`
`2
`
`Jason W. Wolff(SBN 215819), wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406), jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3 12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070/ Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.,
`7 HUAWEI DEVICE (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUA WEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`[ Additional Counsel listed on signature page.}
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`13 BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`14
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01783-CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE}
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V .
`
`COO LP AD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`HUA WEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`
`DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 2019
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`SEP ARA TEL Y BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`Date:
`
`June 19, 2019
`
`Case No. 3 :18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUA WEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`SEP ARA TEL Y BY THE COURT
`
`Case N o. 3: 18-cv-01 785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 201 9
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`SEP ARA TEL Y BY THE COURT
`
`Case No. 3: 18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`June 19, 201 9
`Date:
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO ORAL
`ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED
`SEP ARA TEL Y BY THE COURT
`
`15
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`16 LLC,
`
`17
`
`18 V .
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`19 ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA)
`INC., ZTE (TX) INC.,
`20
`
`Defendants.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 3 :18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD .................... .. .. .. .. .. ..................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................... 1
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT .......... .. .. .. .. .. ..................... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........................ 1
`A. Goris Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,3 19,889 and 8,204,554) ...... .. .................... 1
`"A mobile station, comprising: ... the proximity sensor begins detecting
`1.
`whether an external object is proximate substantially concurrently with the
`mobile station initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or receiving an
`incoming wireless telephone call." (' 889 cl. 1) ...... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................... 1
`"substantially concurrently" ('889 els. 1, 8; '554 els. 7, 13) ... .. .. ................ 3
`2.
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,990,842 ...................... .. .. .. ........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....................... .4
`1.
`"a standard wireless networking configuration for an Orthogonal
`Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme" ( cl. 1) ... ............. .. .. .. .. .. ................... .4
`2.
`"extended long training sequence" (els. 1, 19) .............. .. .. .. .. .. .................... 7
`3.
`"optimal extended long training sequence" (els. 1, 4, 14, 19) ..................... 9
`4.
`"legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a legacy
`wireless networking protocol standard" ( cl. 14) ................................................ 10
`C. U.S. Patent No. 8,41 6,862 ...................... .. .. .. ................................................. 11
`"a baseband processing module operable to .. . . " (cl. 9) .......................... 11
`1.
`2.
`"the baseband processing module is operable to . .. " ( cl. 10) ................... 16
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 ...................... .. .. .. ................................................. 17
`"a cell phone functionality" ( cl. 1) ...... .. ..................................................... 17
`1.
`2.
`"RF communication functionality" ( cl. 1) .................. .. ............................. 20
`"a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`3.
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF
`communication functionality" ( cl. 1) .. .. ............. .. ......................................... .. ... 22
`4.
`"an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, operable to
`switch a communication path established on one of said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality, with another
`communication path later established on the other of said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality" ( cl. 1) ....................... 24
`IV . CONCLUSION ............... .. .. ................................. .............................................. 25
`
`I
`
`3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`3 Aristocrat Techs. Aust!. PTY Ltd. v. Int 'l Game Tech.
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .. .. ..................... .. ...................................... 22, 23, 25
`
`4
`
`5 Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .. .. ................................................................ .. . 17, 27
`
`6
`7 Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
`743 F. Supp. 2d 305 (D. Del. 2010), ajf'd, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........... 3
`8
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .. .. ..................... .. .. .. ..................... .. .......... .4, 5, 9, 10
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .. .. ..................... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 18
`11
`12 Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp., Inc.
`13
`674 F. App'x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 16
`
`14 EON Corp. Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC
`15
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............ .. .. .. ............................................................. 21
`
`16 ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............ .. .. .. .................................................... .. . 18, 27
`
`17
`18 GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.
`663 F. App'x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......... .. .. .. .......................................................... .4
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost Commc 'ns Ltd.
`2016 WL 212676 (D. Ariz. Jan. 19, 2016), ajf'd, 685 F. App'x 992 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) .................................................................................................... 13, 14, 21, 24
`
`22 Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisoft, Inc.
`23
`97 F. Supp. 3d 965 (W.D. Tenn. 2015) .......... .. ............. .. ...................................... 14
`
`24 H-W Tech, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.
`758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...... .. ....................................................................... 3
`
`25
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .. .. .. .. ................. .. .. .. ................................................ 3
`
`..
`11
`
`3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM et al .
