Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 48
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00603-ADA
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00701-ADA
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`REGARDING THE ’434 PATENT FAMILY
`
`
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 1 of 48
`
`

`

`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 48
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS................................................................ 1 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ...................................................................................... 4 
`DISPUTED TERMS .......................................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`“system on a chip” 291 (5, 15) ............................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`“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 (5) .............................................. 5 
`“is configured to” 434 (1, 6) .................................................................................. 7 
`“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 (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 (1)) .................................. 10 
`“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 (14), 946 (14) .................................. 13 
`“USB communication” 291 (5), 946 (5) .............................................................. 15 
`“dynamically” 434 (1) .......................................................................................... 16 
`“ports” (’653 (15, 27, 28), ’863 (1), ’291 (6, 7, 11), ’946 (14, 15, 28, 29),
`’083 (1), ’075 (1)) ................................................................................................ 17 
`“application” (’434 (2), ’653 (10, 11, 17), ’863 (6, 12), ’291 (12), ’946 (6,
`10, 11)) ................................................................................................................. 23 
`“one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels” (’943 (1, 5,
`8, 12)) ................................................................................................................... 25 
`“channel” (’943 (1, 5, 8, 12), ’083 (1, 2, 5, 8, 12)) .............................................. 29 
`“the device is … further configured with enhanced capabilities to
`differentiate between various signals or to combine multiple paths into a
`single communication channel” (’943 (2)) .......................................................... 32 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`G. 
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`L. 
`
`i
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 2 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 3 of 48
`
`
`
`N. 
`
`M. 
`
`“interface” (’653 (1, 6, 10, 11, 17), ’836 (14), ’946 (1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and
`17)) ....................................................................................................................... 33 
`“multiplex / multiplexes / multiplexed / multiplexing” (’653 (1, 2, 3, 4,
`27), ’083 (5, 8, 12, 19), ’075 (1), ’943 (2, 19), ’946 (1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 27), and
`’291(7)) ................................................................................................................ 37 
`Preamble of claim 1 of the ’075 patent .................................................... 40 
`1. 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 41 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 3 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 4 of 48
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................6
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................8
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.,
`19 F.4th 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................18, 33
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................6, 7, 40, 41
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................15
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................22, 37
`
`Eon-net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp.,
`653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................20
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 647734 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) ......................16
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................21, 35
`
`Lemoine v. Mossberg Corp.,
`No. 2020-2140, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27807 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 15, 2021) ................................6
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................15
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ......................................................................................14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................................ passim
`
`Polaris PowerLED Tech., LLC v. Samsung Elec. America Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-715-JRG .................................................................................................................9
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`No. C-13-2021 RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55913 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18,
`2014) ..........................................................................................................................................8
`
`iii
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 4 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 5 of 48
`
`
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................21, 35
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................21, 35, 36
`
`Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC,
`962 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................7
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc.,
`No. 6:11-cv-48-LED-JDL, 2012 WL 3112302 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2012) ............................8, 9
`
`Trustees of Bos. Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co.,
`896 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................22, 37, 39
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................8
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-1692, 2021 WL 432183 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) .................................................16
`
`United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 5 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 6 of 48
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (“SMT”) asserts more than 160 claims of 14 patents
`
`against Defendants Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) (collectively “Defendants”). This brief
`
`addresses eight of the asserted patents: 8,824,434, 8,842,653, 8,982,863, 9,084,291, 9,019,946,
`
`9,191,083, 9,319,075, and 9,614,943. Defendants have identified only key terms requiring
`
`construction. For most terms, Defendants’ constructions reflect the plain and ordinary meaning to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art as informed by the intrinsic evidence. Where Defendants’
`
`constructions depart form the ordinary meaning, it is only because the disputed claim term is (1)
`
`used in the intrinsic record in a way inconsistent with its ordinary meaning, or (2) indefinite.
