IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`DALI WIRELESS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES
`LLC d/b/a JMA WIRELESS, a Delaware
`limited liability corporation; TEKO
`TELECOM SRL, an Italian corporation; and
`JMA WIRELESS LIMITED, an Irish
`corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 19-2367-RGA
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`
`David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Stephanie E. O’Byrne, POTTER ANDERSON &
`CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Schumann (argued), Cris Leffler (argued), Mike
`Saunders (argued), FOLIO LAW GROUP LLC, Lake Forest Park, WA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
`
`Pilar G. Kraman, Robert M. Vrana, Beth A. Swadley, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas Nash (argued), BARCLAY DAMON LLP, Syracuse,
`NY, Attorneys for Defendants.
`
`March 11, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`/s/ Richard G. Andrews
`ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
`
`
`
`Before me is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`10,334,499 (“the ’499 patent”) and 9,820,171 (“the ’171 patent”). I have considered the Parties’
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 61), Appendix (D.I. 62), and supplemental letters (D.I. 74,
`
`75). I held remote oral argument on March 1, 2021. (D.I. 73).
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). “‘[T]here is no magic formula or
`
`catechism for conducting claim construction.’ Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate
`
`weight to appropriate sources ‘in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.’”
`
`SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the
`
`literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). Of these sources, “the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction
`
`analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`“[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. . . .
`
`[Which 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 1312–13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he ordinary meaning of a
`
`claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id. at 1321
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`(internal quotation marks omitted). “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314.
`
`When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence—the patent claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history—the court’s construction is a determination of law.
`
`See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331 (2015). The court may also make
`
`factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which “consists of all evidence
`
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–19 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology,
`
`the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic
`
`evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history. Id.
`
`“A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it
`
`defines terms in the context of the whole patent.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per
`
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that “a claim interpretation that would
`
`exclude the inventor’s device is rarely the correct interpretation.” Osram GMBH v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This case is about wireless technology, and more specifically, a system of reconfigurable
`
`antennas that can be used to automatically manage and redistribute network load, optimize radio
`
`resources, and, in doing so, increase the efficiency of a wireless network.
`
`The application for the ’499 patent was filed on August 9, 2018, and the application for
`
`the ’171 patent was filed on July 8, 2016. (D.I. 62, ’499 patent, Cover; ’171 patent, Cover). The
`
`priority dates applicable to these patents appear to be 2011 and 2010 respectively. The following
`
`claims are the most relevant for the purposes of this Markman:
`
`Claim 1 of the ’499 Patent
`
`1. A system for transporting wireless communications, comprising:
`
` a
`
` baseband unit;
`
` a
`
` plurality of signal sources, including at least a first signal source and a second signal
`source;
`
`wherein the baseband unit comprises a plurality of interfaces to communicatively couple
`the baseband unit to the plurality of signal sources;
`
`wherein the baseband unit is configured to receive a plurality of radio resources from the
`first signal source and the second signal source;
`
`wherein the baseband unit is configured to send a digital representation of a second set
`of radio resources to the first remote unit at a second point in time, the second set of
`radio resources for transmission at the antenna of the first remote unit;
`
`wherein a number of radio resources in the first set of radio resources is different from a
`number of radio resources in the second set of radio resources; and
`
`wherein the baseband unit is configured to receive digital signals from each of the
`plurality of remote units.
`
`
`(D.I. 62-1, ’499 Patent, claim 1) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Claim 15 of the ’171 Patent
`
`
`15. A system for transmitting signals, comprising:
`
`
`
`a plurality of remote radio units; and
`
`at least one digital access unit configured to communicate with the plurality of remote
`radio units, wherein the plurality of remote radio units are each configured to packetize
`uplink signals for transmission to the at least one digital access unit, and the at least one
`digital access unit is configured to packetize downlink signals for transmission to the
`plurality of remote radio units, wherein the packetized signals correspond to a plurality of
`carriers, and each of the plurality of remote radio units is configured to receive or
`transmit a respective subset of the plurality of carriers,
`
`wherein during a first time period, each of the plurality of remote radio units is
`configured to receive or transmit the respective subset of the plurality of carriers,
`
`wherein during a second time period, at least one remote radio unit of the plurality of
`remote radio units is reconfigured to increase or decrease the number of carriers in a first
`subset of the plurality of carriers, and the at least one remote radio unit is configured to
`receive or transmit the first subset of the plurality of carriers according to the
`reconfiguration.