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .. .. .. .. ................. .. .. .. ............................................... .4
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .. .. .. .. ................. .. .. .. ..................................... .. . 1, 2, 3
`
`Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .. .. .. .. ................. .. .. .. ................................................ 2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ................................................ l , 7
`
`8
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
`9
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .. .. ......................................................................... 16
`1 O Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`11
`No. 9:09-cv-l l l , 2011 WL 11757163 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 201 1) ... ...................... 14
`
`12 Phillips v. A WH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .. .. .. ......................................................................... 7
`
`13
`14 Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd.
`890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .. .. .. .. ................. .. .. .. ................................................ 8
`
`15
`16 Sarif Biomed. LLC v. Brainlab, Inc.
`2015 WL 5072085 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2015) ........... .. ............................................. 14
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Soque Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Keyscan, Inc.
`2010 WL 22923 16 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2010) .......... .. ......... .. .................................. 15
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .. .. ........................................................................... 7
`
`Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .. .. ..................... .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................. 19
`
`UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co.
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............ .. .. .. ............................................................... 2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .. .. ................................................................ .. passim
`
`m
`
`3: 18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1 Statutes
`
`2 35 U.S.C. § l 12 .... .. .. .... .... .... .... ... .. .. .... .... .... ....... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .... .... .... l
`3
`
`35 U .S.C. § 112, 16 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2 1
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1v
`
`3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Defendants hereby file their Joint for Motion Summary Judgment on
`
`Indefiniteness pursuant to the Court's statements made during the April 24, 2019
`
`4 Status Hearing. See Ex. A (Apr. 24, 2019 Hr' g Tr.) at 9:9-10:9.
`II. LEGALSTANDARD
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, patent claims must "particularly point[] out and
`
`7 distinctly claim[] the subject matter" regarded as the invention. Claims, viewed in
`
`8
`
`light of the specification and prosecution history, must "inform those skilled in the
`
`9 art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty." Nautilus, Inc. v.
`
`10 Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). Claims that do not are indefinite
`
`12
`
`11 under § 112, rendering them invalid. Id. at 2125.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Goris Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,554)1
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`1.
`
`"A mobile station, comprising: ... the proximity sensor begins
`detecting whether an externa f object is proximate substantially
`concurrently with the mobile station initiating an outgoing
`wireless telephone call or receiving an incoming wireless
`telephone call. " ('889 cl. 1) 2
`Under the line of Federal Circuit cases beginning with IPXL Holdings, L.L.C.
`
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005), claim 1 of the '889 patent is
`
`19
`
`indefinite because its use of method steps in an apparatus claim makes it unclear
`
`20 whether infringement occurs when a device is manufactured or when a user actually
`
`21 uses it in an infringing manner. See Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`22 874 F.3d 1307, 1313-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reciting relevant case law).
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Claim 1 of the '889 patent recites a "mobile station" comprising a proximity
`
`sensor, "wherein: .. . the proximity sensor begins detecting whether an external
`
`1 Because the Goris patent specifications are the same, for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier-issued ' 889 patent.
`2 The terms referenced herein are identified in the parties' Joint Claim Construction
`Chart Worksheet and Hearing Statement Pursuant to P.L.R. 4.2. BNR v. H uawei,
`3: l 8-cv-1784, Doc. No. 58-1 (Jt. CC Worksheet) App. A.
`1
`3:18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM etal.
`
`
`
`1 object is proximate substantially concurrently with the mobile station [performing
`
`2
`
`3
`
`the method step of] initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or receiving an
`
`incoming wireless telephone call." See '889 (Doc. No. 1-3)3 at claim 1. Because the
`
`4 mobile station requires user action in order to initiate or receive a wireless telephone
`
`5 call, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one sells a mobile station with a
`
`6 proximity sensor capable of this functionality, or whether infringement occurs when
`
`7 a user of the mobile station initiates or receives an incoming wireless telephone call.
`
`8 As such, claim 1 is indefinite.
