Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`
`
`2016-1729
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff – Appellee.
`
`
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants – Appellants.
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.L.C.,
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
`District of Texas, Case No. 2-13-cv-00213, Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
`
`BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP.
`
`
`MICHAEL HEIM
`ERIC ENGER
`MIRANDA JONES
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 221-2000
`
`DEMETRIOS ANAIPAKOS
`AMIR ALAVI
`JAMIE AYCOCK
`ALISA LIPSKI
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI & MENSING, P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
`Houston, TX 77010
`(713) 655-1101
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`July 21, 2016
`
`
`
`COUNSEL PRESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (888) 277-3259 * (202) 783-7288
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Exhibit 1031
`Page 1 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`I.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP certifies the following:
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by us is:
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not
`the real party in interest) represented by us is:
`
`N/A
`
`
`III. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`or more of the stock of the party represented by us are:
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`Rembrandt II, LLLP.
`
`
`IV. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates who appeared for
`the party now represented by us in the trial court or are expected to appear in
`this Court are:
`
`
`
`Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP: Michael Heim, Eric Enger, Miranda Jones,
`Blaine Larson, Alden Harris, Robert Bullwinkel.
`
`Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, PC: Demetrios
`Anaipakos, Amir Alavi, Jamie Aycock, Alisa Lipski, Kyril Talanov, Brian
`Simmons, Sean Gorman.
`
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC: Thomas John Ward, Jr., Claire Henry, Wes
`Hill.
`
`Dated: July 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric J. Enger
`Eric J. Enger
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`II. TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ..................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. ii
`
`III. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... v
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ......................................................... 1
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................... 3
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .............................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`The Inventor, the Patents-In-Suit, and the Infringing
`Technology. ......................................................................................... 4
`The District Court’s Claim ConstructionError! Bookmark not defined.
`B.
`Samsung’s IPRs ................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Samsung’s Prior Art References ......................................................... 9
`D.
`The District Court’s Relevant Pre-Trial Rulings .............................. 10
`E.
`Trial & Post-Trial Rulings ................................................................. 11
`F.
`VIII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 13
`
`IX. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Standards of Review .......................................................................... 14
`The District Court Correctly Construed “Different Types” of
`Modulation Methods Consistent With the Intrinsic Definition ........ 15
`1. The Patentee Defined “Type Of Modulation Method” in the
`Intrinsic Record. ........................................................................... 16
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`2. The Patentee’s Express Definition Is Consistent With The
`Ordinary Meaning And Supported By Intrinsic & Extrinsic
`Evidence. ...................................................................................... 20
`3. Samsung Violates Numerous Doctrines of Claim
`Construction. ................................................................................ 23
`4. The Construction of “Different Types” Is Not Dispositive. ........ 25
`The Jury Correctly Found the Asserted Claims Are Not
`Obvious ............................................................................................. 26
`1. Samsung Did Not Carry Its Burden On Obviousness .................. 27
`a. Samsung Failed To Prove It Would Be Obvious to
`Combine Boer With A Master/Slave Protocol and The
`Jury Resolved The Factual Matter Of Whether The Prior
`Art “Teaches Away” In Rembrandt’s Favor........................... 28
`b. No Prior Art Discloses Modulation Methods Of A
`“Different Type.” .................................................................... 32
`c. Samsung Did Not Establish That Boer Teaches
`Reversion. ............................................................................... 35
`d. Samsung Failed To Prove That It Would Be Obvious to
`Further Modify Boer To Include Siwiak’s “Address
`Data” In The Header. .............................................................. 38
`i.
`Samsung Did Not Present Sufficient Evidence
`That It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine
`Boer, Upender, and Siwiak. .......................................... 38
`The Siwiak Patent Is Non-Analogous and Was
`Considered by the PTO During the Original
`Prosecution ................................................................... 40
`e. The Secondary Considerations Suggest Non-
`Obviousness. ........................................................................... 41
`2. Rembrandt Was Not Required To Put On A Rebuttal Case ........ 43
`The Damages Award Is Proper ......................................................... 45
`
`ii.
