IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS USA, INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS ALABAMA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:21-cv-0448-JRG
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`In this patent case, Constellation Designs, LLC, alleges infringement by LG Electronics,
`
`Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., (together, “LG”) of 60 claims
`
`from seven related patents. Each of the patents “relates to bandwidth and/or power efficient digital
`
`transmission systems and more specifically to the use of unequally spaced constellations having
`
`increased capacity.” U.S. Patent 8,842,761 at 1:25–28; see also U.S. Patent 9,743,290 at 1:41–44;
`
`U.S. Patent 10,567,980 at 1:36–39; U.S. Patent 10,693,700 at 1:38–41; U.S. Patent 11,018,922 at
`
`1:51–54; U.S. Patent 11,019,509 at 1:38–41; U.S. Patent 11,039,324 at 1:57–60.
`
`The parties present two disputes about claim scope,1 with LG contending three terms render
`
`certain claims indefinite. Having considered the parties’ briefing and arguments of counsel during
`
`the February 14, 2023 hearing, the Court rejects that contention.
`
`1 Constellation’s opening brief presents seven disputes. Dkt. No. 75 at i. In its response, LG
`withdrew its challenges to four of those disputes and did not respond to Constellation’s briefing
`on a fifth. Dkt. No. 81 at 18. See also Joint Cl. Constr. Chart, Dkt. No. 83.
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 1 of 12
`
`

`

`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The patents concern the use of unequally spaced constellations in digital communication
`
`systems. In the context of such systems, a “constellation” is a set of symbols mapped to the
`
`amplitudes of carrier waves during a time slot. See ’922 Patent at 1:55–67. Generally, a transmitter
`
`has a mapper to encode bits into symbols of a constellation and a modulator to generate a signal
`
`corresponding to the symbols. See id. at 2:51–59. At the receiver, the values of the received
`
`amplitudes are demapped to determine the transmitted symbols. See id. at 2:59–64.
`
`As an example, quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) uses two carrier waves of the
`
`same frequency that are 90° out of phase: the “in-phase” (or I) carrier and the quadrature (or Q)
`
`carrier. Each symbol of the constellation can thus be represented as a point in an I-Q plane based
`
`on the amplitudes of the I and Q carriers. For example, an equally spaced constellation diagram
`
`for a 16 QAM scheme might look like this:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`

`
`
`See Non-Uniform Constellations for ATSC 3.0, Dkt. No. 75-4 at 199 (Fig. 3; noting “[t]he
`
`constellation points are uniformly located on an orthogonal grid with the same minimum Euclidean
`
`distance of points to their closest neighbours”). Here, if both axes are at the maximum amplitudes
`
`during a time slot, the demapper at the receiver would likely interpret the symbol as “0000.”
`
`Similarly, if both carriers are at their minimum amplitudes during a time slot, the demapper would
`
`likely interpret the symbol as “1100.”
`
`The potential problem is noise, which might cause the received signal to vary from the
`
`transmitted signal in one or both directions in the plane. The further apart the symbols on the
`
`diagram, the more tolerant the system in interpreting a noisy received signal. See ’922 Patent at
`
`1:59–61 (“The minimum distance (dmin) between constellation points is indicative of the capacity
`
`of a constellation at high signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs).”). For this reason, system designers
`
`attempt to maximize the spacing between symbols, but the tradeoff is smaller constellations and
`
`therefore less-efficient systems. See id. at 1:62–63 (“Therefore, constellations used in many
`
`communication systems are designed to maximize dmin.”); Constellation Design via Capacity
`
`Maximization, Dkt. No. 75-3 at 1821 (noting “constellations have most often been designed to
`
`maximize dmin,” which “is not necessarily a good measure at low SNRs typical of coded systems,
`
`particularly with capacity approaching codes”).
`
`The patents concern unequally spaced (i.e., “non-uniform”) constellations. For example,
`
`FIG. 21 of the ’922 Patent shows a QAM-64 constellation diagram in which the spacing between
`
`the symbols is smallest near the two axes. This specific constellation is beneficial because it allows
`
`for the use of low-complexity demappers. See ’922 Patent at 15:8–12.
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`