`
`SMT’s proposed constructions are, in contrast, untethered to the intrinsic record. SMT’s
`
`goal is obvious—to expand the asserted claims’ scope well beyond their purely aspirational 1990’s
`
`era specifications to encompass features and technologies not even imaginable to (and certainly
`
`not enabled by) the inventors. But that goal requires SMT to assert constructions that consistently
`
`cut against fundamental canons of construction and, as such, the Court should decline to adopt
`
`them.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`All 14 asserted patents stem from an abandoned application filed December 16, 1996
`
`(08/764,903) (“the ‘1996 application”), although some asserted patents truncated their priority
`
`claims to remove reference to the 1996 application. Notably, over 50 applications claim priority
`
`to that 1996 application.
`
`As a threshold matter, the 1996 application has little, if anything, to do with modern
`
`wireless telecommunications. It instead describes the purported invention as an “intelligent
`
`1
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 6 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 7 of 48
`
`
`
`keyboard” or “Intellikeyboard” that allegedly addresses a “need for one single universal, handheld,
`
`lightweight, transportable, intelligent device that can compute, command, and control …
`
`intelligent devices,” such as “[i]ntelligent telephony, appliances, devices, and equipment.” Ex. 16
`
`at SM0000123.
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 1 (SM0000152). The Intellikeyboard purportedly “leverages the tremendous power of
`
`both the Intranet and Internet” using functional blocks “implemented using standard … or custom
`
`… components by those knowledgeable in the art.” Id., SM0000123.
`
`The inventors abandoned the 1996 application in favor of a continuation-in-part (CIP)
`
`application (09/281,739), filed June 4, 1999 (“the 1999 application”). On June 9, 2000, application
`
`no. 09/591,381 was filed as a CIP of the 1999 application and included an overhauled specification
`
`(“the 6/2000 application”). The asserted patents addressed in the ’501 family brief appear to be
`
`based on this specification.
`
`On July 17, 2000, application no. 09/617,608 (“the 7/2000 application”) was filed as a CIP
`
`of the 1999 application, which included yet another overhauled specification as compared to the
`
`1996 application. Asserted patents 8,824,434, 8,842,653, 8,982,863, 9,084,291, 9,019,946,
`
`9,191,083, 9,319,075, and 9,614,943 (“the ’434 patent family”) (along with many other unasserted
`
`patents) appear to use or rely on the same or similar specification as the 7/2000 specification.
`
`However, like the 1996 and 1999 applications, the 7/2000 application provided little disclosure of
`
`2
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 7 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 8 of 48
`
`
`
`how to achieve the alleged inventions. The 7/2000 application discloses a method and apparatus
`
`in which multiple IP based wireless data transmissions are simultaneously provided between a
`
`wireless device and a server, including providing multiple antennas, multiple T/R units, multiple
`
`processors, and multiple I/O ports on the wireless device. Ex. 19 at SM0000634. The 7/2000
`
`application discloses that the purported invention provides wireless enhancements to IP based
`
`cellular telephones/mobile wireless devices by having multiple antennas. Id. at SM0000608. The
`
`7/2000 application further discloses that “[i]n the present invention, one or more antennas and T/R
`
`units
`
`in a CT/MD will provide better
`
`tuning and greater bandwidth for a given
`
`frequency/application.” Id. at SM0000610.
`
`For example, the 7/2000 application discloses a dual antenna, dual T/R unit CT/MD which
`
`illustrates the purported inventions in a dual band system. Id. at SM0000613. The 7/2000
`
`application alleges that having more than one T/R unit gives a performance edge as each signal
`
`can be better processed and tuned to the specific frequency band. Id. at SM0000614.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 4 (SM0000603).
`
`
`
`This is also disclosed in the specification of the ’434 family patents. The 7/2000
`
`application discloses that “[s]ome unique features of the present invention, which apply to either
`
`a CT/MD … or to a network switch box … are: Multiple antennas for greater signal range and
`
`bandwidth. Multiple T/R units so that paths or tasks can be paralleled. Multiple internal signal
`
`processors, or one or more processors that execute in parallel. Multiple built in input/outputs for
`
`universal connectivity to different network environments. Capability to interface wired and
`
`3
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 8 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 9 of 48
`
`
`
`wireless devices through a cradle adapter to achieve universal connectivity. Parallel processing of
`
`signals and data streams at a system level using hardware and software on a server such as Server
`
`C 706.” Id. at SM0000618-19.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’434 patent family would have
`
`had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless
`
`communication systems, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could substitute for
`
`professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`“system on a chip” 291 (5, 15)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`SMT’s Proposed Construction
`An
`integrated circuit
`that
`integrates multiple
`components, including a central processing unit, on a
`single chip.
