Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`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
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`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
`
`
`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 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`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’
`Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`DISPUTED TERMS ......................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`A. “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” (’939 patent, all claims) ..................... 1
`B. “802.11” (’939 patent, cl. 3, 19, 32; ’376 Patent, cl. 10 and 21) ........................................ 3
`C. “transmission nulls”; ’235 patent, claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16; ’376 patent, claims 1, 12, 22, 30,
`32
`............................................................................................................................................. 4
`D. “transmission peaks” (’235, claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16; ’376, claims 1, 12, 22, 30, 32) ........... 4
`E.
`“third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values” (’235 Patent,
`claims 1, 8 and 15) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`F.
`“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) ........ 7
`G. “remote station” (’235 patent, claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 15) ................................................... 10
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................... 7
`Dyfan v. Target Corp.,
`28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2022) ..................................................................................... 1
`Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 3
`Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................... 3
`VDPP LLC v. Vizio Inc.,
`No. 2021-2040 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2022) ......................................................................................... 1
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato Technologies (“Vivato”) submits this sur-
`reply brief to illustrate that Defendants proposals would result in reversible error. Defendants’
`proposals should be rejected, and XR’s proposals adopted, as XR’s proposals are the only ones
`consistent with the intrinsic record.
`II.
`DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`“signal transmission/reception coordination logic” (’939 patent, all claims)
`
`If the Court finds this term is subject to § 112 ¶ 61, then it should adopt the same
`construction as the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and find that the
`corresponding structure in the specification is the “signal transmission/reception coordination
`logic 404” and the “MAC coordinator logic 606.” Ex. 6 (ECF No. 312, Minute Order Adopting
`R&R) at 8-10.
`In Reply, Defendants have abandoned their primary argument for indefiniteness.
`Defendants’ core argument supporting indefiniteness in their opening brief was that the ’939 Patent
`fails to disclose the recited function of “restrain[ing] an access point from transmitting on one
`channel, in response to ascertaining that a different access point is receiving on a different
`channel.” Defendants’ Opening Brief at 6. Defendants had insisted that the ’939 Patent does not
`disclose “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.”).
`But now, Defendants agree that the ’939 Patent discloses the claimed functions, even
`acknowledging that the specification “restates the recited functions from the claims.” Defendants’
`
`1 XR has not conceded that this term requires means-plus-function treatment. As explained in
`XR’s opening brief, the Federal Circuit’s recent guidance in Dyfan clarifies that this is not a
`means-plus-function term. Rather, the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” in the
`’939 Patent is analogous to the “code” and “application” terms found not to invoke §112(6) in
`Dyfan v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2022). See also VDPP LLC v. Vizio
`Inc., No. 2021-2040 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2022) (nonprecedential) (reversing means-plus-function
`treatment for “processor”).
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`Reply Br. at 2. Given Defendants’ concession, the Court is now required to accept that the ’939
`Patent discloses the claimed functions of the signal transmission/reception coordination logic,
`including at ’939 Patent, 6:19-53.
`Under the law, the Court’s remaining task is to identify each structure or algorithm clearly
`linked to these functions. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has already
`done so, holding that the corresponding structure in the specification is the “signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404” and the “MAC coordinator logic 606.” Ex. 6 (ECF
`No. 312, Minute Order Adopting R&R) at 8-10. There is no reason to depart from that holding.
`Defendants’ only
`substantive
`arguments
`in Reply
`are
`that
`the
`“signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404” and the “MAC coordinator logic 606” are both
`“black box” disclosures that do not inform an ordinary artisan of their “internal structure.”
`Defendants’ Reply Brief at 2-3. Defendants are wrong. Indeed, the ’939 Patent explains the internal
`structure of both. The ’939 Patent, 5:65-6:15 explains that the internal structure of the logic 404
`corresponds to a numbered list of access points 402(1)-402(N) so that each access point can be
`identified in relation to each other access point that is receiving a signal on the same channel or on
`a different channel. The internal structure of the logic 404 also includes “receive information
`combiner 1002,” “receive information selector 1004,” and “channel selectivity 1008,” which are
`structures that apply the “signal coordination function to the receive information to produce the
`combined receive information” which is then “utilized to ascertain signal reception and restrain
`signal transmission” on particular channels. ’939 Patent, 15:30-65. Defendants’ arguments against
`the MAC coordinator logic 606 fare no better, as the internal structure of MAC coordinator logic
`606 includes the “receive indicator combiner 810” described in FIG. 8 and the accompanying text.
`’939 Patent, 15:49-65, FIGs. 6, 8.
