Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 117 PageID #: 584
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC, HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MAXELL LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE USA INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-00178-RWS
`LEAD CASE
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-00179-RWS
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`On November 29, 2017, the Court held an oral hearing to determine the proper
`
`construction of the disputed claim terms of the patents-in-suit. Having considered the parties
`
`claim-construction briefing and based on the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, the Court construes
`
`the disputed terms in this Memorandum and Order as detailed below. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831
`
`(2015).
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 117 PageID #: 4852Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 2 of 117 PageID #: 585
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On November 18, 2016, Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Maxell”) filed suit against Defendants
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (collectively “Huawei”) and ZTE USA Inc.
`
`(“ZTE”). Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Maxell”) has asserted fifteen patents in this consolidated
`
`action:1
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,396,443 (“’443 Patent”), which is asserted against both Huawei and
`
`ZTE USA;
`
` U.S. Patent Nos. 7,509,139 (“’139 Patent”); 6,754,440 (“’440 Patent”); 6,928,292 (“’292
`
`Patent”); 7,203,517 (“’517 Patent”); 7,671,901 (“’901 Patent”); 6,856,760 (“’760
`
`Patent”); and 7,116,438 (“’438 Patent”), which are asserted against Huawei; and
`
` U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317 (“’317 Patent”); 8,339,493 (“’493 Patent”); 8,736,729 (“’729
`
`Patent”); 6,408,193 (“’193 Patent”); 6,329,794 (“’794 Patent”); 6,816,491 (“’491
`
`Patent”); and 8,098,695 (“’695 Patent”), which are asserted against ZTE USA.
`
`On November 29, 2017, the Court held a Markman hearing on the disputed claim terms of the
`
`patents-in-suit. Docket Nos. 118, 138. At the hearing, Maxell and Huawei agreed to the
`
`construction of the sole disputed terms in the ’901 Patent and ’438 Patent. Docket No. 138 (H’rg
`
`Tr.) at 101:8–10.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to
`
`1 The Court consolidated the case against Huawei (Case No. 5:16-cv-178) with the case against ZTE (Case No.
`5:16-cv-179) for pretrial purposes.
`
`Page 2 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 3 of 117 PageID #: 4853Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 3 of 117 PageID #: 586
`
`
`
`define the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–14; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
`
`claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
`
`Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
`
`normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
`
`additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ ” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “[T]he
`
`specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’ ” Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
`
`disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes
`
`terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear
`
`disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
`
`1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own
`
`Page 3 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 4 of 117 PageID #: 4854Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 4 of 117 PageID #: 587
`
`
`
`lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004).
`
`The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
`
`the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
`
`example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
`
`claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’ ” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc.,
`
`362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But,
`
`“[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language
`
`in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not
`
`generally be read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`“A district court’s construction of a patent claim, like a district court’s interpretation of a
`
`written instrument, often requires the judge only to examine and to construe the document’s
`
`words without requiring the judge to resolve any underlying factual disputes.” Teva Pharm.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 840–41 (2015). For certain terms, however, the Court
`
`may “need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in
`
`order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the
`
`relevant art during the relevant time period.” Id. at 841. “In cases where those subsidiary facts
`
`are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factfindings about that extrinsic evidence.”
`
`Id.
`
`Although extrinsic evidence is useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`Page 4 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 5 of 117 PageID #: 4855Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 5 of 117 PageID #: 588
`
`
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862) (internal quotation marks omitted). Technical
`
`dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand the underlying technology and the manner
`
`in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may
`
`provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the
`
`patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying
`
`technology and determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an
`
`expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term’s definition are not useful. Id.
`
`Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
`
`determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
`
`A. Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary 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 the claim term
`
`either in the specification or during prosecution.” Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758
`
`F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d
`
`1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure
`
`from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for
`
`finding lexicography or disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner,
`
`669 F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must
`
`appear “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`Page 5 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 6 of 117 PageID #: 4856Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 6 of 117 PageID #: 589
`
`
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or
`
`restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements
`
`are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and
`
`unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013).
`
`B. Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA)
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6;
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`
`relevant portion). Section 112, Paragraph 6, provides that a structure may be claimed as a
`
`“means . . . for performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for
`
`performing a specified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002).
`
`But § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to all functional claim language. There is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies when the claim language includes “means” or “step for”
`
`terms, and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326;
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls according to whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context
`
`of the entire specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the
`
`function. See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed.
`
`Page 6 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 7 of 117 PageID #: 4857Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 7 of 117 PageID #: 590
`
`
`
`Cir. 2015) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the claim language, read in light of the specification,
`
`recites sufficiently definite structure” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792
`
`F.3d at 1349; Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014)));
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“Section 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the words of the claim are
`
`understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the
`
`name for structure”); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. Int’l Trade Commission,
`
`161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“ ‘[W]here a claim recites a function, but then goes on to
`
`elaborate sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the
`
`recited function, the claim is not in means-plus-function format’ even if the claim uses the term
`
`‘means’ ”)
`
`When it applies, § 112, ¶ 6 limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a means-plus-function
`
`limitation involves multiple steps. “The first step . . . is a determination of the function of the
`
`means-plus-function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248
`
`F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure
`
`disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the
`
`specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly
`
`links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the
`
`“corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of performing the
`
`recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated
`
`with the [recited] function.” Id. The corresponding structure “must include all structure that
`
`actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
`
`Page 7 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 8 of 117 PageID #: 4858Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 8 of 117 PageID #: 591
`
`
`
`Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, § 112 does not permit “incorporation of
`
`structure from the written description beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function.”
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`For § 112, ¶ 6 limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an
`
`algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather
`
`the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs.
