Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4849 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`Mieke K. Malmberg
`(SBN 209992)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`800 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1450
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Phone: (213) 788-4500
`Fax: (213)788-4545
`mmalmberg@skiermontderby.com
`
`Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice)
`(TX Bar No. 24033073)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm St., Ste. 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 978-6600
`Fax: (214) 978-6601
`pskiermont@skiermontderby.com
`(Additional counsel identified on signature page)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`Mag. Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`Defendants.
`
`Hearing Date: June 19, 2019
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1784-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`Page 1 of 29
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1027
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4850 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1785-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1786-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`ZTE (TX) INC.,
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4851 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. GORIS PATENTS (’889 AND ’554 PATENTS) ................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`“A mobile station…wherein the proximity sensor begins
`
`detecting…substantially concurrently with the mobile station initiating an outgoing
`
`wireless telephone call or receiving an incoming wireless telephone call.” (’889
`
`Patent Claim 1.) ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`“substantially concurrently” (’889 Claim 1, 8; ’554 Claim 7, 13.) .................... 2
`
`II.
`
`’842 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`“a standard wireless networking configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency
`
`Division Multiplexing scheme” ................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“extended long training sequence”...................................................................... 6
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence” ........................................................ 8
`
`D.
`
`“legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a legacy
`
`wireless networking protocol standard” ...................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`’862 PATENT ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`A. The baseband processing module terms are not means-plus-function. ............ 10
`
`B. The specification discloses sufficient structure for the functions associated with
`
`“a baseband processing module operable to . . .” term in Claim 9. ........................... 12
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`“receive a preamble sequence carried by the baseband signal” .................... 12
`
`“estimate a channel response based upon the preamble sequence.” .............. 14
`
`“form a baseband signal . . .” ......................................................................... 15
`
`C. The specification discloses sufficient structure for the functions associated with
`
`“a baseband processing module operable to . . .” term in Claim 10 .......................... 15
`
`1)
`
`“convert the…matrix (V) to polar coordinates” ............................................ 16
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,941,156 .............................................................................. 16
`
`A. The “cell phone functionality” term in Claim 1 is not means-plus-function. ... 16
`
`B. The “RF functionality” term in Claim 1 is not means-plus-function. .............. 18
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4852 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`C. The “module to establish simultaneous communication paths . . .” term in
`
`Claim 1 is not means-plus-function and not indefinite. ............................................ 19
`
`D. The “automatic switchover module . . .” term in Claim 1 is not means-plus-
`
`function and not indefinite. ........................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4853 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communs., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 16, 17, 18, 19
`
`Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................... 3
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`
`No. 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549
`
`
`
`(S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) ....................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... 23, 24
`
`Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.,
`
`261 U.S. 45 (1923) ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`EMED Techs. Corp. v. Repro-Med. Sys., No. 18-civ-5880,
`
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93737 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2019) ........................................... 10
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 4
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost Commc’ns Ltd.,
`
`No. CV-14-00126, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5955 (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2016) ......... 13, 21
`
`Huntsville v. Zpe Sys.,
`
`No. 17-cv-04319-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220301
`
`
`
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018).......................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 1
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`
`No. 13-cv-440-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30724 (D. Del. March 10, 2016) ......... 5
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 5 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4854 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`
`No. 12-193-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36546
`
`
`
`(D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015) ........................................................................... 16, 17, 18, 19
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 4
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 1
`
`Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 20
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................. 6, 8, 9
`
`Pers. Audio, LLC v. Google LLC,
`
`No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96945
`
`
`
`(D. Del. June 7, 2019) .......................................................................................... 17, 19
`
`Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 9, 10
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
`
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................. 22
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 7, 22
`
`Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Inc.,
`
`No. 13-CV-04001-LHK, 2014 WL 5862134 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2014) ................... 7
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp.,
`
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................... 14, 21, 22, 23
`
`TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l,
`
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 29, 2019) ..................................................................... 12
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4855 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`
`816 F. 3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 2
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., No. 2:08-CV-01307,
`
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52078 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2011) ........................................... 14
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 12
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4856 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`GORIS PATENTS (’889 AND ’554 PATENTS)
`
`A. “A mobile station…wherein the proximity sensor begins
`detecting…substantially concurrently with the mobile station initiating an
`outgoing wireless telephone call or receiving an incoming wireless telephone
`call.” (’889 Patent Claim 1.)