`
`9
`
`Although an apparatus claim that describes a capability of the apparatus is not
`
`10 prohibited by IPXL, see UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co ., 816 F.3d 816,
`
`11
`
`826-27 (Fed. Cir. 201 6), the method step of claim 1 does not describe the mere
`
`12 capability of the mobile station-
`
`it describes a step that must be performed by the
`
`13 user of the mobile station. The specification is clear that a user must perform the
`
`14 method step of "initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call." '889 at 3:33-35
`
`15
`
`16
`
`("[F]or an outgoing call, the proximity sensor 140 is activated by pressing a key on
`
`the keypad 160 to establish the outgoing call to a third party."). Thus, the wherein
`
`1 7 clause in claim 1 requires the user of the mobile station to take action. See In re
`
`18 Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig. , 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011 )
`
`19
`
`("Katz seeks to distinguish IPXL on the ground that the term 'wherein' does not
`
`20
`
`signify a method step but instead defines a functional capability. We disagree and
`
`21 uphold the district court's ruling. Like the language used in the claim at issue in
`
`22
`
`IPXL ('wherein . .. the user uses'), the language used in Katz 's claims ('wherein .. .
`
`23 callers digitally enter data' and 'wherein .. . callers provide .. . data' ) is directed to
`
`24 user actions, not system capabilities."); H-W Tech, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc., 758
`
`25 F.3d 1329, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding indefinite an apparatus claim that
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3 Doc. Nos. referenced herein refer to BNR v. Huawei, 3: l 8-cv-1 784 unless
`otherwise noted. Pin point cites are made to the ECF generated page numbers.
`3:18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM etal.
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`recited method steps of "wherein said user completes a transaction" and "wherein
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`said user selects one of said variety of offers").
`
`Tellingly, claim 1 does recite a "capability" limitation elsewhere-
`
`specifically, a "proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of proximity
`
`5 of an external object"- but by contrast does not use this "adapted to" language to
`
`6 describe the "mobile station initiating an outgoing wireless telephone call or
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`receiving an incoming wireless telephone call." Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira,
`
`Inc., 743 F . Supp. 2d 305, 329 (D. Del. 2010), ajf'd, 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`("Had the patentees wished to state that the composition was merely 'capable of'
`
`10 being formed into a perfusion, they could easily have said so explicitly.").
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`In short, claim 1 is an apparatus claim with a user-performed method step,
`
`leaving the public unclear as to when infringement occurs. It is indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`"substantially concurrently" (' 889 els. 1, 8; '554 els. 7, 13)
`
`The term "substantially concurrently" is indefinite because "substantially" is a
`
`15
`
`term of degree for which neither the specification nor the claims provide any
`
`16 objective boundaries. See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed.
`
`17 Cir. 201 8) (defining terms such as "minimal" or "substantial" as terms of degree).
`
`18 When using terms of degree, the patent "must provide ' some standard of measuring
`
`19
`
`that degree' such that the claim language provides 'enough certainty to one of skill
`
`20
`
`in the art when read in context of the invention."' GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v.
`
`21 Lights of Am., Inc., 663 F. App'x 938, 940 (Fed. Cir. 201 6); Interval Licensing LLC
`
`22 v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This standard for measurement
`
`23 must be in the form of "objective boundaries." Id.
`
`24
`
`Here, nothing in the claim language nor the specification provides any
`
`25 objective boundary for determining the temporal degree allowed for "substantially
`
`26 concurrent[]" activation of sensor detection and initiation or receipt of a call.
`
`27
`
`Instead, the only portions of the specification that provide any possible guidance
`
`28
`
`teach that "[i]n response to the acceptance of the incoming call 210 or automatically,
`
`3
`
`3: 18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1
`
`the proximity sensor 140 is activated to monitor a proximity 230 to an external
`
`2 object." '889 at 3: 12-14. Similarly, "for an outgoing call, the proximity sensor 140
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`is activated by pressing a key on the keypad 160 to establish the outgoing call to a
`
`third party." '889 at 3:33-35.
`
`When dealing in terms of degree, the operative question is whether the
`
`intrinsic evidence provides skilled artisans with some point of comparison such that
`
`they are able to determine the objective boundaries of the term. See Berkheimer,
`
`8 881 F.3d at 1364 (finding "minimal redundancy" indefinite because the only
`
`9 examples in the specification included "no redundancy," giving those skilled in the
`
`10 art no point for comparison and thus no objective boundaries). Like Berkheimer,
`
`11 neither the claims nor the specification provide any objective means for comparison
`
`12 between activation that occurs "substantially concurrently" to initiating or receiving
`
`13 a call and activation that does not occur "substantially concurrently" to initiating or
`
`14
`
`receiving a call (i.e., there is no guidance as to how much time may pass between
`
`15 activation and initiating or receiving a call before the two do not occur
`
`16 "substantially concurrently"). As neither the specification nor the claims teach
`
`17 objective boundaries for "substantially concurrently," the term is indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,990,842
`
`1.
