Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 1 of 53
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED;
`QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
`ARTERIS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-1331-DAE
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`NETWORK SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
`JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 2 of 53
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`Brief Technical Background ................................................................................................1
`Legal Standard .....................................................................................................................3
`A.
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning ....................................................................................3
`B.
`Means-Plus-Function ...............................................................................................4
`C.
`Definiteness..............................................................................................................5
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................................5
`Disputed Terms ....................................................................................................................6
`A.
`Common Term – “connection” ................................................................................6
`B.
`’818 Patent Term – “dropping means . . . ” ..............................................................9
`C.
`’449 Patent Terms – “resource manager…” and “communication manager” .......13
`1.
`“resource manager” and “communication manager” are physical circuitry
`elements and therefore structural ...............................................................14
`“resource manager” is a “circuit that manages network resources” and no
`prosecution disclaimer applies ...................................................................16
`“communication manager” is a “circuit that managers communication
`between modules” and not subject to 112 ¶ 6 ............................................18
`’052 Patent Term – “interconnect means” .............................................................19
`’9893 Patent Term – “arranging … the first and second information . . . ” ...........22
`’2893 Patent Terms ................................................................................................24
`1.
`“each data package comprising N data elements” .....................................24
`2.
`“data package” ...........................................................................................26
`3.
`“data storage elements”..............................................................................27
`‘800 Patent Terms ..................................................................................................28
`1.
`“optimal amount of data” ...........................................................................28
`2.
`“optimal moment for sending the data . . .” ...............................................32
`3.
`“according to communication properties . . . ” ..........................................35
`4.
`“first determination unit” / “second determination unit” ...........................38
`5.
`“wrapper” ...................................................................................................42
`6.
`“said first wrapper” / “said second wrapper” .............................................44
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................45
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 3 of 53
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`3Com Corp. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 03-cv-2177 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2007) .......................................................................43
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-06233-MCS (AFMx), 2023 WL 7386057 (C.D. Cal. July 7,
`2023) ........................................................................................................................................31
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Comms., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................7
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................4, 12
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................4, 17
`
`Bitmicro LLC v. Kioxia America, Inc., et al.,
`Case 6:22-cv-00331, Dkt. 54 (W.D. Texas Feb. 16, 2023) ...............................................29, 32
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................13
`
`Brocade Commc'ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-03428-LHK, 2012 WL 33251 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2012) .......................................23
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................5, 19
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Fujitsu Network Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00076-JRG, 2021 WL 465430 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021) ..................................15
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-880-JDL, 2015 WL 11549073 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2015) .................................23
`
`CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
`418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................8
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc.,
`Case No. A-10-CA-652-SS (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2011).............................................................43
`
`Ecolab v. Envirochem,
`264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................8
`
`ii
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 4 of 53
`
`
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................10, 20
`
`Fiber, LLC v. Ciena Corp.,
`792 Fed. Appx. 789 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................13
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................5, 12, 29
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................31
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`Jeneric/Pentron Inc. v. Dillon Co.,
`205 F.3d 1377, 54 USPQ2d 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................8
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
`175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................23
`
`King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................8
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................7
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................12
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................12
`
`Mass. Inst. Of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, L.P. v. Intel Corp.,
`249 Fed. Appx 184 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................13
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................3
