Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 54
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`NETWORK SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED;
`QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
`ARTERIS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-1331
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 54
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 2
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function Terms ................................................................................... 4
`
`
`III. Agreed Upon Claim Constructions ..................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Disputed Claim Terms ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`A.
`
`Common Term – “connection” (’818, ’449, ’052, ’9893, ’800 Patents) ................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`’818 Patent Term – “dropping means (DM) for dropping data exchanged by said
`first and second module (M, S) / a first dropping means (DM) for dropping data /
`said dropping means (DM)”...................................................................................11
`
`C.
`
`’449 Patent Terms ................................................................................................. 16
`
`1.
`
`“resource manager determining whether a target connection with the
`desired connection properties is available” ............................................... 16
`
`2.
`
`“communication manager” ....................................................................... 18
`
`D.
`
`’052 Patent Term – “interconnect means” ............................................................ 22
`
`E.
`
`’9893 Patent Term – “arranging . . . the first and second information comprising
`said issued message as a single address” .............................................................. 24
`
`F.
`
`’2893 Patent Terms ............................................................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`“each data package comprising N data elements” .................................... 25
`
`2.
`
`“data package” .......................................................................................... 30
`
`3.
`
`“data storage elements”............................................................................. 30
`
`G.
`
`’800 Patent Terms ................................................................................................. 32
`
`1.
`
`“optimal amount of data” .......................................................................... 32
`
`i
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 3 of 54
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“optimal moment for sending the data in said first wrapper or said second
`wrapper” .................................................................................................... 35
`
`“according to communication properties of the communication between
`the master and the slave, wherein the communication properties include
`ordering of data transport, flow control including when a remote buffer is
`reserved for a connection, then a data producer will be allowed to send
`data only when it is guaranteed that space is available for the produced
`data at the remote buffer, throughput where a lower bound on throughput
`is guaranteed, latency where an upper bound for latency is guaranteed,
`lossiness including dropping of data, transmission termination, transaction
`completion, data correctness, priority, and data delivery” ........................ 38
`
`4.
`
`“first determination unit” / “second determination unit” .......................... 40
`
`5.
`
`“said first wrapper” / “said second wrapper” ............................................ 43
`
`6.
`
`“wrapper” .................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 4 of 54
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-06233-MCS (AFMx), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117167, at *19-20
`(C.D. Cal. July 7, 2023) ...................................................................................................... 34, 37
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`BASF Agro B.V. v. Makhteshim Agan of N. Am., Inc.,
`519 Fed. Appx. 1008 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2013) ........................................................................ 18
`
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Boss Control, Inc. v. Bombardier Inc.,
`410 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Clare v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,
`819 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................11
`
`
`Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC,
`899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 14, 41
`
`
`Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp,
`653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 5 of 54
`
`
`Fiber, LLC v. Ciena Corp.,
`792 Fed. Appx. 789 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`
`Gen. Electric Co. v. Wabash Co.,
`304 U.S. 364 (1938) .................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................11
`
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 43
`
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 32
`
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 32
`
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC,
`22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Mangosoft, Inc. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 02-545-SM, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19357 (D.N.H. Sep. 21, 2004) ................................. 26
`
`
`Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd.,
`No. 07-cv-00006-PB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112502, *25-26
`(D.N.H. Aug. 9, 2012)............................................................................................................... 16
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, L.P. v. Intel Corp.,
`249 Fed. Appx 184 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 6 of 54
`
`
`Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu,
`933 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 4, 24, 32
`
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`Optimum Processing Sols. V. Advanced Micro Devices,
`Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-1098-TCB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203463, at *39-40
`(N.D. Ga. July 10, 2012) ........................................................................................................... 35
`
`
`Optimum Processing Solutions LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203463, *67-69
`(N.D. Ga. July 10, 2012) ..................................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 3, 8, 29
`
`
`Quanergy Sys. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1406, 1415-16 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................11
`
`
`Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V.,
`864 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp.,
`164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co.,
`270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc.,
` No. 16-cv-00119, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201981, at *30-33
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017) ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Team Worldwide Corp. v. Intex Rec. Corp.,
`No. 2020-1975, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27284, at *19 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................. 14
`
`
`Trs. Of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 7 of 54
`
`TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`861 Fed. Appx. 453 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ 25
`
`
`Twin Peaks Software Inc. v. IBM Corp.,
`690 Fed. Appx. 656 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2017) ............................................................................ 5
`
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 5, 18, 20, 41
`
`
`WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC,
`Appeal No. 2022-1064, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26584 at *11-12
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023) ....................................................................................................... 19, 41
`
`
`WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC,
`Appeal No. 2022-1066, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25255 at *13-19
`(Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2023) .............................................................................................. 13, 15, 41
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................... 4, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 8 of 54
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Modern electronic equipment (e.g., computers and cellphones) contains very complex
`
`integrated circuits having a variety of modules (such as processors and memories) formed on a
`
`single chip. Networks-on-chip (“NoCs”) are one category of technology that can be used to
`
`facilitate communication between these modules.