`
`"a standard wireless networking configuration for an
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Muftiplexing scheme" (cl. 1)
`Claim 1 comprises an "optimal extended long training sequence" that "is
`
`carried by a greater number of subcarriers than a standard wireless networking
`
`configuration/or an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing scheme." This
`
`term's reliance on a "standard wireless networking configuration" fails as indefinite
`
`because there is no explanation as to which configuration is contemplated by this
`
`term, leaving a person of skill in the art (POSITA) without reasonable certainty as to
`
`its scope.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1
`
`The intrinsic evidence does not specify what constitutes a " standard" wireless
`
`2 networking configuration nor provide objective boundaries for determining the
`
`3
`
`scope of this term. The specification does not use the terms "standard wireless
`
`4 networking configuration," "wireless networking," or " configuration." Nor does the
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`specification use the word "standard" in a way that sufficiently clarifies the scope of
`
`this term. The word "standard," as written in claim 1, is an adjective describing the
`
`"wireless networking configuration." Yet the patent nowhere describes what a
`
`"standard" wireless networking configuration is. Indeed, elsewhere, the patent only
`
`9 uses the word "standard" as a noun to refer to protocols such as 802.11. This use
`
`10 appears in the specification's "Description of Related Art," which includes solely
`
`11
`
`the following references: "a particular wireless communication standard," "different
`
`12
`
`standards or different variations of the same standard," " 802.11 standard," "a newer
`
`13 version of the standard," and "802.1 la and 802.1 lg standards." ' 842 (Doc No. 1-5)
`
`14 at 1:31-2:10. But the patentee did not choose that usage in claim 1. Notably, the
`
`15 patentee knew how to draft claims using the word "standard" as a noun. See ' 842 at
`
`16 els. 13, 14, 15 (reciting a "legacy wireless networking protocol standard"). Absent
`
`17 any objective boundaries, this term is indefinite.
`
`18
`
`If the grammar of this term is overlooked and the Court finds the patentee
`
`19 used the word "standard" as a noun, the claim is still indefinite. Because the
`
`20
`
`specification uses the word "standard" in describing the 802.1 la, 802.11 b, 802.1 lg,
`
`21
`
`and 802.1 ln standards ('842 at 1:31-2:10), a POSITA could in theory interpret
`
`22 "standard" as an 802.11 wireless standard issued by the IEEE. Ex. B (Wells Op.
`
`23 Deel.) at 1140-42. And, because the standard is "for an [OFDM] scheme," a
`
`24 POSITA could interpret the standard as limited to 802.11 standards that include
`
`25 OFDM configurations-
`
`including, at least, 802.1 la, 802.1 lg, and 802.1 ln. Ex. B
`
`26
`
`(Wells Op. Deel.) at 1143-44. But there's nothing in the specification to suggest the
`
`27
`
`inventors acted as their own lexicographers and so limited the term. The failure of
`
`28
`
`this term to identify the scope of what qualifies as a "standard" makes the scope
`
`5
`
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1 ambiguous. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910 (stating, a patent must "inform those
`
`2
`
`3
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"). It
`
`remains unclear whether all or just a subset of these standards are claimed and
`
`4 whether other standards are included or not. See, e.g. , Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v.
`
`5 Sandoz, Inc. , 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 201 5) (holding that the term "molecular
`
`6 weight', is indefinite, where it "could refer to any of the three weight measures").
`
`7 And if all or just a subset could be claimed, there is no clarity as to which standard
`
`8 meets this claim under any given circumstance.