`
`
`(Id., ’171 patent, claim 15) (emphasis added).
`
`Claim 17 of the ’171 Patent
`
`
`17. The system of claim 15 wherein the at least one remote radio unit is reconfigured to
`increase or decrease the number of carriers in the first subset of the plurality of carriers
`based on a load on the a[sic] least one remote radio unit.
`
`
`(Id., claim 17) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED-UPON TERMS
`
`I adopt the following agreed-upon constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`“increase[e/ing] or decrease[e/ing] the
`number of carriers in the [first/respective]
`subset” (’171 patent, claims 1, 3, 4, 15,
`17, 18)
`
`No construction necessary beyond the
`construction for “carrier[s]”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`“[first/second] set of radio resources”
`(’499 patent, claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16)
`
`No construction necessary beyond the
`construction for “radio resources”
`
`
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS1
`
`A. “signal source[s]” (’499/1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16)
`
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed constructions:
`i. an operator’s network
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. the sources of the analog radiofrequency (“RF”) signals
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. no construction necessary
`The parties dispute whether the term “signal sources” should be construed to mean only
`
`sources of analog RF signals.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that the claims are “agnostic to what signal type is sent to the DAS from
`
`the mobile network operator” and that the term “signal sources,” therefore, should be construed
`
`broadly. (D.I. 61 at 5). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the claimed invention has to do with
`
`“distributing radio resources” in a system, which involves communication between digital access
`
`units (“DAUs”) in order to distribute the radio resources the DAUs receive to “address capacity
`
`and load issues within the system.” (D.I. 73 at 15:23–16:7). Because the purpose of the claimed
`
`load-sharing mechanism is simply to distribute incoming resources regardless of their type,
`
`Plaintiff argues that the invention is agnostic as to what kinds of signals constitute “signal
`
`sources.” (Id. at 16:14–20). Plaintiff maintains, moreover, that several dependent claims (e.g.,
`
`claim 5) in the ’499 patent require some signal sources be part of or sent between baseband units,
`
`which send digital rather than analog RF signals. (D.I. 61 at 5–6). Taken together, Plaintiff
`
`
`1 I ruled on some of the disputes at the claim construction hearing. For those, I merely repeat the
`ruling without any further explanation.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`essentially argues that, given the absence of clear disclaimer in the intrinsic evidence, there is no
`
`reason to construe “signal sources” as limited to analog RF signals. (D.I. 73 at 23:23–24:6).
`
`
`
`Defendants, on the other hand, argue that because the asserted claims “are directed to
`
`distributed antenna systems (“DAS”) that translate between analog RF signals and digital
`
`baseband signals,” the relevant “signal sources” must be analog RF signals. (D.I. 61 at 6).
`
`Defendants specifically assert that the “context of the claims shows that ‘radio resources’ and
`
`‘digital representations of radio resources’ are different things, and that the ‘radio resources’
`
`received from the ‘signal sources’ are not themselves digital representations.” (Id. at 9).
`
`Defendants therefore maintain that the structure of the claim dictates the proper construction of
`
`“signal sources” must be analog RF signals and not digital signals. (Id.). Defendants also argue
`
`that embodiments in the specification—such as the “RF Input Port[s]” of the DAU/baseband unit
`
`in Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the ’499 patent—support disclaimer of signals other than analog RF.
`
`(Id.).
`
`
`
`I agree with Plaintiff that a broad construction of “signal sources” is appropriate.
`
`Disavowal of claim scope requires “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer. Cont’l Circuits LLC v.
`
`Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Embodiments showing that the DAUs have
`
`analog RF input signals do not clearly and unmistakably discount the possibility of non-analog
`
`RF input signals or, more importantly, indicate the patentee’s intent to limit itself to only analog
`
`RF signals as “signal sources.” The embodiments are uses of the claimed invention—not
`
`limitations on the invention itself.
`
`With regard to whether the structure of the claims limits the proper construction of
`
`“signal sources” to analog RF signals, I disagree with Defendants that the relevant signals must
`
`only be analog RF signals. The claimed invention does more than convert analog RF signals into
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`digital signals; by way of features including “automatic traffic load-balancing, network and radio
`
`resource optimization, [and] network calibration,” the claimed invention “can increase the
`
`efficiency and traffic capacity of the operator’s wireless network.” (D.I. 62-1, ’499 patent,
`
`Abstract). The asserted claims recite a system that optimizes load-sharing of incoming input
`
`signals. (Id., claims 1, 8). Nothing in the language of the claims indicates that the “signal
`
`sources” must be analog RF signals; distinctions between “radio resources” and “digital
`
`representations” similarly do not clearly indicate that the “radio resources” cannot include any
`
`digital signals.