`
`Plaintiff Network System Technologies, LLC (“NST”) asserts that Defendants Qualcomm
`
`Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) and Arteris, Inc.
`
`(“Arteris”) infringe six patents on NoC technology.1 The Asserted Patents disclose and claim
`
`specific aspects of one implementation of one type of NoC. At the time these patents were filed,
`
`NoC technology was not new. Among the companies engaged in development of NoC
`
`technology at that time was Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (“Philips”), the original owner of
`
`the Asserted Patents. As a result, these patents are directed to design and implementation
`
`decisions that were made by Philips for its “Æthereal NoC” that was designed for specific use
`
`cases. Those use cases were far different from the advanced, low-power uses cases in the markets
`
`in which Qualcomm sells its products.2 The specific design choices that Philips made for its
`
`products are reflected in the language used in the claims of the Asserted Patents. NST’s attempt
`
`to either avoid construction or to construe claim terms in a way that is much broader than is
`
`supported by the claims, specifications and prosecution histories of the Asserted Patents should
`
`be rejected.
`
`
`1 The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,366,818 (“the ’818 patent”), 7,373,449 (“the ’449
`patent), 7,594,052 (“the ’052 patent), 7,769,893 (“the ’9893 patent), 8,072,893 (“the ’2893
`patent), 8,086,800 (“the ’800 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents” or “patents-in-suit”).
`Copies of the Asserted Patents are submitted herewith as Exhibits 2-7.
`
` 2
`
` Arteris does not sell integrated circuit products, but rather markets software tools used to
`facilitate NoC design.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 9 of 54
`
`Many claims asserted by NST in this case are also fatally flawed and invalid as a matter
`
`of claim construction. Perhaps the most egregious example is NST’s improper functional
`
`claiming. The Patent Act permits a patentee to recite claim elements functionally rather than
`
`structurally—so-called “means plus function” claiming—but only if the specification discloses
`
`specific structure that is clearly linked to performing the recited function. The claim limitation is
`
`then construed to cover the disclosed structure and equivalents thereof, as opposed to any means
`
`that perform the recited function. Three of the six Asserted Patents use improper functional
`
`claiming without the specification describing any structure that provides this function. A second
`
`example is the use of terms that are incomprehensible and/or do not include objective
`
`boundaries, such as “optimal amount.” These flaws render the patents invalid as indefinite.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The meaning of terms used in a patent claim is a question of law. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 391 (1996). The purpose of claim construction is to resolve the
`
`“disputed meanings and technical scope [of the claims], to clarify and when necessary to explain
`
`what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement.” U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim construction is not
`
`an exercise in rewriting claims, but rather an opportunity to “give effect to the terms chosen by
`
`the patentee.” K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Court, not
`
`the jury, must construe the claims. Markman, 517 U.S. at 372.
`
`“Claim interpretation begins with an examination of the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the
`
`claims, the rest of the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.” CCS Fitness,
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Intrinsic evidence “is the most
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 10 of 54
`
`significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp.
`
`v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`“[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). The ordinary and customary meaning 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….” Id. at 1313.
`
`Claims “are part of a fully integrated written instrument consisting principally of a
`
`specification that concludes with the claims” and “must be read in view of the specification, of
`
`which they are a part.” Id. at 1315. Accordingly, 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.” Id. Courts look “to the specification to ascertain the meaning of the
`
`claim term as it is used by the inventor in the context of the entirety of his invention, and not
`
`merely to limit a claim term.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323,
`
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, “[p]roperly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is
`
`its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321.
`
`“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the [patent
`
`office] and the inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The prosecution
`
`history “can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor
`
`understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of
`
`prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id.