`
`9
`
`BNR ' s proposed alternative construction, "a standard issued by a Standard
`
`10 Setting Organization (for example, IEEE or 3GPP) utilizing an [OFDM] scheme,"
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`emphasizes precisely the overbreadth of the claim language. BNR' s construction is
`
`so broad it well exceeds the scope of disclosure in the ,842 patent, as it is not limited
`
`to any point in time or to the standards recited. Under BNR 's construction, the term
`
`14 apparently could encompass any of the numerous standards that use OFDM in
`
`15 addition to OFDM-based standards issued by many different standard setting
`16 organizations. Ex . B (Wells Op. Deel.) at ,r 50; Ex. C
`17
`(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE 802.11 ) (showing sixteen 802.1 1 OFDM-based
`
`18
`
`standards); Ex. D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal freguency-
`
`19 division multiplexing) (showing at least twenty OFDM-based standards). Further,
`
`20 BNR 's construction would cover future standards not known or contemplated by a
`
`21 POSIT A as of the invention date, thus raising written description and enablement
`
`22
`
`issues. See Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 41 5 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that a term is given the meaning that it would have to a POSIT A "at the time of the
`
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application'}
`
`BNR attempts to justify this broad reach based on the following statement in
`
`26
`
`the specification: "Different wireless devices in a wireless communication system
`
`27 may be compliant with different standards or different variations of the same
`
`28
`
`6
`
`3:18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`standard." Ex. E (Madisetti Op. Deel.) at, 160 (citing ' 842 at 1:50-52).4 However,
`
`that statement does not describe the invention or connect it to the term at issue.
`
`Finally, BNR's proposed construction raises a printed matter doctrine issue,
`
`as it attempts to incorporate the actual texts of various standards into the claim in
`
`5 order to decipher, at least, the number of subcarriers. See, e.g. , Praxair Distrib., Inc.
`
`6 v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd. , 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding
`
`7 claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight
`
`8 unless the printed matter is functionally related to its substrate).
`
`9
`
`10
`
`2.
`
`"extended long training sequence" (els. 1, 19)
`
`The ' 842 patent fails to sufficiently inform as to the scope of the term an
`
`11
`
`"extended" long training sequence. The specification does not define or use this
`
`12
`
`term, and the term "extended" appears nowhere in the specification. BNR appears
`
`13
`
`to argue that the key characteristic of the "extended long training sequence" is the
`
`14 number of subcarriers, as BNR offers the following alternative construction for this
`
`15
`
`term: "a training sequence that uses more active subcarriers than an earlier version
`
`16 of the same standard." Nonetheless, the lack of objective boundaries as to the
`
`1 7 number of subcarriers sufficient to establish the long training sequence as an
`
`18
`
`"extended" one renders this term indefinite. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1364
`
`19
`
`(requiring objective boundaries for terms of degree).
`
`20
`
`Claim 1 states that "a signal generator" generates the "extended long training
`
`21
`
`sequence," and that it is processed by an "Inverse Fourier Transformer [(IFT)]."
`
`22
`
`'842 at cl. 1. The specification, however, uses different terms for the output from
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4 Pursuant to the Court's Consolidation Order dated February 2, 2019 and direction
`to the parties during the April 26, 2019 Claim Construction Status Hearing,
`Defendants are filing consolidated Claim Construction and Indefiniteness Briefs.
`Doc. No. 60; Ex. A at 3; Apr. 26, 2019 Status Hr' g Tr. at 9:9-10:9. Given BNR's
`disclosure of Dr. Madisetti' s opinions in a manner directly adverse to ZTE, ZTE
`must address BNR's positions in this consolidated brief. However, ZTE maintains
`and does not waive its objections to BNR's use of Dr. Madisetti for the reasons cited
`in its Motion to Strike. BNR v. ZTE, 3: 18-cv-1786, D.I. 84 (filed May 8, 2019).
`3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM etal.
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`the signal generator / input to the IFT: "expanded long training sequence,"
`
`2 "inventive long training sequence," and "long training sequence." See, e.g. , ' 842 at
`
`3 2:47-3:24; 4:4-59. Yet the patent elsewhere suggests that the "extended long
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`training sequence" differs from the " long training sequence." ' 842 at cl. 16. Even
`
`looking to those terms, the term is indefinite. For example, the specification states
`
`that the "expanded long training sequence and the optimal long training sequence
`
`7 are stored on more than 52 sub-carriers." '842 at Abstract, 2:55-58. This might
`
`8
`
`suggest that a long training sequence is "expanded" if it is on more sub-carriers than
`
`9 a set number. However, that set number changes throughout the specification. See
`
`10
`
`'842 at 2:67-3:3 ("The expanded long training sequence and the optimal expanded
`
`11
`
`long training sequence are stored on more than 56 subcarriers."), 3: 12-15 (" ... stored
`
`12 on more than 63 sub-carriers"). In practice, the number of possible subcarriers can
`
`13 vary by orders of magnitude. See, e.g. , Ex. B (Wells Op. Deel.) at ~ 50 ("IEEE
`
`14 802.16 (WiMAX) is an OFDM-based standard issued by IEEE that specifies various
`
`15
`
`16
`
`subcarrier configurations up to 2,048 subcarriers.").