`Defendants’ Reply Brief does nothing to contradict these disclosures of the internal
`structure of the logic 404 (and logic 606), and that is dispositive. Instead, Defendants argue that
`XR is changing its position by explaining how these disclosures inform the internal structure of
`the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404” and the “MAC coordinator logic 606”.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`Defendants’ Reply Brief at 1-2. But XR is not changing its position—it is simply pointing to
`additional disclosures in the ’939 Patent which inform an ordinary artisan of the internal structure
`of the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404” and the “MAC coordinator logic
`606,” to rebut Defendants’ incorrect view that these structures are mere “black box” depictions.
`Judge Carter in C.D. Cal. relied upon the same evidence in finding that the “signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404” and the “MAC coordinator logic 606” are adequate
`corresponding structures. Ex. 6 (ECF No. 312, Minute Order Adopting R&R) at 8-10; Ex. 7
`(3/28/22 Hearing Transcript) at 88:25-100:20 (describing the disclosures of the internal structure
`of the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 and MAC coordinator logic 606 in
`’939 Patent, 5:65-6:15 15:30-65, FIGs. 6, 8, 13, including the baseband circuitry, receive
`information combiner 1002, receive information selector 1004, and channel selectivity 1008),
`106:16-110:16 (describing receive information combiner and channel selectivity 1008, and both
`baseband and MAC embodiments).
`Defendants also assert it is irrelevant that the ’939 Patent teaches an ordinary artisan to
`implement these structures in an off-the-shelf baseband and MAC chipset within wireless
`input/output unit 206.
`’939 Patent, 6:54-7:6, 18:25-31, FIG. 4
`(depicting “signal
`transmission/reception coordination logic 404” coupled within “wireless input/output unit 206”);
`Vojcic Decl. ¶ 41. Far from being irrelevant, these disclosures establish that logic 404 is not a
`“black box,” because an ordinary artisan knows how to build one and what is inside of it. Telcordia
`Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Defendants
`have no answer for Telcordia. Defendants cannot prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing
`evidence, particularly at this stage of the case. See Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL,
`LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (vacating summary judgment of invalidity since there
`were issues of fact as to whether the specification disclosed to one of skill in the art algorithms for
`several means-plus-function limitations).
`B.
`“802.11” (’939 patent, cl. 3, 19, 32; ’376 Patent, cl. 10 and 21)
`A POSITA at the time of the invention understood that the “802.11 standard” would
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`continue to be updated, as Dr. Vojcic has opined. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 46-55. For example, the ’939
`patent gives examples of numerous versions of the 802.11 standard. See, e.g., ’939 Patent at 1:41–
`46 (“Since the late 1990s, LANs have expanded into wireless media so that networks may be
`established without necessitating wire connections between or among various network elements.
`Such LANs may operate in accordance with IEEE 802.11 (e.g., 802.11(a), (b), (e), (g), (k), (n),
`etc.) or other wireless network standards.”). Construing this term to have its plain meaning does
`not mean that the scope of the claim is arbitrarily expanding. Rather, the term “802.11 standard”
`has the same meaning it did as of the filing date of the ’939 and ’376 patents, which refers to a
`standard that receives periodic updates and improvements.
`C.
`“transmission nulls”; ’235 patent, claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16; ’376 patent, claims 1,
`12, 22, 30, 32
`The Court should construe “transmission nulls” as “plain and ordinary meaning, an
`example of which is portions of one or more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic
`signals where transmissions of no or insignificant energy are selectively directed.”
`D.
`“transmission peaks” (’235, claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16; ’376, claims 1, 12, 22, 30,
`32)
`Defendants’ construction (limiting “transmission peaks” to the “maximum”) cannot be
`reconciled with the intrinsic record. The specification states that a single transmission pattern can
`exhibit multiple transmission peaks and clarifies that the transmission peaks refer to each part of
`the pattern where a “generated and particular amount of energy is directed in a particular
`direction”—and this includes “sidelobes to a communication beam [which] may also be considered
`to represent transmission peak(s).” ’376 Patent, 5:65-6:9. According to the ’376 Patent, “in
`practice, a communication beam (e.g., directional beam) has a main beam whose width can be
`controlled by the size of the antenna aperture, and sidelobes which vary in different directions.”