`
`The Court may also consult “extrinsic evidence,” which is “all evidence external to the
`
`patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`
`treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence “can shed useful light on the relevant
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 11 of 54
`
`art,” but it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning” of the claims. Id. It is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence when “an analysis of the
`
`intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d
`
`at 1583.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc.
`
`v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Patent claims must particularly
`
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, must “inform those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
`
`Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). If it does not, the claim fails § 112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid as
`
`indefinite. Id. at 901. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application was filed. Id. at 911.
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function Terms
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 authorizes a patentee to recite a claim element as a means for
`
`performing a function without reciting the structure that performs the function in the claim. In
`
`that instance, the claim is construed to cover “the corresponding structure . . . described in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (2010).3 “Construing a means-plus-
`
`function claim term is a two-step process. The court must first identify the claimed function.
`
`Then, the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds
`
`
`3 The 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) renumbered Section 112, ¶ 6 to 112(f). The Asserted
`Patents predate the effective date of the AIA, so Defendants refer to the pre-AIA section
`numbering.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 12 of 54
`
`to the claimed function.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(en banc).
`
`When a claim uses the word “means” in conjunction with a function, § 112, ¶ 6
`
`presumptively applies. Id. at 1347–49. Conversely, § 112, ¶ 6 presumptively does not apply to a
`
`functional claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but that presumption is overcome
`
`when the limitation “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites [a] function
`
`without reciting sufficiently definite structure for performing that function.” Id. at 1348 (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). “One way to demonstrate that a claim limitation fails to recite
`
`sufficiently definite structure is to show that, although not employing the word ‘means,’ the
`
`claim limitation uses similar ‘nonce words that can operate as a substitute for ‘means’” such as
`
`“‘module,’ ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ and ‘device’.” MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336,
`
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`The quid pro quo for functional claiming under § 112, ¶ 6 is that the specification must
`
`disclose at least one structure for performing the claimed function, and either the specification or
`
`prosecution history must “clearly link or associate” that structure to the function. Twin Peaks
`
`Software Inc. v. IBM Corp., 690 Fed. Appx. 656, 664 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2017); Rain Computing,
`
`Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2021). If the specification does
`
`not disclose such a structure, then the claim is invalid as indefinite. Id.
`
`III. AGREED UPON CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree that the following claim terms should be construed as follows.
`
`Patent Claim Term
`’818
`1
`Preamble
`’449
`10
`’052
`6
`’9893
`4
`’2893
`10
`
`Agreed Construction
`The preamble is limiting.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 13 of 54
`
`’800
`’449
`’052
`’9893
`
`12
`10
`6
`4
`
`“connection
`properties”
`
`“properties of a connection, including ordering (data
`transport in order), flow control (a remote buffer is
`reserved for a connection, and a data producer will be
`allowed to send data only when it is guaranteed that space
`is available for the produced data), throughput (a lower
`bound on throughput is guaranteed), latency (upper
`bound for latency is guaranteed), the lossiness (dropping
`of data), transmission termination, transaction
`completion, data correctness, priority, or data delivery”
`“controlling flow whereby a remote buffer is reserved for
`a connection, and a data producer will be allowed to send
`data only when it is guaranteed that space is available for
`the produced data”
`“at least one switch and at least one router”
`
`“Able to be configured with connection properties that do
`not depend on those of another configuration.”
`“Multi-hop interconnection between modules separated
`by one or more network nodes”
`
`“flow control”
`
`“at least one of
`a switch and a
`router”
`“independently
`configurable”
`“network”
`
`’449
`’9893
`’800
`
`13
`8
`12
`
`’449
`
`11
`
`’449
`
`10
`
`’818
`’449
`’9,893
`’2,893
`’800
`’818
`’449
`’052
`’9,893
`’2,893
`’800
`
`1-2
`10-12
`14
`4, 11
`12
`1-3, 5-7
`10
`6
`4
`10
`12
`
`“integrated
`circuit”
`
`“Interconnected circuitry on a chip”
`
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS4
`
`A.