`
`iii
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Page 4 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`1. Weinstein Carefully Apportioned the Value of the Patented
`Features Using a Methodology Explicitly Approved by this
`Court. ............................................................................................ 46
`2. Samsung’s Complaints About Weinstein’s Chip Price
`Analysis Are a Misguided Request for the Court to Invade
`the Province of the Jury and Determine Which Facts Are
`Most Relevant. ............................................................................. 48
`3. The BlackBerry Agreement Was Properly Admitted
`Because It Is Highly Relevant to the Hypothetical
`Negotiation. .................................................................................. 56
`4. The District Court Properly Exercised Its Discretion to
`Redact Third Party Confidential Material as well as
`Irrelevant, Unduly Prejudicial Material in a Patent Sale
`Agreement. ................................................................................... 57
`5. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jury’s $15.7M Award,
`Which Was Within the Range Presented. .................................... 59
`Rembrandt Complied With The Marking Statute ............................. 62
`1. Samsung Failed to Preserve Its Marking Arguments. ................. 62
`2. Claim 40 Cannot Create Any Marking Obligation Because It
`Was Disclaimed, Which Means That It Should Be Treated
`As If It Never Existed. ................................................................. 64
`3. Treating Claim 40 As Though It Never Existed Is Consistent
`With the Underlying Purpose of the Marking Statute. ................ 66
`CONCLUSION & STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ........................ 68
`
`E.
`
`X.
`
`XI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................... 69
`
`XII. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................... 71
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 6 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`III. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
`323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 17
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 18
`Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs.,
`674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 17
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 31, 32
`Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Tri-Ergon Corp.,
`294 U.S. 477 (1935) .............................................................................................. 64
`Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................... 46, 47, 49, 50, 51
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 39
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 26
`Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods.,
`693 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 61
`Brooktree Corp. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc.,
`977 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 62
`CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 17
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 35
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 7 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Circuit Check, Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
`795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 41
`Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-343,
`2014 WL 3805817 (E.D Tex. July 23, 2014) ....................................................... 53
`Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Org. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 55
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 37
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 37
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (U.S. 2016) .............................................................................. 25
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .............................................................................................. 51
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 19
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 32
`Dow Chem. Co. v. NOVA Chems. Corp.,
`809 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 26
`Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation Inc.,
`361 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 15
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 23
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 22
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 24
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 8 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 54
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 64
`Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:12-cv-04882,
`2014 WL 2194501 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2014) ...................................................... 59
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 26
`Guinn v. Kopf,
`96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 64
`Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.,
`502 Fed. Appx. 957 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 32
`Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing, L.L.C. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co.,
`772 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 15
`Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 17
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 24
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 30
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 32
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 26, 31
`In re MSTG, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 56
`Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.,
`952 F.2d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 18
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 9 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 36
`Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Cincinnati Milacron Inc.,
`562 F.2d 365 (6th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................ 65
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................................... 30, 39
`
`LaserDynamics Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 56
`Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc.,
`628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 22
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 18
`Macias v. Aaron Rents, Inc.,
`288 Fed. Appx. 913 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 58
`McDaniel v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
`987 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 63
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 40
`MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty & Closures, Inc.,
`731 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 63
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 24
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited P’ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .......................................................................................... 27
`Nat’l Semiconductor Corp. v. Linear Tech.,
`703 F. Supp. 845 (N.D. Cal. 1988) ....................................................................... 65
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`viii
`
`Page 9 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 10 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Nikken United States v. Robinsons-May, Inc.,
`51 Fed. Appx. 874 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 25
`Nixon v. Warner Commc’s, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 589 (1978) .............................................................................................. 58
`P&G v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 43
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 62
`Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 24
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm., USA, Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 19
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 39
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`4145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 20
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l., Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 42
`PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 22
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) ............................................................... 15, 28, 34, 37, 44, 45
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 56
`Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 41
`Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 14
`
`ix
`
`Page 10 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 11 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Sightsound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 21
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 17
`Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.,
`742 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 22
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 33
`Standard Packaging Corp. v. Curwood, Inc.,
`182 U.S.P.Q. 399, 1974 WL 20546 (N.D. Ill 1974) ............................................. 65
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 44
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 54, 56
`Technimark, Inc. v. Crellin, Inc.,
`14 F. Supp. 2d 762 (M.D.N.C. 1998) ................................................................... 65
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................... 25, 41
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (U.S. 2015) .................................................................................... 14
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
`v. Maersk Drilling United States, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 41
`U.S. v. Jones,
`664 F.3d 966 (5th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 61
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 31
`United Carbon Co. v. Carbon Black Research Found.,
`59 F. Supp. 384 (D. Md. 1945) ............................................................................. 65
`
`x
`
`Page 11 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 12 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP,
`717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 62
`VirnetX v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................... 47, 49, 51, 52, 60
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 17
`Wang Lab. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 40
`Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc.,
`163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................ 15
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 40
`Rules
`FED. R. CIV. P. 51 ..................................................................................................... 63
`Other Authorities
`C. Oppedahl, “Patent Marking of Systems,”
`11 COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 205 (2005) ..............................................66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`Page 12 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 13 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No appeal in or from this civil action was previously before this or any other
`
`appellate court. Appellee’s counsel is unaware of any case pending in this or any
`
`other court that will directly affect or be directly affected by this Court’s decision
`
`in the pending appeal.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 13 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 14 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung vigorously fought liability at trial and lost. The only liability issue
`
`raised on appeal is obviousness. But the jury’s rejection of Samsung’s obviousness
`
`defense was hardly surprising; the PTAB previously had denied Samsung’s IPR
`
`petitions on all trial claims (under a lower evidentiary standard and using the
`
`broadest reasonable construction), despite thirteen IPR filings by Samsung against
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
` At
`
`trial, Samsung’s
`
`invalidity presentation was so
`
`unconvincing and legally inadequate that Rembrandt elected not to present its
`
`rebuttal expert.
