Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 95 PageID #: 1314
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
`ERICSSON, ERICSSON INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00113-JRG
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 58) filed by Plaintiff
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. (“Plaintiff” or “KPN”). Also before the Court is the Responsive Claim
`
`Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 65) filed by Defendants Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and
`
`Ericsson Inc. (“Defendants” or “Ericsson”) as well as Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 66).
`
`The Court held a hearing on March 4, 2022.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 1 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 95 PageID #: 1315
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`III. AGREED TERMS................................................................................................................. 8
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. RE48,089 ..................................................... 8
`1. “means for selecting one or more terminals . . . capable of communicating with both . . .
`network[s]” and “means for generating the coverage assessment . . .” .............................. 10
`2. “means for instructing the selected one or more terminals to measure signal . . .” and
`“means for obtaining measurement information indicative of the signals measured . . .” . 16
`3. “means for providing the measurement information to a coverage estimator” and “means
`for obtaining measurement information from an information collector” ........................... 22
`4. “means for measuring signals from the second wireless access network” and “means for
`providing the measurement information to at least one of an information collector or a
`coverage estimator based on the measured signals” ........................................................... 25
`5. “information collector is configured to: (i) select one or more terminals . . . capable of
`communicating with both . . . network[s]” and “information collector carries out
`operations including . . . selecting one or more terminals . . . capable of communicating
`with both . . . network[s]” ................................................................................................... 29
`6. “information collector is configured to: . . . instruct the selected one or more terminals to
`measure signals . . .” and “information collector carries out operations including . . .
`instructing the selected one or more terminals to measure signals . . .” ............................. 37
`7. “information collector is configured to . . . obtain measurement information indicative of
`the signals measured . . .” and “information collector carries out operations including
`. . . obtaining measurement information indicative of the signals measured . . .” .............. 40
`8. “information collector is configured to: . . . provide the measurement information to the
`coverage estimator,” “information collector carries out operations including . . .
`providing the measurement information to a coverage estimator,” and “information
`collector is configured to: . . . provide the measurement information to the network
`node” ................................................................................................................................... 43
`9. “coverage estimator is configured to: (i) obtain the measurement information from the
`information collector” and “coverage estimator carries out operations including . . .
`obtaining the measurement information from the information collector” .......................... 47
`“coverage estimator is configured to . . . generate the coverage assessment . . .,”
`“coverage estimator carries out operations including generating the coverage assessment
`. . .,” and “coverage estimator is configured to generate the coverage assessment . . . .” .. 50
`11. “information collector is further configured to obtain location information . . . prior to
`selecting . . .” ...................................................................................................................... 54
`12. “information collector is further configured to associate the location information with
`at least one of the selected one or more terminals” ............................................................ 56
`
`10.
`
`- 2 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 2 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 95 PageID #: 1316
`
`13. “information collector is further configured to . . . provide the location information . . .
`to the coverage estimator” and “information collector is further configured to provide
`location information . . .” .................................................................................................... 58
`V. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,881,235 ..................................................... 60
`14. “service code” and “an expected service code” ................................................................. 61
`15. “communication channel” .................................................................................................. 64
`16. “authentication data request” and “the authentication data request” ................................. 68
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 9,253,637 .................................................... 71
`17. “access deny time interval” ................................................................................................ 71
`18. “in accordance with the access deny time interval in the message” .................................. 73
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 9,549,426 .................................................. 76
`19. “enabling establishing a communication session between the user equipment and the
`telecommunications system” .............................................................................................. 77
` “if
`the
`telecommunications system
`is a Long Term Evolution
`(LTE)
`telecommunications system, removing a default bearer for the user equipment” .............. 82
`VIII. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 9,667,669 ................................................. 84
`21. “composition session” ........................................................................................................ 84
`22. “wherein providing the composition session identifier comprises . . . sending a request
`for initiating the composition session from the user equipment to the network element,
`the request comprising the composition session identifier” ............................................... 90
`IX. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 95
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patents No. RE48,089 (“’089 Patent,” Dkt.
`
`No. 58, Ex. 2), 8,881,235 (“’235 Patent,” id., Ex. 3), 9,253,637 (“’637 Patent,” id., Ex. 6),
`
`9,549,426 (“’426 Patent,” id., Ex. 7), and 9,667,669 (“’669 Patent,” id., Ex. 10) (collectively, “the
`
`patents-in-suit”).