`
`This claim limitation does not require method steps in an apparatus claim under
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“IPXL”) or
`
`any of its progeny. Defendants cite only two cases where the Federal Circuit held a
`
`claim indefinite under this principle, including IPXL, and each of them concerned a
`
`claim that mixed system limitations with the requirement that a user actually perform
`
`a method step, leading to ambiguity as to “whether infringement…occurs when one
`
`creates a system that allows the user to [take certain actions], or whether infringement
`
`occurs when the user actually [takes certain actions].” IPXL at 1384. For example, the
`
`claim at issue in IPXL recited “The system of claim 2…wherein the predicted
`
`transaction information comprises [transaction information], and the user uses the
`
`input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the
`
`displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.” See IPXL at 1384 (emphasis in
`
`original). Similarly, the claim at issue in the other case Defendants cite also
`
`specifically require user performance. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
`
`Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (system claim required that
`
`“individual callers digitally enter data”).
`
`In contrast, Claim 1 of the ’889 Patent contains a limitation informing a
`
`POSITA when and how the proximity sensor is activated and begins its operation in
`
`permissible functional language – i.e., “the proximity sensor begins detecting”
`
`proximity when there is an outgoing or incoming call. Nothing in this claim requires
`
`that a user or a person actually initiate or receive a call in order to meet this claim
`
`limitation. System claims frequently describe how and when different components of
`
`the system interact, activate, and operate. One of the cases Defendants cite makes this
`
`very point: “apparatus claims are not necessarily indefinite for using functional
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4857 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`language.” See Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1313
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Mastermine”) (citation omitted).
`
`The ’889 Patent Claim 1 is analogous to the claim the Federal Circuit considered
`
`in Mastermine. That claim recited “[a] system comprising…a reporting
`
`module…wherein the reporting module…presents a set of user-selectable database
`
`fields as a function of the selected report template, receives from the user a selection
`
`of one or more of the user-selectable database fields, and generates a database
`
`query….” Id. at 1315 (bold added). The court held:
`
`Though [the claim] includes active verbs—presents, receives, and
`generates—these verbs represent permissible functional language used to
`describe capabilities of the “reporting module.”… While these claims
`make reference to user selection, they do not explicitly claim the user’s
`act of selection, but rather, claim the system’s capability to receive and
`respond to user selection.
`
`Id. at 1315-1316 (emphasis added); see also UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`
`816 F. 3d 816, 826-27 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reversing finding of indefiniteness where it
`
`was “clear that the [limitation ‘generating data’] reflects the capability of that structure
`
`rather than the activities of the user” and noting that the “limitations only indicate that
`
`the associated structures have this capability….and do not require that any data be
`
`actually generated by the user.”) In the same way, Claim 1 of the ’889 does not require
`
`that a user actually initiate or receive a phone call, but rather describes the mobile
`
`station’s capabilities with respect to how the proximity sensor operates.
`
`Finally, Defendants offered no evidence that a POSITA would not understand
`
`the meaning of this term with reasonable certainty.
`
`B. “substantially concurrently” (’889 Claim 1, 8; ’554 Claim 7, 13.)
`
`Defendants argue that this term is indefinite solely because of the inclusion of
`
`the word “substantially.” But “substantially concurrently” in the context of these
`
`claims and the specification conveys a sufficiently definite meaning to a POSITA.
`
`The Federal Circuit has oft-stated: “We do not hold that all terms of degree are
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4858 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`indefinite.” See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Rather, the rule is that terms of degree should have “objective boundaries” for a
`
`POSITA to be able to interpret the claims. Id. Here, the specification is clear regarding
`
`what is contemplated by the term “substantially concurrently” as it appears in the
`
`context of the claims and the specification. For example, the ’889 Patent Claim 1
`
`requires “the proximity sensor begins detecting whether an external object is proximate
`
`substantially concurrently with the mobile station initiating…or receiving….[a] call.”