`FIG. 1 of the ’922 Patent
`
`
`
`The patents more specifically concern processes for selecting optimized unequal
`
`constellations based on specific coding rates and SNRs. The patents explain that process with
`
`respect to the iterative loop shown in FIG. 5. See generally ’922 Patent at 10:5–11:64. At the end
`
`of the process, the output constellations have increased capacity relative to conventional
`
`constellations for a fixed code rate and modulation scheme. Id. at 11:65–12:2.
`
`The claims at issue specify the desired constellations. For example, Claim 1 of the ’922
`
`Patent requires a transmitter with a coder and a mapper “capable of mapping the encoded bits to
`
`symbols in a non-uniform quadrature amplitude modulation 1024-point symbol constellation (NU-
`
`QAM 1024).” ’922 Patent at 20:65–21:12. The claim then specifies:
`
`the NU-QAM 1024 constellation comprises an in-phase component
`and a quadrature component, where each component comprises 32
`levels of amplitude such that the amplitudes scaled by a scaling
`factor are within 0.55 from the following set of amplitudes: -38.424,
`-31.907, -24.169, -26.796, 38.425, 31.908, -20.038, -19.169, -7.759,
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 4 of 12
`
`

`

`-7.759, -11.460, -11.460, -4.850, -4.850, −15.014, -15.205, 20.038,
`19.170, 15.206, 15.015, 24.170, 26.797, 11.460, 11.460, 1.326,
`1.326, 4.849, 4.849, -1.328, -1.328, 7.759, and 7.759.
`
`Id. at 21:13–23. Each claim at issue is similarly structured and concerns either a transmitter that
`
`maps symbols to a NU-QAM 1024 constellation or a receiver that demaps the received signal into
`
`a NU-QAM 1024 constellation. See id. at 24:27–51 (reciting, in Claim 24, a receiver with “a
`
`demapper . . . capable of determining likelihoods using the demodulated signal and a non-uniform
`
`quadrature amplitude modulation 1024-point symbol constellation (NU-QAM 1024); ’324 Patent
`
`at 35:38–63 (Claim 24), 39:44–67 (Claim 47), 41:19–37 (Claim 60), 41:57–42:8 (Claim 62).
`
`LG challenges these six claims as indefinite for two reasons. First, LG argues two terms in
`
`Claim 47 of the ’324 Patent lack antecedent basis and are therefore indefinite. Second, LG
`
`contends “scaling factor” in each of the claims renders the claims boundless and therefore
`
`indefinite.
`
`II.
`
`GENERAL LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Generally
`
`“[T]he 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). As such, if the
`
`parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their meaning. See, e.g., Verizon
`
`Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Markman
`
`v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(en banc).
`
`Claim construction, however, “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[c]laim construction is a
`
`matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 5 of 12
`
`

`

`explain what the patentee covered by the claims . . . .” Id. A court need not “repeat or restate every
`
`claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim construction is for the court.” Id.
`
`When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363,
`
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Courts must therefore “look to the
`
`words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.” Id. (citations
`
`omitted). 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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “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.
`
`Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See Power-One, Inc. v.
`
`Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). For
`
`certain claim terms, “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.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. Rather, we must
`
`look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.”).
`
`But for claim terms with less-apparent meanings, courts consider “those sources available to the
`
`public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language
`
`to mean . . . [including] the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 6 of 12
`
`

`

`prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
`
`of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). The claims “must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is
`
`claimed,” but that consideration must be made while accounting for the inherent limitations of
`
`language. Id. at 908. “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).
`
`“[A] claim could be indefinite if a term does not have proper antecedent basis where such
`
`basis is not otherwise present by implication or the meaning is not reasonably ascertainable.”
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But “[w]hen the
`
`meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in
`
`light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of
`
`‘antecedent basis.’” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. I.T.C., 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see
`
`also Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-CV-1047-WCB, 2015 WL 1263358, at
`
`*9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2015) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation) (noting that, despite the “clumsy”
`
`absence of antecedent basis, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the
`
`meaning of the claim.”).
`
`III. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is the skill level of a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 7 of 12
`
`

