Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 54
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00701-ADA-DTG
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
` Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`REGARDING THE ’434 PATENT FAMILY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 1 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 54
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`“system on a chip” (’291 Patent, claims 5, 16) ....................................................... 1
`
`“A communication system including one or more communication modules
`and processors for use in a portable handheld mobile device with a
`plurality of antennas, said communication system implemented as a
`system on a chip, said system comprising:” (’291 Patent, claim 5) ....................... 3
`
`“is configured to” (’434 Patent, claims 1, 6; ’653 Patent, claims 1, 4, 8, 14,
`17, 27); ’946 Patent, claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 17, 27; ’291 Patent, claim 5; ’083
`Patent, claims 5, 8, 12; ’943 Patent, claims 1, 5, 8, 12) .......................................... 3
`
`“wherein a transmission interface is created and wherein said transmission
`interface uses a plurality of IP enabled interfaces on the mobile device
`which utilize the plurality of wireless transmit and receive components on
`the mobile device to enable a single interface comprised of multiplexed
`signals from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive components”
`(’653 Patent, claim 1) / “wherein a first interface for transmission is
`created and wherein said first interface for transmission uses a plurality of
`interfaces for Internet Protocol communication on the mobile device
`which utilize the plurality of wireless transmit and receive units on the
`mobile device to enable a single interface comprised of multiplexed
`signals from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive units” (’946
`Patent, claim 1) ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`“wherein the first wireless transmit and receive component is enabled to
`communicate using one or more antennas simultaneously/ wherein the
`first wireless transmit and receive unit is enabled to communicate using
`one or more antennas simultaneously” (’653 Patent, claim 14; ’946 Patent,
`claim 14) ............................................................................................................... 14
`
`“USB communication” (’291 Patent, claim 5; ’946 Patent, claim 5) ................... 16
`
`“dynamically” (’434 Patent, claim 1; ’863 Patent, claim 4) ................................. 19
`
`“ports” (’653 Patent, claims 14, 15, 28; ’863 Patent, claim 1; ’946 Patent,
`claims 14, 15, 28, 29; ’291 Patent, claims 6; ’083 Patent, claim 1; ’075
`Patent, claim 1) ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`“application / applications” (’434 Patent, claim 2; ’653 Patent, claims 5-6,
`10-11, 17; ’863 Patent, claims 6, 12; ’291 Patent, claim 12; ’946 Patent,
`claims, 5-6, 10-11, 17) .......................................................................................... 25
`
`i
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 2 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 54
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`“one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels” (’943 Patent,
`claims 1, 5, 8, 12) .................................................................................................. 26
`
`“channel” (’943 Patent, claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12; ’083 Patent, claims 1-2, 5, 8,
`12) ......................................................................................................................... 27
`
`“the device is … further configured with enhanced capabilities to
`differentiate between various signals or to combine multiple paths into a
`single communication channel” (’943 Patent, claim 2) ........................................ 32
`
`“interface” (’653 Patent, claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 17; ’863 Patent, claim 14;
`’946 Patent, claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 17) ................................................................. 34
`
`“multiplex / multiplexes / multiplexed / multiplexing” (’653 Patent, claims
`1-4, 27); ’946 Patent, claims 1-4, 16, 27; ’291 Patent, claim 7; ’083 Patent,
`claims 5, 8, 12, 19; ’943 Patent, claims 2, 11; ’075 Patent, claim 1) .................... 40
`
`“server” (’653 Patent, claims 4, 15, 27, 28; ’863 Patent, claims 1, 4, 5, 6,
`11, 14, 19, 24; ’946 Patent, claims 1, 4, 15, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30; ’083 Patent,
`claims 6, 8; ’943 Patent, claim 6; ’075 Patent, claim 1) ....................................... 45
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 3 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 4 of 54
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comm'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Baldwin Graphics Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 45
`
`Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`2013 WL 831528 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013) ........................................................................... 5, 7
`
`Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1417419 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Celltrace LLC v. AT & T Inc.,
`2011 WL 738927 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2011) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed.Cir.1998) .................................................................................................. 30
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Unifrax I LLC,
`921 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2018 WL 647734 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) ............................................................................. 17
`
`Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 39
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`iii
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 4 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 5 of 54
`
`Info-Hold, Inc., v. Applies Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 26
`
`Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp.,
`29 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................................................................. 40
`
`Mentor Graphics Corporation v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 35
`
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings,
`370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.,
`21 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................. 36
`
`Pause Technology, LLC v. TiVo, Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 15, 24, 44
`