`
`BNR ' s proposed construction does not resolve the indefiniteness problem.
`
`17 BNR ' s expert overlooks the patent's failure to use this term in the specification, and,
`
`18
`
`instead, summarily concludes that "extended" means "longer"- a term that also
`
`19 does not appear in the specification. See, e.g. , Ex. E (Madisetti Op. Deel.) at ~ 170.
`
`20 Not only does BNR' s construction fail to specify (or provide any bounds to) the
`
`21
`
`requisite number of active sub-carriers, but BNR's construction introduces an
`
`22 additional ground for indefiniteness in referring to an "earlier version of the same
`
`23
`
`standard," thus expanding the scope of the claim to encompass future standards not
`
`24 described at all in the specification. This phrase does not appear in the patent, and it
`
`25
`
`is impossible to discern what an "earlier version of the same standard" is without
`
`26 knowing what the " same standard" is. See, e.g. , Ex. B (Wells Op. Deel.) at ~ 67.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`3:18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3.
`
`"optimal extended long training sequence" (els. 1, 4, 14, 19)
`
`Despite claiming an "optimal extended long training sequence," the '842
`
`3 patent never uses this term. Moreover, the term employs two "terms of degree"-
`
`4
`
`"optimal" and "extended"- without providing objective boundaries to these terms.
`
`5 See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1364. These failings render this term indefinite.
`
`6
`
`According to claim 1, the "extended long training sequence," discussed
`
`7 above, is processed by "the Inverse Fourier Transformer [(IFT)]" to provide this
`
`8
`
`9
`
`"optimal extended long training sequence." ' 842 at cl. 1. The patent, however,
`
`refers to an "optimal expanded long training sequence" as the output of the IFT.
`
`10 See, e.g. , id. at 2:51-67 (emphasis added). Even looking to this other phrasing, the
`
`11
`
`term is indefinite for the same reasons provided above for the term "extended long
`
`12
`
`training sequence"-
`
`i.e. , a failure to provide objective boundaries as to the number
`
`13 of subcarriers sufficient to establish the long training sequence as an "extended" one
`
`14 under whatever standard is alleged to infringe. Indeed, BNR ' s expert appears to
`
`15 contend that this "optimal" term is merely a variation of the "extended long training
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`sequence" term. See, e.g., Ex. E (Madisetti Op. Deel.) at 1 166 (including the
`
`"optimal" terms in his consideration of the "extended long training sequence"
`
`terms). Further, while the dependent claims should narrow claim 1, they further
`
`19 muddy the waters, as one indicates that the "optimal extended long training
`
`20
`
`sequence is carried by at least 56 active sub-carriers," while in another it "is carried
`
`21 by at least 63 active sub-carriers." ' 842 at els. 2, 5. It is insufficient that claim 1
`
`22
`
`indicates that the "optimal extended long training sequence is carried by a greater
`
`23 number of subcarriers than a standard wireless networking configuration for an
`
`24
`
`[OFDM] scheme"- which is itself indefinite, as discussed above- as that provides,
`
`25 at most, an ambiguous lower bound.
`
`26
`
`The word "optimal" is also undefined in the specification. Although BNR ' s
`
`27 position is that the optimal sequence has the "minimal peak-to-average ratio," BNR
`
`28
`
`relies merely on vague discussions in the patent- not on any definitions of what is
`
`9
`
`3:18-cv-1 783-CAB-BLM et al.
`
`
`
`1 "optimal." See, e.g. , Ex. F (Madisetti Reb. Deel.) at ~~ 114, 116. Moreover, the
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`specification appears to place additional restrictions on this sequence. See, e.g. ,
`
`' 842 at 4: 14-18 (stating that the sequence "utilized the same + 1 or -1 binary phase
`
`shift key (BPSK) encoding for each new sub-carrier" and that "the long training
`
`sequence of 802.1 l