`

`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In resolving the appropriate level of ordinary skill, courts consider the types
`
`of and solutions to problems encountered in the art, the speed of innovation, the sophistication of
`
`the technology, and the education of workers active in the field. Id. Importantly, “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`Here, Constellation alleges a skilled artisan at the time of invention “would have a Bachelor
`
`of Science degree or higher in Electrical or Computer Engineering or Science with 3 or more years
`
`of experience designing or working with digital communication systems.” Dkt. No. 75 at 5 (citing
`
`Jones Decl., Dkt. No. 76-1 ¶ 85). LG does not challenge this level of ordinary skill in its response.
`
`Accordingly, the Court adopts this skill level for its analysis.
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“the NU-QAM 1024” and “the LDPC code” (’324 Patent, Claim 47)
`
`Term
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“the NU-QAM 1024” Not Indefinite. Alternatively, “a
`NU-QAM 1024”
`
`“the LDPC code”
`
`Not Indefinite. Alternatively, “a
`LDPC code”
`
`Indefinite. Alternatively, “a non-
`uniform quadrature amplitude
`modulation 1024-point symbol
`constellation (NU-QAM 1024).”
`Dkt. No. 81 at 17.
`
`Indefinite. Alternatively, “a Low
`Density Parity Check (LDPC) code.”
`Dkt. No. 81 at 17.
`
`LG argues these terms are indefinite because they lack antecedent basis. A skilled artisan,
`
`suggests LG, would be unclear as to what constellation and code “the NU-QAM 1024” and “the
`
`LDPC code” refer. Dkt. No. 81 at 17. It then criticizes Constellation for failing to cite any evidence
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 8 of 12
`
`

`

`supporting the contention “the terms have ‘obvious and definite scope in light of the intrinsic
`
`evidence.’” Id. (quoting Dkt. No. 75 at 12).
`
`These terms are not indefinite. For one, even though it has the burden of showing
`
`indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence, LG presents no evidence a skilled artisan would
`
`not understand the scope of these terms or claims. Regarding “the NU-QAM 1024,” the claim
`
`itself defines the constellation. Further, despite LG’s contrary suggestion, nothing about the
`
`context of the claim suggests either term is referring to a constellation or code from a different
`
`claim. Here, despite the lack of antecedent basis, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`understand the meaning of the claim.” Trover Grp., Inc., 2015 WL 1263358, at *9.
`
`The parties’ alternative constructions are correct and have the same scope. Accordingly, no
`
`further construction is required for these terms.
`
`B. Whether the “Scaling Factor” Terms Are Indefinite (’922 Patent, Claims 1, 24;
`’324 Patent, Claims 24, 47, 60, 62)
`
`Each of these claims concerns either a transmitter with a mapper or a receiver with a
`
`demapper to either generate or receive, respectively, signals corresponding to specific
`
`constellations. Each claim limits the constellation as having “the amplitudes scaled by a scaling
`
`factor” and within some range. For example, in Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent:
`
`the NU-QAM 1024 constellation comprises an in-phase component
`and a quadrature component, where each component comprises 32
`levels of amplitude such that the amplitudes scaled by a scaling
`factor are within 0.55 from the following set of amplitudes: -38.424,
`1.907, -24.169, -26.796, 38.425, 31.908, -20.038, -19.169, -7.759,
`-7.759, -11.460, -11.460, -4.850, -4.850, −15.014, -15.205, 20.038,
`19.170, 15.206, 15.015, 24.170, 26.797, 11.460, 11.460, 1.326,
`1.326, 4.849, 4.849, -1.328, -1.328, 7.759, and 7.759.
`
`’922 Patent at 21:13–22 (emphasis added).
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 9 of 12
`
`