`
`Common Term – “connection” (’818, ’449, ’052, ’9893, ’800 Patents)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“one or more channels, each having a set of
`connection properties, between a first module
`and at least one second module, that are
`created before use and closed after use”
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`“one or more communication channels”
`
`
`4 NST is asserting one independent claim from each of the Asserted Patents (’818 patent, claim 1;
`’449 patent, claim 10; ’052 patent, claim 6; ’9893 patent, claim 4; ’2893 patent, claim 10; ’800
`patent, claim 12) in addition to some dependent claims. Each disputed term appears in the
`asserted independent claim of the relevant patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 14 of 54
`
`The parties agree that the Court should construe the claim term “connection” in light of
`
`the specifications of the patents-in-suit. Neither party is arguing the correct construction is the
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” divorced from the specifications. This is because the specifications
`
`are very clear that “connection” has a particular meaning in the context of the alleged invention.
`
`First, the specifications define what a “connection” “is” and what it “must” do:
`
`At the transport layer of said network, the communication between modules are
`performed over connections. A connection is considered as a set of channels,
`each having a set of connection properties, between a first module and at
`least one second module.
`
`
`* * * *
`
`The connections according to the embodiments of the invention must be first
`created or established with the desired properties before being used. . . . After
`usage, connections are closed, which leads to freeing the resources occupied by
`that connection.
`
`’818 patent at 6:34-38, 10:25-34 (emphasis added); see also ’449 patent at 8:48-52, 10:62-11:3;
`
`’052 patent at 4:50-55, 5:44-49; ’800 patent at 5:13-18; ’9893 patent at 4:54-58; 10:34-42.5
`
`When the specification uses words that indicate a particular definition of a claim term, that
`
`definition applies as a matter of lexicography. See, e.g., Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC,
`
`22 F.4th 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding lexicography based on the statement “This bottom
`
`position is also sometimes referred to herein as the ‘driven position’”); Boss Control, Inc. v.
`
`Bombardier Inc., 410 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding lexicography applied to the term
`
`“interrupt” based on specification statement regarding how the interrupt of the invention
`
`operated). Defendants’ proposed construction properly reflects these definitional statements: a
`
`
`5 This is not a case where the patents-in-suit all contain a common specification; the
`specifications of the five patents at issue for this term are all distinctly different. Despite their
`differences, however, the underlined portion of the first passage above appears verbatim in all
`five patents, while the second passage appears verbatim in three of the patents, with a
`substantively identical statement in a fourth.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 15 of 54
`
`“connection” is one or more channels (i.e., “a set of channels”), each having a set of connection
`
`properties, between a first module and at least one second module, that are created before use
`
`(i.e., “must be first created or established . . . before being used”) and closed after use (i.e., “after
`
`usage, connections are closed”).
`
`In addition to lexicography, these statements in the specifications also reflect the meaning
`
`the term “connection” would have to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1321 (“Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the
`
`ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”). In computer networking, communications are
`
`often referred to as either “connection-oriented” or “connectionless”. Hassoun Decl. at ¶¶45-54.
`
`A 1996 computer networking textbook by Tanenbaum describes this distinction, using the
`
`analogies of communicating via a telephone or via the mail:
`
`Connection-oriented service is modeled after the telephone system. To talk to
`someone, you pick up the phone, dial the number, talk, and then hang up.
`Similarly, to use a connection-oriented network service, the service user first
`establishes a connection, uses the connection, and then releases the connection.
`
`*
`*
`*
`In contrast, connectionless service is modeled after the postal system. Each
`message (letter) carries the full destination address, and each one is routed
`through the system independent of all the others.
`
`
`Ex. 8 at 23 (emphasis in original); see also Ex. 9 (The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard
`
`Terms, 7th Ed.) at 220-221. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand
`
`that the Asserted Patents use “connection” in this sense of the phone analogy discussed in
`
`Tanenbaum, where a connection is an end-to-end channel (i.e., between modules) that needs to
`
`be created between the sender and the receiver before it is used. Hassoun Decl. at ¶¶45-54.
`
`In addition to the specification language quoted above stating that connections according to the
`
`“invention” must first be “created or established” and “[a]fter usage” “are closed,” the patents
`
`repeatedly describe “connections” being created, used, and then closed. Id., ¶51. The ’449 patent
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung Ex. 1011
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 77 Filed 10/12/23 Page 16 of 54
`
`in particular is replete with such descriptions. The Summary of the Invention of the ‘449 patent
`
`describes how modules of the allegedly-novel integrated circuit communicate, starting with a
`
`module issuing a “request for a connection” and culminating in a connection between modules
`
`being “established based on the available properties