`
`“Concurrently,” in common parlance, means “at the same time.” And substantially, in
`
`common parlance, means “essentially.” While the use of “substantially” connotes
`
`some sort of processing delay, it is still evident from this language that the detection
`
`begins essentially at the same time as the initiation or receiving of a call. A POSITA
`
`would understand, since the claim explicitly requires a microprocessor “determin[ing]
`
`whether a telephone call is active,” that any time lag from perfect concurrence derives
`
`from that processing. The specification describes when the proximity sensor’s
`
`detection begins. (’889 at 3:12-15 (“In response to the acceptance of the incoming call
`
`210 or automatically, the proximity sensor 140 is activated to monitor a proximity…”);
`
`id. at 3:33-37 (“…[F]or an outgoing call, the proximity sensor 140 is activated by
`
`pressing a key on the keypad 160 to establish the out going call…”); id. at 3:48-49
`
`(“…the proximity sensor 140 is directly activated by an incoming call or automatically
`
`activated…”).) “[T]erms of degree [have] long been found definite where [they]
`
`provided enough certainty to a [POSITA]…in the context of the invention.” Interval
`
`Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 ,1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Many courts, from the Supreme Court, to the Federal Circuit, to district courts,
`
`in considering terms with “substantial” or “substantially,” have found them to
`
`overcome an indefiniteness challenge. See Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario
`
`Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 65-66 (1923) (finding “substantial pitch” sufficiently definite
`
`because a POSITA “had no difficulty . . . in determining what was the substantial pitch
`
`needed” for the invention); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1335
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4859 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that the claim phrase “not interfering substantially” was not
`
`indefinite even though the construction “define[d] the term without reference to a
`
`precise numerical measurement”). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`
`the court specifically considered whether “substantially concurrent” was indefinite
`
`and found that it was not because, as the examples in the specification showed, it
`
`meant “not separated in time except as a result of processing delays.” No. 13-cv-440-
`
`LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30724, at *10-12 (D. Del. March 10, 2016).
`
`In contrast, Defendants’ reliance on the facts of Berkheimer is misplaced.
`
`Berkheimer’s holding affirming that the term “minimal redundancy” was indefinite
`
`was based in large part on the lower court’s factual findings regarding the defendant’s
`
`expert, who testified that the specification did not give any explanation or examples
`
`that would inform a POSITA and rendered an opinion that a POSITA would not
`
`understand the meaning with reasonable certainty. Defendants have offered no
`
`testimony from any expert to support their arguments.
`
`II.
`
`’842 PATENT
`
`As an initial matter, in Huawei’s recently filed IPR, Defendants’ expert, Dr.
`
`Wells, testifies that the ’842 terms Defendants argue are indefinite “clearly
`
`encompasses at least the preferred embodiment of the ’842 patent…” effectively
`
`admitting that a POSITA understands the scope of the claims with reasonable
`
`certainty. (Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 56-57, 60-61, 64-65, 78-79.)
`
`A. “a standard wireless networking configuration for an Orthogonal
`Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme”
`
`A POSITA would understand this term to mean: a standard issued by a
`
`Standard Setting Organization utilizing an Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplexing (“OFDM”) scheme. The ’842 Patent explains the invention in the context
`
`of the then existing 802.11 standard and acknowledges that OFDM is a widely
`
`understood technique for transmitting data over radio waves. (’842 at 2:8-29.)
`
`However, the specification states that the invention is not limited to the OFDM scheme
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4860 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`utilized by the then-existing 802.11 standard: “the present invention may be utilized in
`
`any device that implements the OFDM encoding scheme.” (’842 at 5:26-35.) The
`
`specification also acknowledges that wireless communication devices may be
`
`compliant with different standards: “Different wireless devices in a wireless
`
`communication system may be compliant with different standards or different
`
`variations of the same standard.” (’842 at 1:50-63.)