`’376 Patent, 26:55-58. This establishes that “transmission peaks” refers to both the main beam
`(the “maximum” energy) and the sidelobes. Id. Because “sidelobes” also represent transmission
`peaks, and “sidelobes” are not the “maximum,” Defendant’s construction limiting “transmission
`peaks” to the “maximum” would exclude “sidelobes” and directly contradict the intrinsic record.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`This point is clear from Figure 15, which depicts multiple transmission peaks, including
`one “main beam” and fourteen “side lobes.” Defendants’ construction purports to limit
`“transmission peak” to the maximum point in the very center of the graph. But the plain meaning
`of “transmission peaks” includes both the entire “main beam” as well as the “sidelobes to a
`communication beam [which] may also be considered to represent transmission peak(s).” ’376
`Patent, 5:65-6:9. That is because these portions of the pattern have a “generated and particular
`amount of energy [] directed in a particular direction.” ’376 Patent, 5:65-6:9.
`XR’s proposal is the only one consistent with the intrinsic record. Defendants contend that
`a “generated and particular amount of energy” refers only to the “peak amount.” Defendants’
`Reply Br. at 6. But the specification confirms that there may be multiple “transmission peaks,”
`including sidelobes, in addition to the main beam. ’376 Patent, 5:65-6:9. Accordingly, the term
`“transmission peak” cannot be limited to one portion of the pattern alone. On this point,
`Defendants now argue that their construction is broad enough to allow for “local maximums” as
`well as the “absolute” maximum. Defendants’ Reply Br. at 6. But this is not clear from the
`construction itself, which says “maximum energy,” and does not specify that “relative maxima”
`are included. Rather than provide clarity, Defendants’ proposal would invite confusion as to
`whether “relative maxima” are included.
`Further, Defendants’ proposal would also risk confusing the jury into believing that
`“transmission peak” only refers to one point within the “main beam,” rather than the entire main
`beam. But the specification confirms that “transmission peaks” are associated with the entire
`“signal path” to any receiving node. ’376 Patent, 5:65-6:9. This is illustrated in FIG. 5, which
`shows “transmission peaks” are not single points in space but include the entire signal path to the
`client device. That is also why the specification says that transmission peaks are associated with
`the “intent to maximize”—because an ordinary artisan understands what a “transmission peak” is,
`without precise mathematical measurement of the location of maximum energy. Indeed, the
`intrinsic record confirms that a “transmission peak” occurs when a beamformer intends to direct
`energy toward a client device, and this is recognizable from the pattern itself without precise
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`energy measurements. It appears that Defendants prefer a construction requiring “maximum” so
`that they can insist on “objectively measured” evidence that a portion of a signal pattern is the
`“maximum.” Defendants’ Reply Br. at 6. But that is not how an ordinary artisan would understand
`these claims.
`Defendants finally contend that “peak” communication loads and the definition of the term
`“peak” in the dictionary should outweigh the intrinsic record’s clear teaching that “transmission
`peaks” refer to a “generated and particular amount of energy” rather than a “maximum energy.”
`’376 Patent, 5:65-6:9. But these unrelated examples do not support a construction that contradicts
`the inventor’s preferred language to describe the specific claim term in dispute, “transmission
`peaks,” which is described in detail at ’376 Patent, 5:65-6:9. Likewise, if any description of a
`different term were to be informative, it would be the descriptions of “transmission nulls,” which
`are taught as the portions of the pattern where a “relatively insignificant amount of energy is
`transmitted in a particular direction.” ’235 Patent, 6:10-14. The patentee did not limit
`“transmission nulls” to only the portions of the pattern where “no transmission energy” occurs,
`just as the patentee did not limit “transmission nulls” to only the portions of the pattern where
`“maximum energy” occurs. Defendants’ proposal should therefore be rejected.
`E.
`“third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values” (’235
`Patent, claims 1, 8 and 15)
`Claim 1 requires a “set of weighting values” that is “configured to be used by the
`transceiver to construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals,” and then requires
`transmitting a “third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values.” Similarly,
`the Figure 12 embodiment states that the “stored weighting values associated with each
`connection, data signal, and/or source are utilized in a weighting matrix 1210 which operates to
`apply the latest weighting values to the received signals and also to transmitted signals.” ’376
`Patent, 25:16-30. Defendants contend that this embodiment “would not be covered by these
`asserted claims”—but that could only be true under Defendants’ proposed construction. But
`constructions that exclude the preferred embodiment are “rarely, if ever, correct.” Adams
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly,
`the Court should reject Defendants’ narrowing proposal for what it is: an attempt to construe the
`claims in a manner that excludes the preferred embodiment.