`
`Plaintiff asserts the following claims of each of the patents-in-suit (Dkt. No. 55, at 1):
`
`Patent
`
`RE48,089
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Claims 1–5, 11, 13–15
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 3 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 95 PageID #: 1317
`
`8,881,235
`
`9,253,637
`
`9,549,426
`
`9,667,669
`
`Claims 1, 4–7, 11
`
`Claims 16–20, 23–28, 58, 59
`
`Claims 9, 10, 14, 16, 17
`
`Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right which
`
`the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the protected
`
`invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`
`
`“In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background
`
`science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharm.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where those
`
`subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that
`
`extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we
`
`discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.”
`
`Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent’s claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of dictionary,
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 4 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 95 PageID #: 1318
`
`which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. “One purpose for
`
`examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.”
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips,
`
`the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims. In
`
`particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee
`
`is entitled the right to exclude.” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
`
`Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim
`
`are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`application.” Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law flows naturally from the recognition that
`
`- 5 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 5 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 95 PageID #: 1319
`
`inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the field of the invention and that patents are
`
`addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled in the particular art. Id.
`
`
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as being
`
`the primary basis for construing the claims. Id. at 1314–17. As the Supreme Court stated long
`
`ago, “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive portions
`
`of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the
`
`language employed in the claims.” Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38 (1878). In addressing the role of
`
`the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier observations from Renishaw
`
`PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998):
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Consequently, Phillips emphasized the important role the specification
`
`plays in the claim construction process.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because
`
`the file history, however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant,”
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 6 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 95 PageID #: 1320
`
`it may lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Id. Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is relevant to the determination
`
`of how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention during
`
`prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`
`Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during
`
`prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”).
`
`
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319–24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Id. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The court
`
`did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers disputed
`
`claim language. Id. at 1323–25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the appropriate
`
`weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction, bearing in mind
`
`the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent grant.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 7 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 95 PageID #: 1321
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim
`
`indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the
`
`construer of patent claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by
`
`Nautilus, 572 U.S. 898. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix
`
`Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`III. AGREED TERMS
`
`In their December 6, 2021 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to
`
`Patent Rule 4-3 (Dkt. No. 55, at 2) and in their February 28, 2022 Amended Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart Pursuant to Patent Rule 4-5(d) (Dkt. No. 68-1, at 1), the parties submit the
`
`following agreements:
`
`Term
`
`“configured to”
`
`(’089 Patent, Claims 1–5, 11, 13–15)
`
`“coverage assessment”
`
`(’089 Patent, Claims 1–5, 11, 13–15)
`
`Agreed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, not merely capable of
`
`“representation of locations/pixels and associated
`signal strengths and/or interference values”
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. RE48,089
`
`The ’089 Patent, titled “Method and System for Automatic Coverage Assessment for
`
`Cooperating Wireless Access Networks,” issued on July 7, 2020, and bears an earliest priority date
`
`of December 21, 2009. Plaintiff submits that “[t]he reissued claims of the ’089 Patent are directed
`
`- 8 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 8 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 95 PageID #: 1322
`
`to performing a coverage assessment of a wireless access network using information collected
`
`through a different network.” (Dkt. No. 58, at 1.) The Abstract of the ’089 Patent states:
`
`The invention relates a method and system for assessing coverage of a wireless
`access network within a desired area via cooperating wireless access networks and
`terminals capable of measurement and reporting across the different wireless access
`networks. The cooperation refers to, among other things, the ability of obtaining
`coverage assessment for one of the wireless access networks using results of the
`measurements collected at one of the other wireless access networks. In this
`manner, more accurate and complete coverage assessment may be obtained,
`relative to the prior art approaches.
`
`- 9 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 9 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 95 PageID #: 1323
`
`1. “means for selecting one or more terminals . . . capable of communicating with both . . .
`network[s]” and “means for generating the coverage assessment . . .”
`
`
`
`“means for selecting one or more terminals from at least part of the plurality of the
`terminals, the at least part of the plurality of the terminals capable of communicating
`with both the first wireless access network and the second wireless access network”
`(’089 Patent, Claim 13)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 applies
`
`Function:
`“selecting one or more
`terminals from at least part
`of
`the plurality of
`the
`terminals, the at least part of
`the plurality of the terminals
`capable of communicating
`with both the first wireless
`access network and
`the
`second wireless
`access
`network”
`
`Structure:
`and/or
`“circuitry
`of
`software
`capable
`performing as described in
`Fig. 4 step 410, 2:38-43,
`2:65-3:6, 3:62-4:3, 4:4-36,
`4:37-50, 5:24-28; 5:41-47,
`5:48-67, 8:1-11, 8:12-25,
`8:34-42, 8:43-60, 8:61-64,
`their
`and/or 9:56-61, or
`equivalents,
`including as
`further described at 3:14-32,
`6:44-65, 7:10-47, and 10:48-
`51.”
