Womack
`POAP_00103962-POAP_00104016.
`
`3GPP TS 25.212, Version 7.6.0
`
`
`
`data”
`redundancy version for transmitting the user
`the values, is reserved for indicating the
`the values, different from the first subset of
`the protocol data unit and a second subset of
`reserved for indicating the transport format of
`field, wherein a first subset of the values is
`be represented in the control information
`of bits representing a range of values that can
`information field, which consists of a number
`Function: “determination of the control
`Second Part:
`
`equivalents thereof.
`version via tables such as Tables 3-8, and
`
`
`
`
`
`thereof.
`Tables 3-8, Figs. 5, 8, 9, and equivalents
`15:29-60, 16:46-21:3, 22:45-59, 27:61-28:12,
`described in 6:65-8:54, 10:21-34, 12:55-58,
`control information field content, such as
`information field is made by interpreting the
`which a determination of the control
`programmed, according to algorithms in
`programmed, or hardware with software
`Associated structure: hardware
`
`Huawei Device Co., No. 2:17-CV-123-JRG-
`Construed in Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v.
`
`
`
`EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 1495
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 31
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`Exhibit B to Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`15:13-15; 15:29-60; 16:46-21:03; 22:45-59;
`14:05; 13:66-14:08; 14:23-26; 14:43-52;
`9:2-18; 10:21-34; 11:6-42; 12:55-58; 13:54-
`20; 4:28-31; 6:44-49; 6:65-8:54; 7:08-14;
`’284 Patent at claims 1, 14; 3:29-4:08; 4:17-
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`112(6).
`Structure: Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
`represented in the control information field”
`representing a range of values that can be
`which consists of a number of bits
`determining the control information field,
`protocol data unit conveying user data, and
`initial transmission or a retransmission of a
`format of and a redundancy version for an
`received control channel signal a transport
`Function: “determining based on the
`function claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`“Processing unit” is subject to means-plus-
`
`12:55-58, 22:45-59 and that data is correlated
`such as shown and described in Figure 5,
`data within a joint field of a transmission
`described at 10:21-34 by determining the
`redundancy version is made such as
`determination of the transport format and the
`according to an algorithm in which a
`hardware with software programmed,
`Structure: hardware programmed, or
`
`data unit conveying user data”
`transmission or a retransmission of a protocol
`and a redundancy version for an initial
`control channel signal a transport format of
`Function: “determining based on the received
`
`Tex. Jan. 18, 2018):
`RSP, 2018 WL 476054, ECF No. 114 (E.D.
`Huawei Device Co., No. 2:17-CV-123-JRG-
`Construed in Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v.
`
`
`
`
`
`conveying user data”
`protocol data unit
`a retransmission of a
`for an initial transmission or
`and a redundancy version
`signal a transport format of
`received control channel
`determining based on the
`“processing unit for
`
`1
`
`Tables 3-8, Fig. 5.
`15:29-60, 16:46-21:3, 22:45-59, 27:61-28:12,
`’284 Patent at 6:65-8:54,10:21-34, 12:55-58,
`
`
`
`Tex. Jan. 18, 2018).
`RSP, 2018 WL 476054, ECF No. 114 (E.D.
`
`
`
`
`Expert testimony by Dr. Mark Mahon.
`
`
`
`INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`Evidence
`Apple’s Proposed Construction and
`
`Evidence
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction and
`
`Term
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00066-JRG Document 76-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 13 of 21 PageID #