`
`As a POSITA at the time of the invention would undoubtedly know, OFDM
`
`communication protocols are authored and maintained by standard-setting
`
`organizations (“SSO”). For example, the well-known SSO IEEE promulgates the
`
`802.11 standard, which is a set of rules used for communication between devices.
`
`OFDM is not limited exclusively to the 802.11 standard—cellular LTE networks also
`
`utilize OFDM communication protocols promulgated by 3GPP, another SSO. Even
`
`Defendants admit that the “specification uses the word ‘standard’ in describing the
`
`[versions of 802.11] standards” and that a POSITA would at least know that
`
`“standard” in the context of this patent could refer to “an 802.11 wireless standard
`
`issued by the IEEE...” (Def. MSJ at 5.) See Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014) (claims are to be “viewed in light of the specification”).
`
`Defendants’ argument that “standard” is used as an adjective vs. a noun finds no
`
`authority in Federal Circuit case law. There is no requirement that a particular
`
`grammatical form of a word in a specification must be in the same grammatical form
`
`in the specification. In effect, “a particular wireless communication standard” refers to
`
`the same concept as “a standard wireless networking configuration,” and a POSITA
`
`would understand what both clauses reference.
`
`Next, Defendants argue that a POSITA would not understand what “qualifies as
`
`a ‘standard’” and specifically reference 802.11a, b, and n. (Def. MSJ at 5.) The
`
`specification states that 802.11a, b, and g existed and that 802.11n “was being
`
`developed to address, among other thins [sic], higher throughput and compatibility
`
`issues.” (’842 at 1:50-63.) The specification explains the need for extended long
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4861 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`training sequences utilizing more subcarriers that then 52 subcarriers used by 802.11a
`
`and 802.11g. (’842 at 2:8-19.) Claim 1 requires “the optimal extended long training
`
`sequence is carried by a greater number of Subcarriers than a standard wireless
`
`networking configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
`
`scheme.” At the time, the standard long training sequence was carried on 52
`
`subcarriers. Thus, a POSITA would understand the types of standards implicated—
`
`those issued by an SSO utilizing OFDM.
`
`To the extent Defendants’ argument rests on the idea that multiple standards fall
`
`within the scope of the claims, “[t]he Federal Circuit has previously explained that
`
`‘[m]erely claiming broadly’ does not ‘prevent the public from understanding the scope
`
`of the patent,’ and that ‘breadth is not indefiniteness[.]’” Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Mylan Inc., No. 13-CV-04001-LHK, 2014 WL 5862134, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
`
`11, 2014) (citations omitted); see also Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg.
`
`Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“claiming broadly does not … prevent
`
`the public from understanding the scope of the patent.”); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV
`
`Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 878-80 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims can encompass later
`
`arising technology and distinguishing case law limiting claims to existing technologies
`
`when claim language is self-limiting). The inventors did not need to limit the term to
`
`one particular embodiment or standard. Finally, Defendants’ undeveloped printed
`
`matter doctrine argument in a non-starter because neither the claims nor BNR’s
`
`arguments incorporate texts of various standards.
`
`B. “extended long training sequence”
`
`A POSITA would understand this term to mean: a training sequence that uses
`
`more active subcarriers than an earlier version of the same standard. The
`
`specification teaches the invention in the context of the existing 802.11 standard:
`
`In 802.11a and 802.11g compliant devices, only 52 of the 64 active
`sub-carriers are used. Four of the active sub-carriers are pilot sub-
`carriers…The remaining 48 sub-carriers provide separate wireless pathways
`for sending information in a parallel fashion. The 52 sub-carriers are
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4862 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`modulated…
`In 802.11a/802.11g, each data packet starts with a preamble which
`includes a short training sequence followed by a long training sequence…used
`for synchronization between the sender and the receiver. The long training
`sequence of 802.11a and 802.11g is defined such that each of sub-carriers
`-26 to +26 has one BPSK constellation point, either +1 or -1.