`
`
`
`I therefore find that no construction of “signal sources” is necessary. The term is not
`
`limited to analog RF signals.
`
`B. “radio resource[s]” (’499/1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19)
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed constructions:
`i. wireless resources such as RF carriers, CDMA codes or TDMA time slots
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. RF carriers, CDMA codes, TDMA time slots, and other information used
`to subdivide or apportion RF signals in order to transmit underlying data
`to and from an antenna of a remote radio unit, but do not include the
`underlying data that is transmitted
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. RF carriers, CDMA codes, TDMA time slots, and other information used
`by the remote radio units to apportion RF signals in order to transmit
`underlying data to and from an antenna of a remote radio unit, but do not
`include the underlying data that is transmitted (D.I. 73 at 53:13–23).
`
`C. “baseband unit is configured to send a digital representation of a [first/second] set of
`radio resources” (’499/1, 8)
`
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. baseband unit allocates radio resources for the communication of digital
`baseband data
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. baseband unit digitizes, down-converts and delivers a [first/second] set of
`radio resources
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`c. Court’s construction:
`i. no construction necessary
`Defendants’ arguments here are essentially identical to those presented for “signal
`
`sources,” namely that a “digital representation” sent by the “baseband unit” must necessarily be a
`
`conversion of an analog RF signal to a digital signal. (D.I. 61 at 23–24). As support for their
`
`proposed construction, Defendants point to a section in the Summary of the Invention that notes
`
`the “data received from the base stations is down-converted, digitized and converted to baseband
`
`with the DAU.” (D.I. 62-1, ’499 patent, Summary of the Invention). Plaintiff argues, as it did
`
`with regard to “signal sources,” that radio resource allocations as “digital representation[s]” do
`
`not necessarily have to be analog RF signals. (D.I. 61 at 36).
`
`I agree with Plaintiff for the same reason that I found “digital representation” to not
`
`necessarily require analog RF signal inputs with regard to “signal sources.” Although
`
`Defendants’ reference to the Summary of the Invention section is noted, the description that the
`
`“data . . . is down-converted, digitized and converted to baseband with the DAU” is not part of
`
`the description of the “present invention” (the description occurs in the following paragraph)
`
`and therefore does not amount to a limitation of the invention. (D.I. 62-1, ’499 patent, Summary
`
`of the Invention).
`
`Although I agree with Plaintiff that “digital representation” is not limited to allocation of
`
`“radio resources” that are solely analog RF signals, I do not think a construction of “digital
`
`representation” in words different from that of the claim language is warranted here. I therefore
`
`find no construction of “baseband unit is configured to send a digital representation of a
`
`[first/second] set of radio resources” is necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`D. “baseband unit” (’499/1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 19) / “digital access unit” (’171/15, 19)
`
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. a unit that manages baseband communications between an operator
`network and one or more remote radio units
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. a device that converts between analog radiofrequency (RF) signals and
`digital baseband signals
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. no construction necessary
`I apply the same reasoning to find here, as with the prior term, that a “baseband unit”
`
`does not have to send a “digital representation” limited to allocation of “radio resources” that are
`
`analog RF signals. The parties agree that “baseband unit” and “digital access unit” are used
`
`interchangeably between the ’499 and ’171 patents. (D.I. 61 at 29, 32).
`
`In this case, the scope of the term “baseband unit” is adequately defined by the claim
`
`limitations, which delineate in multiple places the various functions that a “baseband unit”
`
`accomplishes in the context of the claimed invention. (D.I. 62-1, ’499 patent at 14:12–14, 14:15–
`
`19, 14:20–24, 14:28–29). The scope of the term “digital access unit” is similarly set forth by the
`
`claim limitations in the ’171 patent. (D.I. 62-1, ’171 patent at 12:52–53, 13:1–3, 15:9–18).
`
`Neither term needs additional construction beyond what the claims already provide to the
`
`meaning of “baseband unit” and “digital access unit” in the context of their respective patents.
`
`I therefore find no construction is necessary for “baseband unit” or “digital access unit.”
`
`E. “packetize/packetizing” (’499/2, 9, 19; ’171/15)
`
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. creating digital data packets
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. form/forming into packets that have source information, destination
`information and contents
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. creating digital data packets that have destination information and contents
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`The parties agree that “packetize/packetizing” involves digital data packets and that these
`
`packets have contents. (D.I. 73 at 100:4–8; D.I. 61 at 40). The parties dispute whether the
`
`packets must have both source and destination information.