`Polaris PowerLED Tech., LLC v. Samsung Elec. America Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-715-JRG, (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2019) ......................................................................... 4
`
`Pulse Elec., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. Corp.,
`860 Fed. Appx. 735 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ 26
`
`Radware Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1572644 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014) ........................................................................ 4, 6
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`2014 WL 2738538 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2014) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 39
`
`S Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 39
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc.,
`2012 WL 3112302 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2012) ............................................................................. 4
`
`iv
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 5 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 6 of 54
`
`Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 32
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.,
`2017 WL 3669514 (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2017) ........................................................................... 5, 7
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2005 WL 6225276 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2005) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Network Appliance, Inc.,
`591 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................... 25
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 25
`
`TQ Delta LLC v. Adtran, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1200595 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2021) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2021 WL 432183 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) ............................................................................. 17
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Uretek Holdings, Inc. v. YD West Coast Homes, Inc.,
`2016 WL 7115987 (M.D. Fla. 2016) .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`792 Fed. Appx. 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................ 29
`
`v
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 6 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 7 of 54
`
`WAPP Tech Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`No. 4:21-CV-670, 2022 WL 2463569 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 6, 2022) ............................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 7 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 8 of 54
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 8 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 9 of 54
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 9 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 10 of 54
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 10 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 11 of 54
`
`First, Defendants’ own cases do not support their proposed construction.2 For example,
`
`in SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc., 2012 WL 3112302, at *10-11 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2012), the court
`
`construed “configured to” as “actually programmed or equipped with hardware or software to . .
`
`.” Id. (emphasis added). Defendants omit the underlined portion of this construction from their
`
`citation to this case, but it is important to capture the full scope of the claim language. The same
`
`language – and the same omission – are evident in another of Defendants’ cases, Polaris
`
`PowerLED Tech., LLC v. Samsung Elec. America Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-715-JRG (Dkt. 333), at
`
`*3 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2019).
`
`In yet another of Defendants’ cases, Radware Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc., 2014 WL
`
`1572644, at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014), the court construed “configured to” as
`
`“programmed to [perform certain functions].” Id., at *13. However, the court further explained
`
`that “if a device comes programmed with specific claimed functions it falls within the claims,”
`
`and that its construction “does not require user intervention if the feature claimed is included in
`
`the product as supplied.” Id. And in a subsequent ruling applying its construction, the court
`
`
`2 Defendants also cite Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) and Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`Neither of these cases is on point. In Aspex, the court addressed the construction of “adapted to,”
`not “configured to,” the court’s analysis was heavily driven by the particulars of the intrinsic
`evidence describing the invention, and the claim was directed to a simple mechanical structure
`rather than a software or programming structure. Aspex, 672 F.3d at 1348-49. The opinion
`therefore has nothing useful to say concerning the construction of “configured to” here. In
`Typhoon Touch, the limitation at issue recited ““a memory for storing at least one data collection
`application configured to determine contents and formats of said inquiries displayed on said
`screen.” Typhoon Touch, 659 F.3d at 1379-80. The court did not specifically address the
`“configured to” language, instead focusing on the “memory for storing” language. In addition,
`the court’s conclusion appears to have been driven by narrowing language in the specification
`that is absent here. Id., at 1381. Finally, the construction adopted by the district court and
`affirmed by the Federal Circuit required only that “the memory function is present in the device
`in that the device is structured to store at least one data collection application,” which is
`consistent with Smart Mobile’s construction here.
`
`4
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 11 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 12 of 54
`
`rejected the defendants’ arguments that their products did not infringe because they could not
`
`perform the claimed functionality “out of the box”:
`
`The court construed “configured to” as “programmed to [perform certain functions]. This
`does not require user intervention if the feature claimed is included in the product as
`supplied.” . . . . [T]he court explicitly addressed these summary judgment arguments with
`the second part of its claim construction, holding that user intervention is not required “if
`the feature claimed is included in the product as supplied.” CCO at 21–22. Because the
`necessity of user intervention does not mean that the accused products are not
`“configured” to perform the claimed function under the court’s construction, the court
`denies the defendants [sic] summary judgment . . . .