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................24
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................13
`
`iii
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 5 of 53
`
`
`
`MIT v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................17
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................13
`
`O2 Micro, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F. 3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)...............................................................................................36
`
`Oilfield Equip. Mktg., Inc. v. New Tech Sys., Inc.,
`No. CIV.A. MO-02-CA-183, 2005 WL 6258387 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2005),
`aff'd, 227 F. App’x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................35, 37
`
`Openwave Sys. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................22
`
`Optimum Processing Solutions LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB, 2012 WL 13001400 (N.D. Ga. July 10, 2012) ...........................13, 31
`
`In Re Papst Licensing Gmbh & Co. Kg Litigation,
`Case 1:07-mc-00493-RMC (D.C. Dist. Nov. 24, 2009) ..........................................................43
`
`Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm'n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................40
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................11
`
`SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................22
`
`SFA Sys., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:09-CV-340, 2011 WL 3476462 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2011) ............................................15
`
`Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek s.a.r.l.,
`859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir 2017)...............................................................................................4, 9
`
`Sybase, Inc. v. Vertica Systems, Inc.,
`Case NO. 6:08-cv-0024 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2010) .................................................................36
`
`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). ...................................................................................................................................15
`
`iv
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 6 of 53
`
`
`
`In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien,
`747 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................19
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................3, 4, 8, 17
`
`Tivi, Inc. v. AT&T, et al.,
`Case No. 2:09-cv-259 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011) ....................................................................43
`
`Toro Co. v. White Cons. Indus., Inc.,
`266 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................8
`
`Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus.,
`53 F.3d 1270, 35 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .....................................................................8
`
`Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Cellco P’ship,
`No. 6:20-CV-01175-ADA, 2023 WL 2415583 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023) .............................29
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................15
`
`WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC,
`Appeal No. 2022-1066, 2023 WL 6210607 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2023) ...................................13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ....................................................................................................................5, 12, 29
`
`
`
`v
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 7 of 53
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 80), Plaintiff Network System
`
`Technologies, LLC (“NST”) respectfully submits this brief in response to Qualcomm, Inc.’s,
`
`Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.’s and Arteris, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Defendants”) Joint Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 77, hereinafter “Br.”).
`
`Through its proposed constructions, Defendants seek to unduly and unfairly limit the scope
`
`of the disputed claim terms by: 1) improperly importing limitations from the patent specifications,
`
`a “cardinal sin” of patent law; 2) seeking to construe plainly structural claim terms under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6; or 3) limiting the claims based on alleged prosecution history disclaimers that are far
`
`from the “clear and unmistakable” threshold required by the law and are, in fact, nonexistent.
`
`NST’s constructions, on the other hand, faithfully hew to the language of the claims and the patent
`
`specifications, which are the primary sources of claim construction evidence.
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions should be rejected in favor of NST’s constructions, as
`
`demonstrated below.
`
`II.
`
`Brief Technical Background1
`
`The Asserted Patents—U.S. 7,366,818 (“’818 Patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit 1); U.S.
`
`7,373,449 (“’449 Patent,” Exhibit 2); U.S. 7,594,052 (“’052 Patent,” Exhibit 3); U.S. 7,769,893
`
`(“’9893 Patent,” Exhibit 4); U.S. 8,072,893 (“’2893 Patent,” Exhibit 5); and U.S. 8,086,800 (“’800
`
`Patent,” Exhibit 6)—all generally relate to integrated circuits having a plurality of circuitry
`
`modules that are communicatively interconnected via network-on-chip (“NoC”) interconnects.
`
`System-on-chip (“SoC”) technology is widely used in consumer electronics and computing
`
`
`1 NST respectfully directs the Court to its forthcoming Technical Tutorial, to be served on
`December 18, 2023, (see Dkt. 80), for further background of the technology and the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 8 of 53
`
`
`
`devices, including smartphones, laptops, and embedded systems such as vehicle infotainment and
`
`advanced driver assistance systems. Dkt. 57 ¶ 204. As the adoption of SoCs in electronic devices
`
`grew over time, and as microchip manufacturing technology advanced, more processing cores and
`
`other circuitry modules were incorporated into SoCs. Id. ¶ 205. In early SoC designs, these
`
`circuitry modules were directly connected, first by point-to-point interconnects, and later by shared
`
`buses, both of which resulted in large SoCs with poor interconnect efficiency. Id.; see also
`
`Declaration of Dr. Erik Chmelar (“Chmelar Decl.” attached hereto as Exhibit 7), ¶¶ 29-32. Though
`
`more efficient than point-to-point interconnects, buses suffered from a critical limitation insofar as
`
`only one module can send data to the bus at a time and the others must wait their turn. ’818 Patent
`
`at 1:33-34. Thus, as the number of circuitry modules increased, buses became a bottleneck limiting
`
`the number of circuitry modules that could be practicably interconnected—and therefore, limited
`
`the potential power and capability of SoCs. Id.
