Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 38
`
`Defendants.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and EERO LLC.
`
`
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-619-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-620-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-622-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 38
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`MERAKI LLC
`
`
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-623-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-625-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-626-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 38
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-646-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-694-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-695-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND DELL
`INC.,
`
`
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`HP INC.,
`
`
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO
`TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff XR Communications LLC dba Vivato Technologies’
`Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGIES ............................................... 1
`A. THE ‘939 PATENT ................................................................................................................ 1
`B. THE ‘376 AND ‘235 PATENTS ............................................................................................ 2
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES ........................................................................... 2
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 4
`“SIGNAL TRANSMISSION/RECEPTION COORDINATION LOGIC” (’939 PATENT, ALL
`A.
`CLAIMS) ......................................................................................................................... 4
`1.
`If §112(6) applies, the ’939 Patent discloses adequate, clearly linked
`corresponding structure in the descriptions of “signal reception/coordination
`logic 404” in the specification ............................................................................ 6
`The R&R found that this term is subject to means-plus-function treatment, but
`that finding was made before the Federal Circuit’s latest guidance in Dyfan v.
`Target Corp., under which this term recites sufficiently definite structure ..... 11
`“802.11” (’939 PATENT, CL. 3, 19, 32; ’376 PATENT, CL. 10 AND 21) .......................... 14
`“TRANSMISSION NULLS”; ’235 PATENT, CLAIMS 2, 4, 8, 12, 16; ‘’376 PATENT, CLAIMS 1,
`12, 22, 30, 32 ............................................................................................................... 14
`“TRANSMISSION PEAKS” (’235, CLAIMS 2, 4, 8, 12, 16; ’376, CLAIMS 1, 12, 22, 30, 32) 15
`“THIRD SIGNAL COMPRISING CONTENT BASED ON THE SET OF WEIGHTING VALUES”
`(’235 PATENT, CLAIMS 1, 8 AND 15) ............................................................................ 19
`“THE SET OF WEIGHTING VALUES IS CONFIGURED TO BE USED BY THE [REMOTE
`STATION/TRANSCEIVER] TO CONSTRUCT ONE OR MORE BEAM-FORMED TRANSMISSION
`SIGNALS” (’235 PATENT, CLAIMS 1, 8, 15) ................................................................... 20
`1. Geneva Pharmaceuticals is inapplicable because the claims do not require a
`combination with an unclaimed device or object for a POSITA to ascertain
`whether they are infringed. ............................................................................... 21
`2. Geneva Pharmaceuticals is also inapposite because the same apparatus cannot
`both infringe and not infringe the claims depending on some unclaimed
`contingent possibility. ....................................................................................... 23
`“REMOTE STATION” (’235 PATENT, CLAIMS 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 15) ...................................... 25
`1. Defendants’ proposal contradicts the intrinsic record. ..................................... 25
`2.
`Extrinsic evidence does not support Defendants’ proposal. ............................. 29
`V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 30
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 5 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 3
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comput., Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 13
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 20
`Callabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,
`2019 WL 3595450 (Fed. Cir. 2019). ........................................................................................... 4
`Dyfan v. Target Corp.,
`28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2022) ............................................................................ 11, 13
`Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................. 11
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................... 3, 15, 25
`Geneva Pharms. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
`349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................... 21, 22, 24
`JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 3, 19, 26
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`790 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................... 4
`Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................... 8
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 20
`Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 3
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................... 2, 14, 26
`Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. 3, 25
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................................... passim
`Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 6 of 38
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................... 24, 26
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 20
`Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
` 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................................................. 9
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................... 2
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................... 3, 15, 25
`US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................... 2
`VDPP LLC v. Vizio Inc.,
`No. 2021 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2022) ................................................................................................ 13
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................... 3
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................... 4
`VR Optics LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
` 345 F. Supp. 3d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ..................................................................................... 12
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 7 of 38
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato Technologies (“Vivato”) and Defendants1
`offer not just competing claim construction proposals but completely different approaches to claim
`construction. Vivato’s proposals stay consistent with the terms’ plain meaning and the intrinsic
`record, and clarify that meaning only when necessary under controlling law, or when helpful to
`narrow the disputes for the Court. Defendants’ proposals, on the other hand, ask this Court to
`recharacterize and burden clear terms by importing artificial and extraneous baggage, often from
`extrinsic evidence that they have cherry-picked to support their litigation-driven proposed
`constructions. But Defendants cannot identify any clear and unmistakable disclaimer or clear
`lexicography to support re-defining these terms. Thus, accepting their constructions can only invite
`reversible error. Defendants’ proposals should be rejected.