`
`There exists a need to create a long training sequence of minimum
`peak-to-average ratio that uses more sub-carriers without interfering with
`adjacent channels.
`
`(’842 at 2:11-43.)
`
`Defendants argue there are no objective boundaries to regarding the number of
`
`subcarriers stems from reading limitations in a vacuum divorced from the intrinsic
`
`record. (Def. MSJ at 7.) See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. The specification provides
`
`objective boundaries in that an extended long training sequence is one that contains
`
`more subcarriers than a long training sequence used in a prior version of the same
`
`standard, it is not just any number of sub-carriers. This is shown by the examples using
`
`56 and 63 subcarriers, which is more than the 52 subcarriers used in 802.11a and
`
`802.11g, prior versions of the standard. (’842 2:8-44, 5:01-25.)
`
`Defendants argue absolute certainty is required as to the number of subcarriers
`
`utilized for the long training sequence despite Federal Circuit law to the contrary.
`
`Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910 (claims are to be “viewed in light of the specification”). In
`
`Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) the
`
`Court reversed a prior finding of indefiniteness and held that specific examples in the
`
`specification provided “points of comparison” that helped form an objective standard
`
`for understanding the claim’s scope. Here, the ’842’s specification’s teaching of 56
`
`and 63 sub-carrier long training sequence over existing 52 sub-carrier sequences
`
`provide objective examples for understanding claim scope. Sonix, 844 F.3d at 1378
`
`(“written description is key to determining whether a term of degree is indefinite”).
`
`Defendants’ argument concerning the terminology in the specification is a red
`
`herring. (Def. MSJ at 8.) Expanded and extended are synonyms describing sequences
`
`that are longer than those existing in prior versions of the same standard. Claim 16
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4863 Page 15 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`requires a legacy long training sequence (for example as used in 802.11a) be preserved
`
`within an extended long training sequence (for example, as used in 802.11n).
`
`C. “optimal extended long training sequence”
`
`A POSITA would understand this term to mean: an [extended long training
`
`sequence] with a minimal peak-to-average ratio (“PAPR”) because the claim
`
`language dictates that meaning. The full limitation in which this term first appears is:
`
`“wherein the Inverse Fourier Transformer [(“IFT”)] processes the extended long
`
`training sequence from the signal generator and provides an optimal extended long
`
`training sequence with a minimal peak-to-average ratio.” This language makes it clear
`
`to a POSITA that it refers to what results from the IFT’s processing of the extended
`
`long training sequence, and it is characterized by the minimal peak-to-average ratio.
`
`See EMED Techs. Corp. v. Repro-Med. Sys., No. 18-civ-5880, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`93737, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2019) (“key question is whether the claims – as
`
`opposed to particular claim terms – inform a skilled reader with reasonable certainty”).
`
`The specification further explains the need that the invention fulfills: “[t]here
`
`exists a need to create a long training sequence of minimum peak-to-average ratio that
`
`uses more sub-carriers without interfering with adjacent channels.” (’842 at 2:37-39;
`
`see also id. at 5:14-15 (Figure 4 “illustrates the long training sequence with a
`
`minimum peak-to-average power ratio that is used in 56 active sub-carriers. Out of
`
`the 16 possibilities for the four new sub-carrier positions, the sequence illustrated in
`
`FIG. 4 has the minimum peak-to-average power ratio, i.e., a peak-to-average
`
`power ratio of 3.6 dB.”), 5:20-25.) Thus, the extended long training sequence with a
`
`minimal PAPR is the one that is “optimal.”
`
`Defendants contend there is no definition of “optimal.” But, as shown above, the
`
`claim language equates “optimal” with a minimal PAPR. This does not render the term
`
`“optimal” superfluous because the ordinary meaning of “optimal” is simply
`
`descriptive: “most favorable.” Further, the specification explains for a 56 subcarrier
`
`extended long training sequence that 3.6bB is a minimum PAPR providing “points of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 99 Filed 06/14/19 PageID.4864 Page 16 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`comparis