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc., 2014 WL 2738538, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2014).
`
`Other cases in the summary judgment or JMOL context similarly reject a construction
`
`requiring that a functionality be toggled on “out of the box.” Similarly, in Brocade
`
`Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., 2013 WL 831528, at *9-12 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
`
`10, 2013), the defendant argued that its products did not infringe claims reciting a switch
`
`“configured to” perform various functions until a customer had activated the specified functions.
`
`The court rejected this argument, holding it sufficient that the software on the accused devices
`
`could perform the infringing functions.
`
`And again, in Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., 2017 WL 3669514, at *1 (D. Del. Aug.
`
`24, 2017), defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that “configured to” required “that
`
`the accused products be plugged in, connected to a data network, and otherwise set up as
`
`described in the claims before finding infringement.” The court rejected this contention, holding
`
`that “[i]f the accused products ship with firmware pre-installed that enables the end user to
`
`utilize the functions described in the asserted claims, then that is all that is necessary for the sale
`
`or importation of the product to constitute infringement.” Id.
`
`More recently, in TQ Delta LLC v. Adtran, Inc., 2021 WL 1200595, at *4-6 (D. Del. Mar.
`
`30, 2021), the court construed “configured to” and “configurable to” as “includes the necessary
`
`5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 12 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 13 of 54
`
`hardware and software for performing the functionality recited in the claim without the need to
`
`rebuild, rewrite or recompile the code for, or redesign any of that hardware or software.” The
`
`court then granted summary judgment of infringement, holding that the presence of the
`
`infringing code in the accused devices demonstrated infringement even though the accused
`
`functionality was disabled by default in the product as sold.
`
`So, the caselaw supports Smart Mobile’s construction. In addition, since the parties agree
`
`that “configured to” is a term of drafting art, Dkt. 46, p. 8, Defendants’ extrinsic evidence from
`
`their expert and from technical dictionaries is irrelevant. Radware,, 2014 WL 1572644, at *12
`
`(“Here, nothing in the specification suggests that the inventors used the term ‘configured to’ in a
`
`technology-specific manner, rather than as a patent term of art. Thus, the definitions cited by
`
`defendants which require actively setting up computer programs are not persuasive.”); Uretek
`
`Holdings, Inc. v. YD West Coast Homes, Inc., 2016 WL 7115987, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 2016)
`
`(refusing to permit expert testimony at claim construction hearing where the expert was going to
`
`testify only as to legal conclusions rather than specifics of the technology).
`
`Further, the claims and the specification3 cut against Defendants’ “actually programmed
`
`to” construction. The claims use “configured to” to refer to both software and hardware. For
`
`example, claim 1 of the '653 Patent recites: “wherein each wireless transmit receive component
`
`is configured to communicate using one or more protocols” [software]; “wherein the device is
`
`configured for multi-band wireless communication” [hardware and software]; “wherein the first
`
`wireless transmit and receive component is configured to communicate using a plurality of
`
`
`3 The ’434 Family patents share a common specification. Accordingly, arguments concerning
`the teachings of the specification will generally cite to the relevant content of the ’653 Patent,
`with the intent that such cites be understood to encompass the identical content of the
`specifications of the other ’434 Family patents, as applicable.
`
`6
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 13 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 14 of 54
`
`antennas” [hardware and software]. Ex. 7, 11:65-67; 12:1-2, 7-9; Ex. 1001, ¶134. Similarly,
`
`claim 12 recites the device of claim 1 “which is configured with a plurality of antennas and a
`
`wireless transmit and receive component [hardware], wherein the network switch box wireless
`
`transmit and receive component is configured to communicate a signal stream using the network
`
`switch box plurality of antennas simultaneously” [software]. Ex. 7, 12:66-13:4; Ex. 1001, ¶134.