`During patent prosecution, the patentee stated that “transmitting to the remote station a
`third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values” covers the embodiment in
`Document C describing “compute the complex weights for a second RF beamformer.” Dkt. 42-
`22, Office Action Response (July 25, 2018). But Defendants argue that this embodiment would
`not be covered under their proposed construction. Defendants’ Reply Br. at 9. This is reversible
`error. The scope of this limitation must include the disclosures that the Patent Owner cited for this
`limitation during prosecution. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir.
`1996) (“In construing the claims we look to the language of the claims, the specification, and the
`prosecution history…In those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope
`of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper. The claims, the
`specification, and file history, rather than extrinsic evidence, constitute the public record of the
`patentee’s claim.”). Defendants have no answer for Vitronics and do not address it.
`Finally, when the patentee wanted to specify what the “content” must contain, the patentee
`did so in claim 4, saying that the content “comprises data.” But in claim 1, the patentee did not say
`that the “content” “comprises” anything. Instead, the patentee wrote that the “signal” comprises
`content and this signal is “based on the set of weighting values.” The Court should not construe
`the claim as though the patentee had said “content comprising the set of weighting values,” as the
`Court should not re-write the claim without clear lexicography or disclaimer.
`F.
`“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)
`
`Defendants have failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any Claim is
`indefinite under Geneva Pharms. XR’s Opening Brief showed that claims 1 and 15 are not
`indefinite under Geneva Pharms., and Defendants now agree with XR about claims 1 and 15.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`Indeed, Defendants’ Reply Brief abandons its arguments about Claims 1 and 15. Claims 1 and 15
`do not require a combination with any other device to understand whether there is infringement.
`Claims 1 and 15 describe a device that determines a set of weighting values and that also includes
`a transceiver that uses the weighting values to perform beamforming. ’235 Patent, cls. 1 and 15.
`Given Defendants’ concession, the Court must adopt the plain meaning of the claimed phrase “the
`set of weighting values is configured to be used by the transceiver to construct one or more beam-
`formed transmission signals” in claims 1 and 15.
`Defendants’ arguments as to claim 8 fare no better. Claim 8 presents a different issue from
`claims 1 and 15. However, claim 8’s language (“set of weighting values is configured to be used
`by the remote station to construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals”) also does not
`run afoul of Geneva Pharms. because no combination is required to ascertain if there is
`infringement. Defendants continue to insist—without any support in the claim language—that
`infringement cannot be ascertained without “combining” the weighting values with the remote
`station. Defendants’ Reply Br. at 11. But the claims only require preparing a set of weighting
`values for use by another station, because “configured to be used” means “prepare or arrange for
`use.” And preparing weighting values for use by a remote station is accomplished without actually
`“combining” the weighting values with the remote station—and indeed, has nothing do with
`whether the ultimate combination is effective. This is dispositive. Defendants’ argument that a
`remote station might fail to use the weighting values effectively rests on the premise that the
`“configured to be used” language requires that the claimed apparatus know, for certain, that the
`set of weighting values will be effective once they are received at the remote station. But this is not
`required by Claim 8. Claim 8 only requires preparation, and preparation does not require that the
`weighting values be effective once they are received at the remote station. This distinguishes
`Geneva Pharms., where the claims recited more than preparation and required actual effectiveness
`for treating bacterial infections. Geneva Pharms., 349 F.3d at 1382. Indeed, the problem in Geneva
`Pharms. was that the claims required effectiveness, which could not be ascertained until
`combination with the bacterium. Id. But here, claim 8 does not require effectiveness—it only
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`requires that weighting values be prepared or arranged for use by another station, regardless of
`whether that station will succeed in using them.
`Moreover, preparing a set of weighting values for use by another station is performed
`entirely within “access station 102” without any combination with a remote station. For example,
`“access station 102” prepares the set of weighting values for use by a remote access station (e.g.,
`“nodes within the wireless routing network”) by computing the weighting values that are
`associated with received signals from that remote access station. ’235 Patent, 24:44-25:30 (“the
`routing table includes stored weighting values (w) each associated with a particular signal source
`1202…a description of the received signal(s) can be stored in the routing table in the form of the
`pattern or weighting of the signal(s)…the stored weighting values associated with each connection,
`data signal, and/or source are utilized in a weighting matrix 1210 which operates to apply the latest
`weighting values to the received signals and also to transmitted signals.”). As explained in XR’s
`Opening Brief, because the “set of weighting values” in claim 8 is determined from the “first
`signal” and “second signal” received simultaneously from the remote station, no further analysis
`of the “remote station” is needed to ascertain whether the “set of weighting values” is appropriate
`for it. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 72-74.