`
`The term “system on a chip” has a clear meaning to a POSITA. So common, in fact, that
`
`“system on a chip” goes by the well-known abbreviation “SOC,” and both the full term and its
`
`abbreviation are routinely and interchangeably invoked to identify a specific component found in
`
`electronic devices. Ex. 1 (Bims Decl.) ¶¶ 69-75 (providing an opinion that a system on a chip is a
`
`single chip that contains an entire system, citing Ex. 30, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (2000)
`
`817 (“SOC System-On-a-Chip. A silicon integrated circuit which combines generic functions …
`
`with custom design elements to create a device that contains all major elements of system on one
`
`integrated chip.”). Because this term conveys a clear meaning to a POSITA, it requires no further
`
`construction as the bounds of a “system on a chip” would be clear to a fact finder. Any attempt to
`
`construe the term would do nothing to further illuminate its meaning and would only invite juror
`
`4
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 9 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 10 of 48
`
`
`
`confusion. United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify
`
`and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the
`
`determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.”).
`
`SMT provides a construction that would result in the very type of juror confusion that
`
`Ethicon cautions should be avoided against. While a POSITA would understand a “system on a
`
`chip” to refer to a system that is on a chip, SMT’s construction would include configurations that
`
`conventionally are not considered a “system on a chip” (e.g., a processor and at least one other
`
`component, regardless of whether those components are an entire system or even part of the same
`
`system, so long as the processor and that component are on the same chip). SMT’s construction
`
`would also exclude configurations that conventionally are considered a “system on a chip” (such
`
`as any chip that contains a single processor that implements the entire system, with no other
`
`components).
`
`SMT provides no explanation for why the Court should depart from the well-known plain
`
`meaning. SMT’s proposal should be rejected.
`
`B.
`
`“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 (5)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`The preamble is limiting
`
`SMT’s Proposed Construction
`Plain meaning, with the exception of “system on a
`chip,” which should be construed as proposed by
`Smart Mobile.
`
`
`
`The parties’ dispute is whether the preamble of claim 5 from the ’291 patent is limiting.
`
`Defendants contend that it is for a straightforward reason: the preamble gives life, meaning, and
`
`5
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 10 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 11 of 48
`
`
`
`vitality to the claim, and critically, serves as antecedent basis for subsequent claim limitations.
`
`SMT contends otherwise, but nevertheless agrees that part of the preamble is limiting.
`
`Whether a preamble is limiting is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the
`
`overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the
`
`prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98
`
`F.3d 1563, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A preamble may be limiting if it recites essential structure
`
`or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Lemoine v. Mossberg
`
`Corp., No. 2020-2140, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27807, at *4-5 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 15, 2021) (citing
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). One such
`
`example is where the preamble provides antecedent basis for subsequent language in the claims.
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`(“[D]ependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim
`
`scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed
`
`invention.”).
`
`
`
`The claim 5 preamble is limiting because it provides important context for the nature and
`
`structure of the invention being claimed, and without the context provided by the preamble it is
`
`difficult to make sense of the claims. For example, the preamble introduces the term
`
`“communication system,” which includes “one or more communication modules and processors
`
`for use in a portable handheld mobile device with a plurality of antennas,” and is “implemented as
`
`a system on a chip.” ’291 patent, claim 5. The body of claim 5 then refers back to the
`
`communication system, requiring “the system supports communication and processing of signals
`
`using a plurality of frequency bands and wherein the plurality of signal streams is processed for a
`
`specific frequency band”, “the system [is] configured to transmit the first signal stream by
`
`6
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 11 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 12 of 48
`
`
`
`simultaneously transmitting the first signal stream using, the plurality of antennas, the first signal
`
`stream collectively generated from a first data stream;” “the system [is] configured to generate a
`
`second data stream by receiving the second signal stream simultaneously using the plurality of
`
`antennas and generating the second data stream from the second signal stream;” and “the system
`
`supports video processing, wireless wide area network communication and local area network
`
`communication, and USB communication.” Id. Only by referring back to the preamble does the
`
`claim provide the context necessary to understand the scope of “the system” set forth in the body
`
`of the claim. See Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 1368
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“While antecedent basis alone is not determinative of whether a preamble is
`
`limiting, use of preamble terms to define positive limitations in the body of claims can evince an
`
`inventor's intent that the preamble limit the scope of the claim.”).