`II.
`BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGIES
`The four asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,289,939 (“the ‘939 patent”; Ex. 2);
`10,594,376 (“the ‘376 patent”; Ex. 3); 10,715,235 (“the ‘235 patent”; Ex. 1); and 7,729,728.
`Defendants only seek constructions for terms in the ‘939 patent, the ‘376 patent, and the ‘235
`patent. The ‘376 and ‘235 patents are related to each other and share substantially the same
`specification. The ‘376 and ‘235 patents are also related to the ‘728 patent, although that patent
`has a different specification from the others. The ’939 patent is in its own family.
`A.
`The ‘939 patent
`The ’939 patent is entitled “Signal communication coordination,” and claims priority to
`Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/423,702 and 60/423,696, both filed on Nov. 4, 2002. The
`’939 Patent is in the field of wireless communications, including “WiFi” networks that operate in
`accordance with “IEEE 802.11” standards. It describes an exemplary access station for wireless
`communications that includes a wireless input/output unit that establishes a plurality of access
`points. The wireless input/output unit is a structure familiar to an ordinary artisan, including
`
`1“Defendants” refers to each of the Defendants in the above-captioned cases: Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Amazon.com Services LLC, And eero LLC; Apple Inc.; ASUSTeK Computer Inc.; Cisco
`Systems, Inc. and Meraki LLC; Google LLC; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America Inc.; Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc.; HP Inc.; Microsoft Corporation.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 8 of 38
`
`MACs, baseband units, radio frequency parts, an Ethernet switch/router, a beamformer, and an
`antenna array. ’939 Patent, 6:54-64. The wireless input/output unit is depicted in Figure 4 as
`containing a signal transmission/reception coordination logic that is adapted to “restrain
`transmission on a first channel with a first access point 402 even when receiving a wireless
`communication on a second different channel with a second access point 402.” Id. 6:22-54.
`B.
`The ‘376 and ‘235 patents
`The ’376 patent is entitled “Directed wireless communication” and the ‘235 patent is also
`entitled “Directed wireless communication.” The ‘376/’235 patents recite a Provisional Patent
`Application No. 60/423,660, filed on Nov. 4 2002, but claim priority to at least February 1, 2002.
`The 376/’235 patents are also in the field of wireless communications, including “WiFi” networks
`that operate in accordance with “IEEE 802.11” standards. They generally relate to “beam-
`forming,” which is depicted in several figures, including Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 15. “Beam-
`forming” refers to when the “electromagnetic waves are focused in a desired direction,” unlike a
`conventional omni-directional transmission that transmits in all directions. ’235 Patent, 5:22-55. 2
`The patents describe improvements to “beam-forming,” including how to compute a set of
`“weighting values” that can be used to direct transmissions in desired directions. See Fig. 12.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`The “claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Indeed,
`“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of [] terms.” Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`Thus, when conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are not (and should
`not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l
`v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is because claim
`construction is “not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning, the
`
`2 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 9 of 38
`
`court should not replace it with different language. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669
`F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”);
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The
`district court did not err in concluding that these terms have plain meanings that do not require
`additional construction. … [T]he district court properly rejected [the proposed] construction and
`resolved the dispute between the parties.”).