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 applies
`
`Function:
`“select one or more terminals from at least part of the
`plurality of the terminals, the at least part of the plurality of the
`terminals capable of communicating with both the first wireless
`access network and the second wireless access network”
`
`Structure:
`“circuitry and/or software that performs the algorithms of
`selecting terminals based on their ability to communicate with
`both a first and second wireless access network and depending
`on: (i) where and/or when the coverage assessment is needed (as
`recited in the ’089 Patent at 4:1-3); or (ii) whether the terminal is
`located in the area for which the coverage assessment should be
`generated (as recited in the ’089 Patent at 4:12-42, 5:41-44, and
`8:15-20); or (iii) whether the terminal uses a particular service
`via a first wireless access network while, according to the
`operator policy, usage of that service is preferred via a second
`wireless access network (as recited in the ’089 Patent at 5:51-55);
`or (iv) whether the terminal is in those cells within the UMTS
`network that have inter-RAT neighbor relation with cells of the
`LTE network where an optimization of radio coverage exists (as
`recited in the ’089 Patent at 5:55-62); or (v) whether the terminal
`is from one or more cells in the UMTS network where there is a
`planned coverage overlap with one or more cells in the second
`wireless access network where the coverage should be assessed
`(as recited in the ’089 Patent at 5:62-67)”1
`
`
`1 Defendants previously proposed: “circuitry and/or software that selects one or more terminals
`from at least part of the plurality of the terminals, the at least part of the plurality of the terminals
`capable of communicating with both the first wireless access network and the second wireless
`access network.” (Dkt. No. 55, Ex. A, at 6.)
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 10 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 95 PageID #: 1324
`
`
`“means for generating the coverage assessment for the second wireless access network of
`the telecommunications infrastructure based on the obtained measurement information”
`(’089 Patent, Claim 15)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 applies
`
`Function:
`“generate the coverage assessment for the second wireless
`access network of the telecommunications infrastructure based
`on the obtained measurement information”
`
`Structure:
`“circuitry and/or software that performs algorithms of
`generating a coverage assessment for the second wireless access
`network by assembling a coverage map, representing the
`geographic locations/pixels with associated signal strengths of
`the LTE network (as recited in the ’089 Patent at 10:13-16)”2
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 applies
`
`Function:
`“generating the coverage
`assessment for the second
`wireless access network of
`the
`telecommunications
`infrastructure based on the
`obtained
`measurement
`information”
`
`Structure:
`and/or
`“circuitry
`of
`software
`capable
`performing as described in
`Fig. 4 step 450, 10:8-20,
`10:21-47, and/or 11:16-22,
`or
`their
`equivalents,
`including
`as
`further
`described at 3:14-32, 6:44-
`65, 7:10-47, 8:1-6, 10:48-51,
`and 10:52-64”
`
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 55, Ex. A, at 6 & 19–20; Dkt. No. 65, at 5; Dkt. No. 68-1, at 17–18 & 21–22.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “[f]or the ‘selecting one or more terminals’ term, the specification
`
`discloses that the structure is ‘the information collector,’” and “the specification discloses a large
`
`variety of criteria and configurations that the information collector may use to select one or more
`
`
`2 Defendants previously proposed: “circuitry and/or software that generates the coverage
`assessment for the second wireless access network of the telecommunications infrastructure.”
`(Dkt. No. 55, Ex. A, at 19–20.)
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 11 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 95 PageID #: 1325
`
`terminals.” (Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (citations omitted).) Plaintiff also argues that “the specification
`
`discloses that the ‘coverage estimator’ is what ‘generat[es] the coverage assessment for the second
`
`wireless access network . . . based on the obtained measurement information’ from the information
`
`collector,” and “the specification discloses a variety of means for generating the coverage
`
`assessment . . . .” (Id., at 3 (citations omitted).)
`
`Defendants respond that they have modified their proposed constructions in response to
`
`Plaintiff’s arguments. (See Dkt. No. 65, at 4–5.) Defendants also urge that “KPN’s proposed
`
`constructions are unhelpful to the jury, merely providing a list of partial citations to the patent with
`
`no real instruction as to the scope of the element,” and Defendants argue that “KPN’s citations are
`
`overbroad, citing to passages that either simply repeat the recited claim function or relate to
`
`functionality other than the claimed function.” (Id., at 6.)