`Defendants’ only response to this point is to argue that this renders the “configured to be
`used” limitation superfluous—but it does not, as that limitation further requires preparing the
`weighting values for use by the remote station. The point, however, is that preparing the weighting
`values for use does not depend on combinability with the remote station (e.g., how many antennas
`it has) because it instead depends on information already known to the access station, i.e.,
`information ascertained from the simultaneously received “first signal” and “second signal” from
`the remote station. The claimed apparatus understands, given the received first and second signal
`from the remote station, how to compute weighting values that can be used by the remote station,
`as they are calculated based on the received “first signal” and “second signal” from that very
`remote station. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 72-74.
`Even assuming arguendo, that preparing weighting values for use by another station
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`required antenna information about the remote station, claim 8 does not run afoul of Geneva
`Pharms. because infringement can be ascertained based on whether the claimed apparatus has
`obtained the requisite information (e.g., antenna information) about the remote station from the
`received “first signal” and “second signal.” Unlike the compounds in Geneva Techs., the “access
`stations” in the ’235 Patent are capable of ascertaining antenna information about remote stations
`based on received signals from the remote station. For example, the specification discloses that the
`“memory component 818” maintains routing and signal information such as “antenna pointing
`direction information” and “weighting information” associated with each node in the wireless
`network. ’235 Patent, 15:44-16:49. The “scanning receiver 822 scans each directed
`communication beam [] consecutively and monitors for client devices and associated information
`such as the transmit power of a client device, roaming status, and the many other communication
`factors to update data that is maintained about each client device that is in communication via
`communication beam.” Id. Indeed, “a determination to direct a transmission null and/or a
`transmission peak (e.g., a communication beam 214) in a particular direction can be made based
`on collected or otherwise provided routing information which may include a variety of data
`associated with the operation of the multi-beam directed signal system 206, wireless routing
`device, and other devices at other locations or nodes within the wireless network.” ’235 Patent,
`6:20-28, 28:21-30:2 (describing “coordination between access stations 102 in a wireless
`communications environment”). Thus, Geneva Pharms. would still not apply to claim 8, because
`a combination with a remote station is not required to ascertain whether weighting values are
`prepared for use by the remote station—one can ascertain whether the weighting values are
`“configured to be used” by the remote station based on (1) whether the access station has obtained
`the requisite information (or not) from the “first signal” and “second signal” received
`simultaneously from the remote station, and (2) whether the access station has then prepared the
`weighting values for use by the remote station based on this information.
`G.
`“remote station” (’235 patent, claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 15)
`Defendants’ proposal to exclude “remote access station” from the definition of “remote
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA Document 47 Filed 06/03/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`station” has no support in the intrinsic record, let alone clear lexicography or disclaimer. An
`ordinary artisan understands “remote station” can refer to a remote access station. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶
`77-82. Defendants’ proposal should be rejected.
`Defendants assert that the intrinsic record support identified by XR never refers to remote
`access stations, but the intrinsic record proves Defendants are wrong. The ’235 Patent describes
`placing “transmission peaks” in the direction of remote access stations. ’235 Patent, 6:1-9
`(“Transmission peaks are, therefore, associated with the signal path and/or communication beam
`to a desired receiving node, such as another wireless routing device or a wireless client device.”).
`The specification expressly describes placing transmission peaks at the location of “another
`wireless routing device or a wireless client device,” which confirms that “remote stations” can be
`remote wireless routers or remote wireless clients. Id. In response, Defendants argue this sentence
`in the specification does not use the word “station” or “remote,” and so it should be disregarded.
`Defendants’ Reply Br. at 14. That is wrong. The patent uses the term “wireless routing device” to
`refer to an “access station.” ’235 Patent, 3:38-44 (“Directed wireless communication provides
`improved performance over conventional wireless network arrangements by utilizing multi-beam
`receiving and/or transmitting adaptive antennas, when practical. In an implementation,
`simultaneous transmission and reception may occur at a wireless routing device by applying multi-
`channel techniques”), 4:1-55 (“access station 102 includes a multi-beam directed signal system
`206”), 6:1-50 (describing “simultaneous” transmission/reception by access station 102 in multi-
`beam directed signal system 206). Thus, the plain meaning of “station” and “remote station”
`clearly includes “another wireless routing device or a wireless client device.” ’235 Patent, 6:1-50,
`Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 77-82. Given this intrinsic record, there is no support for a narrowing construction
`that excludes “wireless routing devices” from the scope of “remote station.”
`Similarly, the ’235 Patent describes placing “transmission nulls” in the direction of remote
`access stations. ’235 Patent, 24:25-25:30 (“scanning recei