`
`Defendants’ construction would make a hash of these claims; how can a device be configured to
`
`communicate using a plurality of antennas unless the antennas (hardware) are included in the
`
`configuration?
`
`The specification also refers to “configuration” as encompassing hardware as well as
`
`software. Ex. 7, 5:8-11 (“The network switch box is configured with multiple processors,
`
`multiple antennas and multiple T/R units . . . .”); 11:20-22 (“The base station or the network box,
`
`configured as described in the present invention at the hardware level offers universal
`
`functionality.”); Ex. 1001, ¶¶135-38.
`
`So, the court should construe “configured to” as “programmed or equipped with
`
`hardware or software to.” The “actually” adjective at the start of Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction should be rejected as it is redundant and could misleadingly suggest to a jury that
`
`something more than hardware or software for the recited function is required. And, the “or
`
`equipped with hardware or software” language is necessary in order to foreclose an effort by
`
`Defendants later to argue, as the defendants in the Radware, Brocade and Sonos cases attempted
`
`unsuccessfully to do, that the term requires a specific selection among options available to users
`
`on the accused devices.
`
`7
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 14 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 15 of 54
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 15 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 16 of 54
`
`science: it refers to a virtual or physical connection between software or hardware elements that
`
`enables them to interoperate. Ex. 1001, ¶140. There is no suggestion that the term is used
`
`differently in the transmission interface limitations of claim 1 of the ’653 and ’946 Patents. And
`
`there is no need for Smart Mobile to identify some set of “structural differences” between the
`
`interfaces, as it is the functional description in the claims that differentiates them from one
`
`another: a “transmission interface” is an interface for transmission, an “IP enabled interface” is
`
`an interface enabled for Internet Protocol, and so on. A POSITA would not be confused by this
`
`language. Id.
`
`Defendants next assert that the term “single interface comprised of multiplexed signals”
`
`is “problematic” because it is identified by a “signal format” (multiplexed signals) and it is not
`
`clear what relation the signal format has to the single interface. Id. at 11. This is wrong –
`
`multiplexing does not refer to a “signal format,” Ex. 1001, ¶141, but rather to a method of
`
`splitting and combining signal and data streams in order to accomplish specific objectives, such
`
`as maximizing the use of particular bandwidth or increasing the data rate. See Section III.N.
`
`And there is nothing unclear about this nomenclature, as it was (and is) well understood that an
`
`interface may be instantiated as a signal or data stream; Defendants’ proposed construction of
`
`“interface” recognizes as much. See Section III.M.
`
`So, the relationship between the multiplexed signals and the single interface is well
`
`defined in the claim: the interface is comprised of the signals. Ex. 1001, ¶142. Moreover, the
`
`context of the surrounding words of the claim “must be considered in determining the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of those terms,” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334
`
`F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and the context here forecloses Defendants’ assertion of
`
`indefiniteness. The claim recites that the single interface is “comprised of multiplexed signals
`
`9
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 16 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 17 of 54
`
`from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive components.” Thus, a POSITA would readily
`
`understand that the term “multiplexed signals” refers to signals from the plurality of wireless
`
`transmit and receive components that are or were multiplexed. Id. And, it was and is well
`
`understood that an interface may be comprised of signals. Id. The single interface, thus, refers
`
`to an interface comprised of (i.e., that includes) the multiplexed signals. Id.
`
`Defendants also proffer a re-written version of the claims that interpolates Smart
`
`Mobile’s construction of “interface” into the text. However, Defendants’ interpolation actually
`
`illustrates that Smart Mobile’s construction would be easily understood by a layperson within the
`
`context of the surrounding claim language.
`
`Further, the specification discloses a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals.
`
`The specification teaches mobile devices that can transmit and receive signals that “may be
`
`multiplexed at each end,” Ex. 7, 3:47-48, and that may have “two or more transmit/receive (T/R)
`
`units” that may be “multiplexed for different uses.” Id., 9:7-11. Multiple T/R units “can be
`
`multiplexed to process incoming and outgoing wireless signals.” Id., 5:8-11. And Figure 10
`
`shows data streams from a plurality of T/R units in a device that may be “combined into data
`
`stream 1028 and interfaced to Server C 1030.” Id., 7:28-30, Fig. 10. A POSITA would
`
`understand from this example that the “single interface” refers to an interface comprised of the
`
`multiplexed signals (such as, for example, data stream 1028) from the transmit and receive
`
`components. Ex. 1001, ¶144.