`
`Having lost on the merits, Samsung resorts to personal attacks that distract
`
`from the real issues. Samsung refers to Rembrandt as “in the business of litigating
`
`patents to obtain settlements,” thereby implying that Rembrandt pursues nuisance
`
`value settlements on patents of dubious quality. Blue Br. (“Br.”) at 2-3. That is
`
`not Rembrandt’s business model, as this case illustrates. Regardless, Rembrandt’s
`
`ownership should not be a focus of this appeal.
`
`Samsung appeals a smattering of issues: (1) the construction of a single
`
`claim term—“modulation method [] of a different type”—by proffering a broader
`
`construction that ignores the patentee’s express definition, but which does not
`
`affect infringement and will not change the validity outcome; (2) the jury’s
`
`rejection of Samsung’s obviousness defense, which the district court refused to
`
`2
`
`Page 14 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 15 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`disturb because it was factually supported by substantial evidence; (3) whether the
`
`damages award that was within the range presented by Rembrandt should be
`
`reversed or remanded based on Samsung’s request that this Court re-weigh the
`
`evidence; and (4) Samsung’s marking defense, which it abandoned at trial.
`
`Samsung does not contest the jury’s finding of infringement or its rejection of
`
`Samsung’s written description defense.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`
`
`Rembrandt generally agrees with Samsung’s Statement of Issues 1-3, but
`
`restates Samsung’s Issue 4 as:
`
`
`
`4a. Whether Samsung waived its marking defense by electing not to
`
`present any trial evidence on marking and not objecting when the district court
`
`subsequently entered judgment as a matter of law for Rembrandt on the issue; and
`
`4b.
`
`If this Court determines that Samsung preserved its marking defense,
`
`whether a statutorily disclaimed claim creates a marking obligation.
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
`
`This case involves three claims from two patents—claims 2 and 59 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580 (“‘580 Patent”) and claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,228
`
`(“‘228 Patent”) (collectively, the “trial claims”). Appx3-43. Those claims cover
`
`devices implementing Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate (“EDR”), which is an
`
`important
`
`aspect
`
`of Bluetooth,
`
`a
`
`short-range wireless
`
`technology.
`
`3
`
`Page 15 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 16 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Appx1029(142:13-15);Appx1055-6(168:12-169:9). The patented technology was
`
`developed at Paradyne, a former subsidiary of AT&T.
`
` Appx978(91:11-
`
`22);Appx968(81:12-24). Rembrandt acquired the patents-in-suit as part of a
`
`portfolio for five million dollars, and subsequently asserted them against Samsung
`
`for
`
`making
`
`and
`
`selling
`
`products
`
`incorporating
`
`EDR.
`
`Appx3711;Appx3721;Appx3732-4;Appx399-407;Appx1116-7(51:18-52:19).
`
`After a five day trial, the jury found Samsung infringed Rembrandt’s valid patents,
`
`and awarded damages of $15.7 million. Appx2090-3.
`
`A. The Inventor, the Patents-In-Suit, and the Infringing Technology.
`The inventor, Gordon Bremer, has advanced electrical engineering degrees
`
`from the University of Florida, finishing first in his class. Appx963(76:21-
`
`24);Appx965(78:7-21). He is a prolific inventor, having received over one
`
`hundred U.S. patents. Appx973(86:3-6). Mr. Bremer also has received many
`
`honors, including AT&T’s most valuable patent award and Popular Science’s top
`
`innovation award. Appx970(83:5-84:17);Appx4739-41.