`
`To eliminate this bottleneck, the inventors of the Asserted Patents at Philips Semiconductor
`
`developed advanced network-on-chip (“NoC”) technologies. An NoC is a substantially different
`
`interconnection paradigm for on-chip communication that leverages certain aspects of traditional
`
`computer networks, such as network interfaces for connecting modules to an on-chip network,
`
`packetized data for breaking messages up into smaller units for transmission by the on-chip
`
`network, and routers for switching of data packets along various routes. Chmelar Decl. ¶¶ 32. In
`
`an NoC, a message transmitted from one module to another may be divided into smaller packets
`
`by a network interface and those packets may travel across the NoC using different routes
`
`determined by the routers in the NoC. Id. Each interconnection between routers may be called a
`
`“hop,” such that the NoC is a “multi-hop” interconnection between modules separated by routers,
`
`or network nodes. Id. ¶¶ 32, 34. Accordingly, an NoC is an “indirect” interconnection between
`
`2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 9 of 53
`
`
`
`modules. Id. ¶¶ 135, 143. This is distinctly different from a shared bus, where data transmitted
`
`from one module to another always takes the same route, and is therefore a “direct” interconnection
`
`between modules. Id. ¶ 29, 32.
`
`Besides overcoming the bottleneck of shared buses, NoCs have other advantages over
`
`prior, direct, interconnections. Because NoCs can utilize interconnects more efficiently than shared
`
`buses, fewer interconnects are required. Id. ¶¶ 32-36. This reduces the area and power consumption
`
`of the on-chip interconnects of an SoC compared to shared buses. Id. ¶¶ 82, 110, 195. Additionally,
`
`by moving the communications logic of a circuitry module to a dedicated network interface that
`
`connects the module to the NoC, the modules can be simpler and more modular, which enables
`
`even higher levels of integration at lower design costs. ʼ818 Patent at 1:67–2:16;’449 Patent at 1:66–
`
`2:15; ’052 Patent at 1:64–2:12; ’9893 Patent at 1:65–2:11; ’800 Patent at 1:64–2:2.
`
`Although NoCs leverage certain aspects of traditional computer networks, the on-chip
`
`environment of NoCs introduces several constraints and challenges not present in the off-chip
`
`environment. ’818 Patent at 1:62-2:6. For example, there is substantially less memory and
`
`computational resources in the on-chip environment that can be dedicated to network processing.
`
`Id. at 2:44-50, 3:7-22, 3:31-35. The Asserted Patents address these challenges.
`
`III. Legal Standard
`
`A.
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`The “words of a claim” are understood according to their plain and ordinary meaning in
`
`the context of the surrounding claim limitations, the specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`However, “we must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the
`
`prosecution history,” since importing limitations is one of the “cardinal sins of patent law.”
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 10 of 53
`
`
`
`The “words of a claim” are not given their plain meaning only when the patentee “acts as
`
`his own lexicographer” or “disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or
`
`during prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. The standard for lexicography is exacting. Id. at
`
`1365-67. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning,” and occurs only when the patentee
`
`explicitly discloses that a term “means” a particular definition or “is defined.” Id. The “standard
`
`for disavowal of claim scope is similarly exacting.” Id. The intrinsic evidence must provide
`
`“expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,” clarifying that the invention does not include a
`
`particular feature. Id. “Where the alleged disavowal is ambiguous,” courts do not apply the
`
`doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer. Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1045
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function
`
`“In determining whether a claim term invokes § 112, ¶ 6, the essential inquiry is not merely
`
`the presence or absence of the word ‘means’ but whether the words of the claim are understood by
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”
`
`Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1019 (Fed. Cir 2017) (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted). While the word “means” triggers a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, this can
`
`be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence when “consider[ing] the limitations as a whole”
`
`according to the “understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer,
`
`Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations, citations, and modifications
`
`omitted). “[W]hen a claim uses the term ‘means,’ the focus is on whether the claim term recites no
`
`function corresponding to the means or recites sufficient structure or material for performing that
`
`function.” Id. at 1372 (internal quotations omitted). To further “hold that a claim containing a
`
`means-plus-function limitation lacks a disclosure of structure” “requires [an additional] finding,
`
`4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 11 of 53
`
`
`
`by clear and convincing evidence, that the specification lacks disclosure of structure sufficient to
`
`be understood by one skilled in the art as being adequate to perform the recited function.” Budde
`
`v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`C.