`There is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary and customary
`meaning, unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly relinquished claim
`scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because that plain meaning
`“is the meaning that the term would have to a [POSITA] in question at the time of the invention,”
`construing claims often “involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning
`of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given their full ordinary and
`customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,
`or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or
`lexicography, courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments
`appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very specific
`embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment.” See JVW Enterprises,
`Inc.
`v.
`Interact
`Accessories,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Similarly, a statement during patent prosecution does not limit the
`claims unless the statement is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.” Omega
`Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “because the
`prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather
`than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is
`less useful for claim construction purposes.” Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1317.
`After first considering the intrinsic evidence of the patent claims, specification, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 10 of 38
`
`prosecution history, “[e]xtrinsic evidence may also be considered, if needed to assist in
`determining the meaning or scope of technical terms in the claims.” Vitronics Corp. v.
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Extrinsic evidence may include, for
`example, expert testimony, journal articles, and dictionaries. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However,
`extrinsic evidence may only be relied upon when it does not contradict the intrinsic record
`consisting of the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. Vitrionics
`Corp., 90 F.3d at 1383; Callabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp., 2019 WL 3595450 at *2 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019). It is error to rely on extrinsic evidence that contradicts the intrinsic record. Lighting
`Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 790 F.3d 1329,1 338 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`“signal transmission/reception coordination logic” (’939 patent, all claims)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`Means-plus-function;
`indefinite for lack of
`corresponding structure
`
`XR’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction necessary.
`Alternative proposed construction, should the term be treated as
`a means-plus-function limitation:
`
`Function: See below for cl. 15, cl. 30.
`Claim 15: ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access
`points for received signals, that: a first access point of the
`plurality of access points is receiving a first signal on a first
`channel, a second access point of the plurality of access points is
`receiving a second signal that is ongoing on a second channel,
`restrain[ing] at least a third access point of the plurality of access
`points from transmitting a third signal on a third channel
`responsive to the ascertaining that the first access point is
`receiving the first signal and that the second access point is
`receiving the second signal that is ongoing-on the second channel,
`wherein the restraining at least the third access point prevents
`degradation to the first and second signals.
`
`Claim 30: ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access
`points for received signals, that a first access point of the plurality
`of access points is receiving a first signal on a first channel,
`restrain[ing] at least a second access point of the plurality of
`access points from transmitting a second signal on a second
`channel different from the first channel responsive to the
`ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first signal.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 11 of 38
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`XR’s Proposed Construction
`
`Structure:
`Signal transmission/reception logic 404 and/or MAC coordinator
`logic 606 and/or 6:1-51 and/or 6:65-7:20 and/or 9:11-59 and/or
`11:19-12:21 and/or 14:28-15:22 and/or 15:23-65 and/or 16:53-67
`and/or 18:12-55 and equivalents thereof.
`
`
`The corresponding structure of “signal transmission/reception
`logic 404” includes the characteristics and configuration set forth
`for the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 (and
`the MAC coordinator logic 606, which is subsumed within the
`corresponding structure of the signal transmission/reception
`coordination logic 404) in the ’939 Patent, including at 6:1-51
`and/or 6:65-7:20 and/or 9:11-59 and/or 11:19-12:21 and/or
`14:28-15:22 and/or 15:23-65 and/or 16:53-67 and/or 18:12-55,
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`This term was construed in litigation involving the ’939 Patent in the Central District of
`California, Case No. 8:17-cv-596-DOC(JDEx) (the “Central District of California litigation”). If
`this Court finds the term subject to §112(6), then it should adopt the same construction.
`In the Central District of California litigation, the District Court rejected the defendants’
`indefiniteness arguments and adopted the recommended construction from the Report and
`Recommendation of the Special Master (ECF No. 280) (“R&R”) over defendants’ objections.