`
`SMT refuses to agree to Defendants’ construction (that the preamble is limiting). But SMT
`
`agrees that the term “system on a chip”, which appears only in the preamble of claim 5, is limiting
`
`(as confirmed by SMT’s identification of that term requiring construction). SMT cannot have it
`
`both ways. It is either limiting or not. As such, SMT’s admission that the preamble is in fact
`
`limiting with respect to part of the language (i.e., “system on a chip”) is dispositive here.
`
`C.
`
`“is configured to” 434 (1, 6)1
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is “actually
`programmed to”
`
`SMT’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain meaning
`
`
`1 In addition to claims 1 and 6 of the ’434 patent and any claims that depend from them, the same
`construction should apply to other claims that include the same phrase, including:’943 patent
`claims 1, 5, 8, 12; ’653 patent claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 17, 27; ’946 patent claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 17, 27; ’291
`patent claim 5; and 083 patent claims 5, 8, 12, and any claims that depend from them.
`
`7
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 12 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 13 of 48
`
`
`
`Both sides agree that this term should be given its plain meaning, however, it is apparent
`
`that the parties require some clarity as to what that plain meaning is.
`
`“Configured to” is a term of drafting art, much like “comprising,” “consisting of,” and
`
`“consisting essentially of.” Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. C-13-2021 RMW, 2014 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 55913, at *40 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014) (recognizing “configured to” as a “patent
`
`term of art”). Courts have repeatedly confirmed that “configured to” has a narrow meaning
`
`compared to the broader phrase “capable of.” See, e.g., Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear,
`
`Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (interpreting “adapted to” and construing it in the
`
`“narrow” sense of “configured to” in contrast to the “broader” sense as “capable of”); Typhoon
`
`Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing “memory . . .
`
`configured to” as “memory that must perform the recited function”); SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:11-cv-48-LED-JDL, 2012 WL 3112302, at *11 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2012) (“[T]he claims
`
`mandate that the devices are ‘configured to’ perform particular functions. Interpreting ‘configured
`
`to’ as requiring only mere capability would eliminate any meaningful limits to the claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that ‘configured to’ means ‘actually programmed or equipped with
`
`hardware or software to.’”). These interpretations are likewise consistent with the ordinary
`
`meaning a POSITA would apply to the language “configured to.” Ex. 1 (Bims Decl.) ¶¶ 76-79
`
`(opining that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to” is “actually programmed to,” citing
`
`Ex. 31, IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (2000), Seventh Edition,
`
`217; Ex. 32, Random House Webster’s Computer & Internet Dictionary (1999), Third Edition,
`
`115 (“configure. To set up a program or computer system for a particular application.”); Ex. 33,
`
`BARRON’S DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER AND INTERNET TERMS (1998), Sixth Edition, 103
`
`(“configure. To set up a computer or program to be used in a particular way. Many commercial
`
`8
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 13 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 14 of 48
`
`
`
`software packages have to be configured, or installed; this involves setting them up for a particular
`
`machine (including video card and printer) and for a particulate user’s preferences.”)).
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction matches the definition adopted by multiple courts and
`
`is consistent with this plain meaning. SIPCO, 2012 WL 3112302, at *11 (“Accordingly, the Court
`
`finds that ‘configured to’ means ‘actually programmed or equipped with hardware or software
`
`to.’”); Polaris PowerLED Tech., LLC v. Samsung Elec. America Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-715-JRG
`
`(Dkt. No. 333), at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) (similar). This construction is also consistent with
`
`how the phrase is used in the claims. Patents in this family employ “configured to” in some
`
`instances to reference a particular configuration, while in other instances broader phrases are used
`
`to refer to the mere capability of supporting a configuration. Compare ’434 patent, claim 1
`
`(“portable handheld wireless device is configured to dynamically switch between use of the first
`
`or second antenna”); with ’291 patent, claim 1 (“a multi band network switch box system that is
`
`capable of operating in a number of network environments sequentially or simultaneously”).