`
`Defendants’ expert next asserts that “single interface comprised of multiplexed signals”
`
`is not “common to the understanding of a POSITA.” Ex. 1, ¶84. This misses the point; as
`
`shown above, the term is easily comprehensible in light of the specification. Ex. 1001, p143.
`
`Defendants’ expert also asserts that a POSITA “would not understand a multiplexed format to
`
`10
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 17 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 18 of 54
`
`have any known relationship to an interface,” Ex. 1, ¶84, but again this misses the point – the
`
`relationship is stated in the claim, i.e., the signals comprising the interface are multiplexed.
`
`Defendants’ expert then complains that he does not know what “comprising” means when used
`
`in a patent claim, but this is nonsensical as “comprising” is a term of art in patent claims.
`
`Defendants proffer similarly flawed arguments regarding “transmission interface” and
`
`“IP enabled interface.” These terms do not refer to functions as alleged by Defendants. Rather,
`
`they refer to interfaces with specified characteristics. Ex. 1001, ¶140. The modifiers
`
`“transmission” and “IP enabled” to the term “interface” connote additional structure that narrows
`
`and focuses the meaning of the term. WAPP Tech Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2022 WL
`
`2463569, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 6, 2022) (“Thus, to whatever extent the word “interface” might be
`
`deemed to lack sufficient structural connotations, ‘the presence of modifiers’ imparts structural
`
`meaning to the disputed terms.”). And while Defendants complain that the specific “interface”
`
`phrases are not recited in the specification, definiteness does not require that the exact phrases
`
`from the claims appear in the specification. Id., at *8.
`
`Defendants direct their second alleged point of ambiguity to “the relationship between the
`
`‘transmission’ interface and the IP interfaces.” Dkt 46, p. 12. According to Defendants, a
`
`POSITA would not understand what it means for the transmission interface to “use” the IP-
`
`enabled interfaces. But there is no ambiguity: an interface may “use” another where, for
`
`example, a signal or data stream from the first (using) interface is sent through the second (used)
`
`interface. Ex. 1001, ¶145. And while Defendants state that the intrinsic record is silent, that is
`
`both irrelevant (because the claim language is clear on its face to a POSITA) and incorrect. For
`
`example, in one embodiment, three data streams (1002, 1004, 1006) are processed by three
`
`transmit/receive units (e.g., Wi-Fi and cellular components) and presented to a processor. Ex. 7,
`
`11
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 18 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 19 of 54
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2028
`Page 19 of 54
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 66 Filed 08/17/22 Page 20 of 54
`
`protocols within the unit and with the outside world and other units.”). Ex. 1001, ¶¶146-47. A
`
`POSITA would understand this; there is no ambiguity. Id.
`
`Defendants’ third alleged point of ambiguity concerns “a plurality of IP enabled
`
`interfaces on the mobile device which utilize the plurality of wireless transmit and receive
`
`components.” Dkt. 46, p. 12. Defendants assert that the “most grammatically correct reading [of
`
`the term] is that the ‘which utilize . . .’ clause modifies the ‘plurality of IP enabled interfaces . . .
`
`.” Id. They then contend that this interpretation “would require that . . . the ‘single interface’ is
`
`comprised of the multiple “transmit and receive components,” which would allegedly conflict
`
`with other terms of the Patent. Id.
`
`Here, Defendants attempt to manufacture indefiniteness by rewriting the claims. A
`
`POSITA would read the claim as it is written: the plurality of IP enabled interfaces utilize the
`
`transmit and receive components. Ex. 1001, ¶148. But nothing about this language requires that
`
`the single interface be comprised of multiple transmit and receive components. Ex. 1001, ¶150.
`
`Nor do Defendants offer any explanation as to why an additional limitation should be read into
`
`the claim. The claims must be construed as written. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335,
`
`1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009), amended on reh’g in part, 366 F. App’x 154 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As written,
`
`the claims are not indefinite.
`
`Defendants’ fourth p