`
`Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ revised proposed constructions are untimely, and Plaintiff
`
`also argues that “[r]ather than proposing structure which would ‘select,’ Ericsson proposes reasons
`
`for or inputs into selection,” and “Ericsson’s construction for ‘generating’ a coverage assessment
`
`tries to limit what a coverage assessment is (i.e., the output of ‘generating’), rather than specifying
`
`the relevant structure.” (Dkt. No. 66, at 3–4.)
`
`(b) Analysis
`
`Title 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (formerly § 112, ¶ 6) provides: “An element in a claim for a
`
`combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover
`
`the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`
`thereof.” “In exchange for using this form of claiming, the patent specification must disclose with
`
`sufficient particularity the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and clearly
`
`- 12 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 12 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 95 PageID #: 1326
`
`link that structure to the function.” Triton Tech of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d
`
`1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`
`
`The parties agree that the “means for selecting . . .” and the “means for generating . . .” are
`
`means-plus-function terms governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the parties agree on the claimed
`
`function. The parties dispute the proper corresponding structure.
`
`
`
`The specification discloses an “information collector 7” and a “coverage estimator 8”:
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates an example of implementing a coverage assessment system 300,
`according to one embodiment of the present invention. As shown, the coverage
`assessment system 300 includes an information collector 7 and a coverage
`estimator 8. The information collector 7 is configured for collecting information
`from some of the terminals 5 via the first wireless access network 2A and providing
`the information to the coverage estimator 8. The coverage estimator 8 is configured
`for connecting to and receiving information from the information collector 7 and,
`based on the received information, generating the coverage assessment for the
`second wireless access network 2B.
`
`’089 Patent at 7:10–22.
`
`In step 410, the information collector 7 selects one or more of the terminals 5 for
`obtaining measurement information. This instruction may also be sent via the RRC
`signalling of the UMTS network. It should be noted that when the location
`information is obtained prior to step 410, then in step 410 only terminals located in
`the area for which the coverage assessment should be generated may be selected
`for obtaining the measurement information, thus avoiding collection of excessive
`measurement information.
`
`The information collector 7 may also be configured to select the one or more of the
`terminals 5 according to one of the following alternative embodiments. In one
`embodiment, those terminals are selected that use a particular service via the UMTS
`network while, according to the operator policy, usage of that service is preferred
`via the LTE network. In another embodiment, a self-optimization or a manual
`optimization of a radio coverage may be performed for one or more base stations
`within the LTE network, and then the selected one or more terminals only comprise
`terminals in those cells within the UMTS network that have inter-RAT neighbour
`relation with cells of the LTE network where the optimization takes place. In yet
`another embodiment, the selected one or more terminals comprise terminals from
`one or more cells in the UMTS network where there is a planned coverage overlap
`with one or more cells in the second wireless access network 2B where the coverage
`should be assessed.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2002
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2022-00557
`Page 13 of 95
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00113-JRG Document 80 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 95 PageID #: 1327
`
`Persons skilled in the art will be able to complement the selection criteria described
`herein with additional selection criteria that may be relevant for the assessment of
`the coverage of the second wireless access network 2B.
`
`Id. at 8:34–36 (emphasis added); see id. at 8:1–25 (regarding “information collector 7”).
`
`The coverage estimator 8 is in charge of the coverage estimation of the LTE
`network (the second wireless access network 2B in this example), with the
`measurement information and, optionally, location information received from the
`information collector 7. Once the coverage estimator 8 obtains the measurement
`information (and, optionally, the location information) from the information
`collector 7, then, in step 450, the coverage estimator 8 generates the coverage
`assessment for the LTE network based on the information obtained from the
`information collector 7. The coverage assessment is generated by assembling a
`coverage map, representing the geographic locations/pixels with associated signal
`strengths of the LTE network. The coverage estimator 8 may also be configured to
`instruct the information collector 7 with some specifications for measurement, for
`example where to measure, when to measure, how often to measure or which
`particular LTE cells to measure.
`
`Id. at 10:4–20; see id. at 10:21–11:22 (“The coverage estimator 8 may be also configured to
`
`compare the current coverage assessment with a previously generated coverage assessment to
`
`determine whether the coverage optimization actions in the past have led to a coverage
`
`improvement . . . .”).
`
`
`
`On balance, for the disputed “means for selecting . . .” and “means for generating . . .”
`
`terms, the disclosures in the specification such as set forth above link the claimed functions to the
`
`“information collector 7” and the “coverage esti