`
`Indeed, in some instances, the same claim uses “configured to” and “capable of”–confirming that
`
`the applicant intended for the two terms to have different scope (consistent with their plain
`
`meanings). See, e.g., ’291 patent, claim 1 (using “configured to” and “capable of”).
`
`SMT agrees that the plain and ordinary meaning is appropriate here, but does not identify
`
`what that plain and ordinary meaning is, nor has it identified any basis for declining to accept
`
`Defendants’ interpretation. Because Defendants’ proposed construction defines “configured to”
`
`consistent with the plain meaning of the phrase and settled case law interpreting the term, it should
`
`be adopted.
`
`9
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 14 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 15 of 48
`
`
`
`D.
`
`“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 (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
`(1))
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`
`SMT’s Proposed Construction
`Plain meaning, with the exception of “interface/s,”
`“mobile device” and “multiplexed,” which should be
`construed as proposed by Smart Mobile.
`
`These disputed terms are found in claim 1 of the ’653 patent and claim 1 of the ’946 patent.
`
`The terms are substantively identical, and thus any arguments raised herein with respect to one
`
`limitation apply to both. A POSITA would not understand the scope of these terms with reasonable
`
`certainty because they use vague, functional terms, and also use those terms in a nonconventional
`
`way without any guidance from the patents. Ex. 1 (Bims Decl.) ¶¶ 80-95. Thus, the terms are
`
`indefinite.
`
`The first point of ambiguity resides in the subsidiary term “interface” as used throughout
`
`the larger disputed claim language. More specifically, each of the disputed terms recite three
`
`“interfaces.” The ’653 patent recites 1) a transmission interface; 2) an IP enabled interface; and
`
`3) a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals. The ’946 patent similarly recites 1) an
`
`interface for transmission; 2) interfaces for Internet Protocol communication; and 3) single
`
`interface comprised of multiplexed signals. According to the literal claim language, the interfaces
`
`are different from each other. But it is unclear what the structural differences are between the
`
`interfaces because the emphasized language surrounding each “interface” term is functional in
`
`10
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2003
`Page 15 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00603-ADA-DTG Document 46 Filed 06/08/22 Page 16 of 48
`
`
`
`nature, and does not reveal any apparent distinguishing (and thus identifying) structural differences
`
`between them.
`
`Most problematic is the third occurrence of “interface,” which is within the term a “single
`
`interface comprised of multiplexed signals.” The claim language identifies the “single interface”
`
`by a signal format (“multiplexed signal”), but it is not clear what relation that signal format has to
`
`the “single interface.” Indeed, a POSITA would not refer to an interface as “comprised of
`
`multiplexed signals,” and that nomenclature is nonsensical under any interpretation of “interface”
`
`(including the two competing proposals at issue in this brief). For example, SMT’s proposed
`
`construction of “interface” has been substituted into the portion of this term that requires the
`
`“single interface” (identified using underline):
`
`Term
`interface
`single
`a
`“enable
`comprised of multiplexed signals
`from
`the plurality of wireless
`transmit and receive components”
`
`SMT’s Proposed “Interface” Construction
`“enable a single virtual or physical point of
`connection between software and/or hardware
`elements that enables them to interoperate
`comprised of multiplexed signals from the
`plurality of wireless transmit and receive
`components”
`The result is a jumbled mess requiring a “virtual or physical point of connection between software
`
`and/or hardware elements that enables them to interoperate” to be comprised of “multiplexed
`
`signals.”
`
`The applicant also failed to provide any clear description of these specialty “interfaces” in
`
`the specification that would help make sense of these terms. The only place the phrases
`
`“transmission interface,” “IP enabled interface,” “interface for transmission,” “interfaces for
`
`Internet Protocol communica