`
`Definiteness
`
`Definiteness is evaluated from the perspective of someone “skilled in the relevant art.”
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 909 (2014). “[T]he certainty which the law
`
`requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter.” Id. at
`
`910 (quoting Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916)). Terms of degree are
`
`not “inherently indefinite,” and “absolute or mathematical precision is not required.” Interval
`
`Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Indefiniteness requires a showing of “clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan
`
`could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, and
`
`the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area.” Halliburton Energy
`
`Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249-50 (Fed. Cir. 2008); 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`IV.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`NST’s expert, Dr. Chmelar, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`
`the time of the invention of the Asserted Patents is an individual having at least: a Bachelor of
`
`Science (or equivalent) degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field,
`
`and 2-3 years of work experience in very large-scale integrated (“VLSI”) systems, such as
`
`application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), application-specific standard parts (“ASSPs”),
`
`system-on-chip (“SoC”), or field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), and has an understanding
`
`of on-chip interconnection networks. Chmelar Decl. ¶ 26.
`
`Defendants’ expert, Dr. Hassoun, posits an even higher skill level: at least either a Master’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, or related field, as well as at least three years of work experience
`
`5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 12 of 53
`
`
`
`in the field of SoC design, or a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or related field, as
`
`well as at least five years of work experience in the field of SoC design.
`
`Neither expert has opined that this discrepancy would have an impact on their conclusions
`
`as to the constructions of the various terms.
`
`V.
`
`Disputed Terms
`
`A.
`
`Common Term – “connection”
`
`Claim Term
`“connection”
`
`ʾ818 Patent, Claim 1
`ʾ449 Patent, Claims 10, 13-16
`ʾ052 Patent, Claim 6
`ʾ9893 Patent, Claims 4-10
`ʾ800 Patent, Claim 12
`
`NST’s Construction
`“one or more
`communication
`channels”
`
`Defendants’ 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”
`
`Consistent with the Parties’ agreement that “connection” should be afforded the same
`
`meaning across all five patents containing the term, NST’s construction as “one or more
`
`communication channels” reflects the understanding of a POSITA in light of the specifications of
`
`all five patents. Chmelar Decl. ¶ 53. Defendants’ construction, on the other hand, improperly seeks
`
`to import an additional functional limitation that the connections “are created before use and closed
`
`after use,” which is neither required by the claims nor mentioned in any patent’s specification.2 Id.
`
`¶ 54. Importing limitations from a patent’s specification is prohibited; importing them from
`
`another patent’s specification is unheard of. Defendants’ construction must be rejected.
`
`Instead, NST’s proposed construction of “connection” as “one or more communication
`
`
`2 As Defendants acknowledge, the sole specification passage they rely upon for the “created before
`use and closed after use” portion of their construction is only present in three of the patents with a
`“substantively identical statement” in the fourth. (Br. at 7, n.5.) Implicit is an admission that there
`is no such statement in the fifth patent containing the term “connection.” See id.; see also Chmelar
`Decl. ¶ 54 (discussing ’800 Patent’s lack of support for Defendants’ additional limitations).
`
`6
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 13 of 53
`
`
`
`channels” is supported by the specifications of all five Asserted Patents containing the term.