`
`The patents-in-suit explain that prior art systems could only communicate
`
`when all network devices used a single common modulation method. Appx17-
`
`18(1:27-65;3:40-48);Appx1047-8(160:22-161:11). The patents-in-suit describe
`
`and claim a system where different types of modulation methods are used
`
`seamlessly together on the same master/slave network (Appx17-9(2:24-49,5:47-
`
`4
`
`Page 16 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 17 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`56);Appx1044(157:12-14);Appx1050(163:18-23)),
`
`thereby
`
`“mak[ing]
`
`communication devices work better, faster, and cheaper” (Appx1044(157:7-
`
`11);Appx17(1:66-2:1,2:12-15)). This allowed newer-generation network devices
`
`implementing a different type of modulation method to be used on existing
`
`networks, leading to improved network efficiency. Appx1051(164:14-21). The
`
`claimed inventions also provide cost savings because these newer devices can be
`
`used with existing network devices, thereby extending the life cycle for older
`
`devices. Appx1051(164:22-165:1).
`
`The ‘580 and ‘228 inventions accomplish this by dividing network
`
`communications into sequences—a “first sequence” and a “second sequence”—
`
`with information in the first sequence “indicating” a change in modulation and the
`
`type of modulation used for the second sequence. Appx17-22(2:33-38,7:66-
`
`8:5,11:64-67);Appx40(8:43-47); see also Appx1052-3(165:2-166:19).
`
` The
`
`following annotated excerpt from ‘580 Figure 8 illustrates the first sequence
`
`transmitting with Type A modulation to “indicate” that the second sequence will
`
`switch to transmit data using Type B modulation:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 18 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Appx16(annotated);Appx1053(166:20-23).
`
`Approximately seven years after these inventions, the patented technology
`
`became an integral part of Bluetooth’s EDR capability. Appx1056-7(169:21-
`
`170:5). Like the patented inventions, Bluetooth EDR communicates using two
`
`different types of modulation methods. Appx1057(170:20-22);Appx1083-5(18:13-
`
`20:8). Bluetooth EDR messages similarly have a “first sequence” that “indicates”
`
`the type of modulation used by the “second sequence.” Appx1086-98(21:16-
`
`33:21). This is illustrated by the following annotated excerpt from the Bluetooth
`
`EDR specification, in which the first sequence uses “GFSK” (a frequency type
`
`modulation) to “indicate” that the second sequences will switch to using “DPSK”
`
`(a phase type modulation):
`
`Appx2674(annotated);Appx1086-7(21:16-22:10);Appx1059-61(172:19-174:21).
`
`Samsung does not challenge the jury’s determination that its Bluetooth EDR-
`
`compliant devices infringe.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 18 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 19 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`Samsung contended at trial that, by filing continuation applications,
`
`Rembrandt violated the written description requirement. Appx955-6(68:9-69:24).
`
`That defense was soundly rejected, with the jury deciding that the trial claims were
`
`supported by
`
`the original disclosure.
`
` Appx1686-9(84:3-87:10);Appx2005-
`
`7(26:19-28:2);Appx2092. Because Samsung does not appeal that determination,
`
`Samsung’s attack on the continuation filings is irrelevant. Br. at 3.
`
`B.
`
`The District Court’s Claim Construction
`The ‘580 trial claims were amended during prosecution to require “different
`
`types” of modulation methods. Appx2221-2232. In accompanying remarks, the
`
`patentee defined “different types” of modulation, stating that the claims had “been
`
`clarified to refer to two types of modulation methods, i.e., different families of
`
`modulation techniques, such as the FSK family of modulation methods and the
`
`QAM family of modulation methods.” Appx2234(italics in original).
`
`The district court properly adopted this definition. Appx137-44;Appx369-
`
`70. In a thorough, well-reasoned opinion, it found that the patentee’s use of “i.e.”
`
`signaled an explicit definition, and this definition was consistent with the patent
`
`specification and extrinsic evidence. Appx140-3. That court rejected Samsung’s
`
`“incompatible” construction because it ignored the prosecution history, improperly
`
`tied the claims to a preferred embodiment, and raised issues concerning the manner
`
`or degree of compatibility. Appx139-40.
`
`7
`
`Page 19 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1729 Document: 34 Page: 20 Filed: 07/21/2016
`
`C.
`
`Samsung’s IPRs
`Samsung filed
`thirteen IPRs challenging
`
`the patents-in-suit, greatly
`
`escalating the litigation cost. Four of Samsung’s initial IPRs were directed to the
`
`trial claims—‘580 claims 2, 59 and ‘228 claim 1. Appx4742-5025. The PTAB
`
`refused to institute those IPRs with respect to the trial claims, finding Samsung
`
`was unlikely to prevail on the merits. Appx5026-5084. Samsung subse