`

`LG contends these claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) because of
`
`the “scaling factor” language. According to LG, “the asserted claims do not provide any guidance
`
`or bounds on the value of the scaling factor.” Dkt. No. 81 at 13. Because “the ‘scaling factor’ could,
`
`in theory, be any number from negative infinity to positive infinity,” “the claim language fails to
`
`delineate the constellations ‘which the applicant regards as his invention.’” Id. Moreover, it argues,
`
`each claim requires the values to be within a certain range, which themselves can be scaled. Id.
`
`“The claims thus layer one infinite number of possibilities onto another.” Id. at 14.
`
`LG does not carry its burden. For one, LG provides no evidence a person of ordinary skill
`
`would not understand the meaning of the term or the scope of the claims. Second, LG confuses
`
`breadth with indefiniteness. The claims are directed to the relative positions of symbols in the I-Q
`
`plane, which is analogous to claiming a table that is twice as long as it is wide. That an infinite
`
`number of table sizes (or constellations) would satisfy the limitation does not render the claim
`
`impermissibly boundless. When pressed for controlling authority to the contrary during the
`
`hearing, LG had none. See H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 93 at 34:4–17.
`
`LG relies primarily on Light Transformation Techs. LLC v. Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp., No.
`
`2:12-cv-826-MHS-RSP, 2014 WL 3402125 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2014). Dkt. No. 81 at 14–15; see
`
`also H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 93 at 26:1–27–2, 34:14–17. Specifically, it analogized to the Court’s
`
`holding that “axis of light” was indefinite because the specification of the patent at issue did not
`
`provide guidance as to which of an infinite number of axes was the recited axis. Id.
`
`Light Transformation is easily distinguishable. Representative Claim 1 recited a light
`
`transformer comprising:
`
`a
`
`first planar optical window . . . being
`perpendicular to the axis of light direction;
`
`substantially
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 10 of 12
`
`

`

`. . . ; and
`a second planar optical window . . . being substantially
`perpendicular to the axis of light direction, the second planar
`optical window further being symmetrical across the axis of
`light direction with the first planar optical window . . . .
`
`Light Transformation, 2014 WL 3402125, at *2 (citing U.S. Patent 8,220,959). The Court
`
`concluded:
`
`[I]t is undisputed that light propagates in three-dimensions on an infinite number of
`axes. Indeed, the specification illustrates numerous exemplary axes of light
`directions for any given viewpoint. For example, Figure 7 depicts a number of light
`rays 710, 720, 730, 740, and 750 propagating “straight from the light source along
`an axis coincident with a radial line defining a radius of the circular reflective
`interior surface.” ’959 Patent at 5:12–14 (emphasis added). Based on this figure, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine which one of these
`exemplary axes is the “axis of light direction.”
`
`Id. at *8. And because a person of ordinary skill would not know which axis is recited, a skilled
`
`artisan would be unable to determine if the first and second planar optical windows were
`
`“substantially perpendicular to the axis of light direction,” as required by Claim 1.
`
`Here, however, LG presents a different issue. Rather than arguing lack of sufficient
`
`specificity analogous to Light Transformation, LG stresses the “unbounded” nature of “scaling
`
`factor.” But an “unbounded” claim is not per se indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2. See, e.g., United Access
`
`Techs., LLC v. AT&T Corp., 757 F. App’x 960, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]hat the claim language,
`
`at least in theory, covers any [higher frequency] does not render the claim language indefinite,
`
`even though the use of very high frequencies would be impractical.”). To be sure, there are
`
`situations in which the “unbounded” nature of claim language renders a claim indefinite, see, e.g.,
`
`MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Glob. Storage Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding
`
`invalid, for lack of enablement, a claim reciting a range with a lower threshold but no upper limit);
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 11 of 12
`
`

`

`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(noting, in the context of § 112 ¶ 6, “[i]f the specification is not clear as to the structure that the
`
`patentee intends to correspond to the claimed function, then the patentee . . . is rather attempting
`
`to claim in functional terms unbounded by any reference to structure in the specification”), but this
`
`is not one of them. Accordingly, the recitation of “scaling factor” does not render these claims
`
`indefinite.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Disputed Term
`
`The Court’s Construction
`
`“the NU-QAM 1024” and “the LDPC code”
`
`Not indefinite.
`
`the “scaling factor” terms
`
`Not indefinite.
`
`The Court ORDERS each party not to refer, directly or indirectly, to its own or any other
`
`party’s claim-construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the Court ORDERS the
`
`parties to refrain from mentioning any part of this opinion, other than the actual positions adopted
`
`by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Neither party may take a position before the jury that
`
`contradicts the Court’s reasoning in this opinion. Any reference to claim construction proceedings
`
`is limited to informing the jury of the positions adopted by the Court.
`
`____________________________________
`ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
`
`SIGNED this 28th day of February, 2023.
`
`Constellation Exhibit 2023
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLC
`IPR2023-00228
`Page 12 of 12
`
`