`R&R construed “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” as a means-plus-function term
`with the corresponding structure of the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 (with
`the characteristics and configuration set forth for the signal transmission/reception coordination
`logic 404 in the ’939 Patent), and equivalents thereof.” Ex. 5 (Special Master R&R ECF No. 280
`at 58). The defendants objected to the R&R and, after careful consideration, the District Court
`rejected defendants’ indefiniteness theories. The District Court adopted the R&R’s construction,
`with one change: the District Court additionally found another structure disclosed in the
`specification, the MAC coordinator logic 606, was subsumed within the corresponding structure
`of the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 based on express teachings in the
`specification. Ex. 6 (ECF No. 312, Minute Order Adopting R&R) at 8-10.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 12 of 38
`
`1.
`
`If §112(6) applies, the ’939 Patent discloses adequate, clearly linked
`corresponding structure in the descriptions of “signal
`reception/coordination logic 404” in the specification
`Defendants articulate no sound reason to depart from the claim construction issued by the
`court in the Central District of California, which held the ’939 Patent discloses adequate, clearly
`linked corresponding structure. Assuming §112(6) applies, Defendants must prove, by clear and
`convincing evidence, that the specification fails to disclose a clearly linked, corresponding
`structure for performing the claimed functions. Defendants fall well short of that burden.
`The Parties agree on the recited functions. Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(“Opening Br.”) at 6. The only function Defendants argue is not disclosed in the specification is
`“restrain an access point from transmitting on one channel, in response to ascertaining that a
`different access point is receiving on a different channel.” Id. Defendants contend the disclosures
`show “generally that the coordination logic can restrain access points from transmitting when
`another access point is receiving, not the claimed function of restraining transmission on one
`channel in response to ascertaining reception on a different channel (as all claims require).”
`Opening Br. at 8 (also contending the specification’s disclosures are “devoid of any algorithm that
`restrains transmission on a different channel than the channel on which a signal is received.”).
`Defendants are wrong. The claimed function is disclosed as a function of the “signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404” in the ’939 Patent, including at column 6, lines 19-
`53, which specifically recites “restraining transmission on a first channel with a first access point
`402 even when receiving a wireless communication on a second different channel with a second
`access point 402.” ’939 Patent, 6:19-53. See Ex. 4, Declaration of Branimir Vojcic (“Vojcic
`Decl.”) ¶ 37. This is a perfect match to the claimed function, which Defendants agree is “restrain
`an access point from transmitting on one channel, in response to ascertaining that a different access
`point is receiving on a different channel.” Opening Br. at 6. The full paragraph from the ’939
`Patent provides even more confirmation of this fact:
`With reference again to FIG. 4, one access point 402 (and/or
`communication beam 202) may operate on a different channel from
`that of another access point 402 (and/or communication beam 202).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 13 of 38
`
`If the different channels are adjacent and/or not sufficiently-well
`defined, it may be beneficial to restrain transmission on a first
`channel with a first access point 402 even when receiving a wireless
`communication on a second different channel with a second access
`point 402. In another exemplary implementation for different
`channel situations, signal transmission/reception coordination
`logic 404 may restrain transmission on one channel on the basis of
`reception on another channel with an ongoing transmission on a
`third channel to prevent (e.g., inter-modulation) distortion to the
`system.
`signals
`being
`communicated
`in
`the wireless
`’939 Patent, 6:19-53.
`Defendants argue that col. 6:19-53 does not show “restraining transmission on one channel
`in response to ascertaining reception on a different channel”—but the paragraph recites
`“restraining transmission on a first channel with a first access point 402 even when receiving a
`wireless communication on a second different channel with a second access point 402.” ’939
`Patent, 6:19-53. Further, the sentence goes on to explain that for “different channel situations,
`signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain transmission on one channel on
`the basis of reception on another channel with an ongoing transmission on a third channel to
`prevent [] distortion to the signals.” Id. Thus, it is indisputable that the claimed functions for both
`claims 15 and 30 are recited in the specification.
`Further, it is indisputable that this claimed function is clearly linked to the “signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404.” ’939 Patent, 6:19-53. Indeed, the specification
`expressly teaches that this is a function of “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404,”
`which “restrain[s] transmission on one channel on the basis of reception on another channel.” Id.