`
`Chmelar Decl. ¶ 53 (citing ʾ818 Patent at 6:36-38; ʾ449 Patent at 8:17-18; ʾ052 Patent at 4:53-55;
`
`ʾ9893 Patent at 4:56-58; ʾ800 Patent at 5:16-18).3 In light of this intrinsic evidence, a POSITA
`
`would understand that “connection” means “one or more communication channels.” Id. ¶¶ 52-53.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction imports functional limitations that are not found in the
`
`claims. While the specifications for a subset of the Asserted Patents indicate that connections may
`
`be created or closed,4 the claims themselves do not recite these additional functional steps. Id. ¶¶
`
`53-54; ʾ818 Patent, Claims 1-3, 5-7; ʾ449 Patent, Claims 10-16; ʾ052 Patent, Claim 6; ʾ9893 Patent,
`
`Claims 4-11; ʾ800 Patent, Claim 12. It is well-settled that “the claims, not the written description,
`
`[] define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original); AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Comms., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1236, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“every claim need not contain every feature taught in the
`
`specification”). Of the patents that contain the term “connection,” only Claim 10 of the ’449 Patent
`
`includes a limitation related to the establishment of a connection: “the target connection between
`
`the first and second module being established based on the available properties of said
`
`
`3 Each of these cited passages make clear that the “communication channels” included in NST’s
`construction require “connection properties” (which are an agreed term, see Brief at 6). See
`Chmelar Decl. ¶¶ 38-39. Thus, Defendants’ strawman attack on NST’s construction, asserting that
`it “requires nothing more than a wire,” fails. Id. ¶¶ 38-39; see also id. ¶¶ 57-58 (explaining
`communication channels). Defendants’ attack on NST’s construction also incorrectly conflate
`“connection-based” with “connection.” Id. ¶¶ 55-56. As Dr. Chmelar explains, and as the intrinsic
`record confirms, a system can use “connections” without being “connection based.” Id.
`4 As Defendants concede, the specification passages that indicate the that connections may (rather
`than “must”) be opened or closed. Opening Br. at 8-9 (citing ʾ449 Patent at 7:64-65 (“a connection
`requiring some properties is opened or not depending on the availability of these resources”); ʾ449
`Patent at 10:55-61 (“the communication manger CM issues a request to said resource manager RM
`to reset the connection or the connection properties); ʾ449 Patent at 6:63-7:1 (“[t]o avoid buffer
`overflow connections can be used); ʾ449 Patent at 16:32-45 (“[a] connection could be opened as
`follows”); ʾ9893 Patent at 9:56-60 (“[c]onnections can be configured independently”).
`
`7
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 14 of 53
`
`
`
`communication channels of said connection.” ’449 Patent, Claim 10. But this limitation says
`
`nothing of Defendants’ proposed construction that the connection be “created before use and
`
`closed after use.” If the inventors intended to limit the claims in this manner, they would have
`
`added language to that effect. Intentional omission of language must be given effect; claims cannot
`
`be rewritten to add unrecited limitations. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (“We do not read limitations
`
`from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`It is a fundamental error of claim construction to import limitations from the specification
`
`into the claims. CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[i]n
`
`examining the specification for proper context, however, this court will not at any time import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims”); King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d
`
`1267, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[i]t would be improper to limit the broad terms used in the […]
`
`patent’s claims to the specific […] conditions disclosed in the written description.”).
`
`Even worse, Defendants’ proposed construction impermissibly imports a functional
`
`limitation into a structural term, “connection.” However, the law is clear that “[a]n invention
`
`claimed in purely structural terms generally resists functional limitation.” Toro Co. v. White Cons.
`
`Indus., Inc., 266 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Ecolab v. Envirochem, 264 F.3d 1358,
`
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Where the function is not recited in the claim itself by the patentee, we do
`
`not import such a limitation.”); Jeneric/Pentron Inc. v. Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377, 1382, 54
`
`USPQ2d 1086, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., 53 F.3d 1270, 1278, 35
`
`USPQ2d 1035, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court erred by importing functional
`
`limitations into a structural claim element because functions that are not recited in a claim are not
`
`legally relevant to the literal language of the claim).
`
`Because Defendants’ proposed construction improperly imports unwarranted functional
`
`8
`
`Samsung Ex. 1021
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-DAE Document 81 Filed 11/16/23 Page 15 of 53
`
`
`
`limitations into the claims, NST’s construction should be adopted.
`
`B.
`
`’818 Patent Term – “dropping means . . . ”
`
`Clai