`
`Plaintiff argues that the DAU may “frame the individual data packets . . . using the
`
`Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) standard,” but also, “Other Interface standards are
`
`applicable provided they uniquely identify data packets with respective RRUs [Remote Radio
`
`Head Units].” (D.I. 61 at 40) (citing D.I. 62-1, ’499 patent at 10:47–51; ’171 patent at 9:6–10).
`
`Although these standards require transmission of “[h]eader information” with the data packet to
`
`identify the RRU and DAU, Plaintiff asserts that this can be accomplished by inclusion of either
`
`source or destination information but does not require both. (D.I. 73 at 99:7–17). Plaintiff also
`
`contends that for CPRI, source and destination information included would not be in the CPRI
`
`packet itself, so limiting the construction of “packetize/packetizing” to packets with source and
`
`destination information would be inappropriate. (Id. at 90:17–91:1).
`
`Defendants, on the other hand, maintain that prosecution history estoppel for U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,531,473 (“the ’473 patent”)—a sibling to the ’171 patent sharing the same specification—
`
`applies to the ’171 patent. (D.I. 61 at 41). During IPR of the ’473 patent, in arguing for validity,
`
`the patentee maintained that “any construction of ‘packetizing’ must include destination
`
`information, such as within a packet header.” (D.I. 62, Ex. 6, IPR2018-00571, Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response at 8 (May 6, 2018) (A0500)). Defendants assert that Plaintiff should be
`
`held to its representations at IPR for construction of “packetizing.” (D.I. 61 at 42). Defendants
`
`further contend that because there is two-way communication between the DAU and the RRU,
`
`there must be both source and destination information included in data packets for the packets to
`
`know where to go as they traverse back and forth. (D.I. 73 at 93:2–95:3).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`At oral argument, Plaintiff stated that, in the interest of keeping a single definition, it
`
`would be willing to apply the inclusion of “destination information” in “packetize” during IPR of
`
`the ’473 patent to both the ’171 and ’499 patents. (Id. at 97:12–23). The construction of
`
`“packetize” therefore includes destination information. The remaining question is whether
`
`“packetize” should be construed to include source information as well.
`
`Given the patentee’s clear disclaimer with regards to “destination information,” absent
`
`affirmative evidence that the patentee intended to include “source information,” I do not think
`
`that “source information” should be included in the construction of “packetize.” Defendants’
`
`argument that packets must include source information to facilitate back-and-forth
`
`communication does not constitute such evidence in light of Plaintiff’s assertions that the DAU
`
`can have readily available to it the addresses of the RRUs, so it does not need to rely on source
`
`information for a signal to know where to return something. (Id. at 102:24–103:6).
`
`I therefore construe “packetize/packetizing” to mean “creating digital data packets that
`
`have destination information and contents.”
`
`F. “carriers” (’171/15–18)
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. signals each having a unique frequency within a composite signal
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. radiofrequency (RF) signal[s] having specific carrier frequenc[ies]
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. radiofrequency (RF) signal[s] having specific carrier frequenc[ies] (D.I. 73
`at 103:18–25).
`
`G. “wherein during a second time period, at least one remote radio unit of the plurality
`of remote radio units is reconfigured” (’171/15)
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. adaptively readjusting the radio capacity of a remote radio unit by
`changing the configuration parameters of the remote radio unit during a
`second time period
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. wherein the configuration of at least one remote radio unit of the plurality
`of remote radio units is changed
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. wherein during a second time period the configuration of at least one
`remote radio unit of the plurality of remote radio units is changed (D.I. 73
`at 105:16–106:11).
`
`H. “load” (’171/17)
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. the amount of available capacity currently used
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. the number of subscribers
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. the amount of available capacity currently used (D.I. 73 at 106:12–22).
`
`I. “downlink signals” and “uplink signals” (’171/15)
`
`a. Plaintiff’s proposed construction:
`i. adaptively readjusting the radio capacity of a remote radio unit by
`changing the configuration parameters of the remote radio unit during a
`second time period
`b. Defendants’ proposed construction:
`i. wherein the configuration of at least one remote radio unit of the plurality
`of remote radio units is changed
`c. Court’s construction:
`i. plain and ordinary meaning (D.I. 73 at 108:4–22).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this
`
`Memorandum Opinion suitable for submission to the jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`