`See also R&R at 53-57.
`On this point, Defendants argue that even if the recited function does appear in the
`specification, and even if it is clearly linked to the “signal transmission/reception coordination
`logic 404,” this is indefinite because logic 404 is a “black box” as “Figure 4 does not show any
`structure for the logic.” Opening Br. at 7.
`Defendants are wrong again. This is nothing like a “black box” case, as the R&R and the
`Central District of California court both found. As further explained below, the specification
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 14 of 38
`
`discloses: (1) how to implement the signal coordination logic 404 (e.g., in the baseband processing
`layer of an off-the-shelf chip, consistent with Figure 13, or alternatively with the MAC
`implementation shown in Figures 6 and 8); (2) its inputs and outputs (e.g., inputs from RF parts
`610 and outputs to BB units 608, as described in FIG. 13); and (3) its structural connections to
`other physical structures (e.g., its coupling within wireless input/output unit, as shown in Figure
`4). Further, the specification teaches a POSITA how to perform the “ascertaining,” “monitoring,”
`and “restraining” functions, such as with the use of a list of access points and channels described
`at 5:65-6:15 and the use of the “receive information combiner 1002,” the “receive information
`selector 1004,” and “channel selectivity 1008” disclosed at column 15 and in Figure 10. These
`disclosures teach a POSITA what is inside the signal coordination logic 404, how to implement it,
`what it is coupled to, its inputs and outputs, and how to perform the recited functions. Each of the
`foregoing, alone or in combination, is corresponding structure and/or algorithm under binding
`precedent. See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258-59 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999) (“Identification of corresponding structure may embrace more than the preferred
`embodiment. A means-plus-function claim encompasses all structure in the specification
`corresponding to that element and equivalent structures…[w]hen multiple embodiments in the
`specification correspond to the claimed function, proper application of §112¶6 generally reads the
`claim element to embrace each of those embodiments”).
`First, “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404” is not a “black box,” because
`the specification teaches a POSITA that the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404
`may be implemented at the baseband layer in a system that utilizes off-the-shelf chips in which
`MAC and baseband functionality are integrated into a single chip or chips that may not separately
`expose desired MAC signal(s)”). ’939 Patent, 18:39-44. This disclosure informs a POSITA that
`the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 is a baseband circuit structure that is
`implemented in an off-the-shelf baseband and MAC chipset—and a POSITA understands how to
`do this, given the specification’s teachings. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 40.
`This confirms this is not a “black box” case. That is what the Federal Circuit taught in
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 44 Filed 05/06/22 Page 15 of 38
`
`Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010). There, the
`figures of the patent only showed the relevant controller’s circuit as a purported black box, but
`said nothing about the internal components. Id. Nonetheless, the Court held that “the absence of
`internal circuitry in the written description does not automatically render the claim indefinite”
`because a POSITA would have understood how to build the controller’s circuit. Id. at 1376-1377.
`Here, the ’939 Patent is going above and beyond the knowledge of a POSITA—it actually tells the
`POSITA to implement the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 in the baseband
`layer of an off-the-shelf baseband and MAC chipset. ’939 Patent, 18:39-44.
`Second, the specification discloses to a POSITA the inputs and outputs to the signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404 structure in the baseband layer of the chip. The
`specification explains that the “logic 404 is shown operating at the baseband level. Signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404 accepts as inputs receive information from multiple
`RF parts 610(1, 2,…N) and produces as outputs combined receive information from multiple
`respective BB units 608(1, 2,…K).” ’939 Patent, 18:25-31. This confirms to a POSITA not only
`that the structure of the logic is baseband circuitry, but also what the structural inputs and outputs
`are within the wireless communication device depicted in Figure 13. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 41.
`Third, Figure 4 clarifies the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 is
`contained within and coupled to other physical structures within the access station, such as the
`claimed “wireless input