`
`Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`C. Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA)
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. “A claim is invalid for indefiniteness if its language,
`
`when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, ‘fail[s] to inform, with
`
`reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.’ ” Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Nautilus, Inc.
`
`v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014)). Whether a claim is indefinite is
`
`determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application
`
`for the patent was filed. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2130. As it is a challenge to the validity of a
`
`patent, the failure of any claim in suit to comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. Id. at 2130 n.10. “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of
`
`claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent
`
`provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`
`Page 8 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 9 of 117 PageID #: 4859Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 9 of 117 PageID #: 592
`
`
`
`783 F.3d at 1378 (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when a subjective term is used in
`
`a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some standard for
`
`measuring the scope of the [limitation].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d
`
`1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005); accord Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1351).
`
`In the context of a claim governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the claim is invalid as
`
`indefinite if the claim fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed
`
`functions. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351–52. The disclosure is inadequate when one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art “would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it
`
`with the corresponding function in the claim.” Id. at 1352.
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`Before the Markman hearing, the parties agreed to construction the following terms:
`
`Agreed Construction
` Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`The preambles of claims 1 and 9 of the ’517
`patent are limiting.
`
`Term
` “at least approaches”
`
` (’443 Patent claim 1)
`“simultaneously”
`
`(’292 Patent claims 1 and 2)
`“A mobile communication terminal device
`having a first physical interface for making a
`communication to the outside, a second
`physical interface different in scheme from
`said first physical interface, and a selection
`switching determination unit . . . , said
`mobile communication terminal device
`comprising” / “A mobile communication
`terminal device having a first physical
`interface for making a
`communication to the outside, a second
`physical interface different in scheme from
`said first physical interface, and a selection
`switching determination unit . . . , said mobile
`communication terminal device comprising”
`
`
`Page 9 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 10 of 117 PageID #: 4860Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 10 of 117 PageID #: 593
`
`
`
`(’517 Patent claims 1 and 9)
`“A connection control method for selecting one
`base station, to which a terminal is to connect,
`from a plurality of base stations in a wireless
`communication system” / “A wireless terminal
`for selecting a connection destination base
`station from a plurality of base stations in a
`wireless communication system”
`
`(’139 Patent claims 1 and 11)
`Preambles
`
`(’491 Patent claims 1 and 2)
` “voice signal code”
`
` (’193 Patent claims 1 and 7)
`“an input portion to which video signals
`are inputted”
`
`(’901 Patent claim 1)
`“black side”
`
`(’901 Patent claim 2)
`“video signal[s]”
`
`(’901 Patent claims 1 and 2)
`“obtaining an index of communication
`quality between the terminal and the base
`stations”
`
`(’139 Patent claims 1 and 11)
`“using said input”
`
`(’438 Patent claim 1)
`“an authentication process for allowance to
`use said display apparatus”
`
`(’438 Patent claim 1)
`“a predetermined constant period of time”
`
`(’443 Patent claim 1)
`“means for selecting an object displayed on
`said display apparatus”
`
`(’438 Patent claim 3)
`
`“operate to the end”
`
`(’794 Patent claims 8 and 14)
`
`The preambles of claims 1 and 11 of the ’139
`patent are limiting.
`
`The preambles of claims 1 and 2 are
`limiting.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“obtaining an indication of communication
`quality between the terminal and the base
`stations”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“a process that authorizes the user to use the
`display apparatus”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Function: selecting an object displayed on
`said display apparatus
`
`Structure: Input/output unit 103 and
`associated software that allows for the
`claimed selection function. See, e.g., 8:57–
`9:13, 7:52–8:6, Fig. 2
`(106).
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Page 10 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 11 of 117 PageID #: 4861Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 11 of 117 PageID #: 594
`
`
`
`“a receiving means for receiving a plurality
`of compressed and encoded audio data
`sequences which are multiplexed”
`
`(’491 Patent claim 9)
`Preambles
`
`(’491 Patent claims 7–9)
`“packetizing audio data sequences which are
`compressed and encoded and by
`multiplexing a plurality of those sequences”
`
`(’491 Patent claims 1 and 2)
`“a demultiplexer for extracting the one audio
`data sequence which is designated by the user
`from said group of packets depending upon a
`property or attribute information which each
`packet has, and further for extracting a
`method of compression and encoding which is
`applied for compressing the audio data
`sequence from a header information which
`said each audio data sequence has”
`
`(’491 Patent claims 1, 2, and 9)
`“a first memory”
`
`(’491 Patent claims 1, 2, and 7)
`“a digital signal processor for decoding the
`compressed audio data sequences in
`accordance with said decoding program
`codes, sequentially”
`
`(’491 Patent claims 1, 2, and 9)
`“a second memory which said digital signal
`processor and said video decoder use as work
`area for the decoding processing thereof”
`
`(’491 Patent claim 2)
`“from an outside”
`
`(’491 Patent claim 7)
`“an input device for inputting a
`destination”
`
`(’317 Patent claim 1)
`“a device for getting a location information of
`another portable terminal from said another
`terminal via connected network”
`
`(’317 Patent claim 10)
`
`Function: receiving a plurality of
`compressed and encoded audio data
`sequences which are multiplexed
`
`Structure: An antenna and equivalents
`
`The preambles of claims 7–9 are not
`limiting.
`
`“digitized audio data in packet form for
`transmission is compressed and encoded and
`by combining a plurality of the data”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Page 11 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 12 of 117 PageID #: 4862Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 12 of 117 PageID #: 595
`
`
`
`“a device for retrieving a route from said
`present place to said destination”
`
`(’317 Patent claim 15)
`“an image sensing device with a light
`receiving sensor having an array of pixels
`arranged vertically and horizontally in a
`grid pattern, in an N number of vertically
`arranged pixel lines”
`
`(’493 Patent claim 5)
`“a display unit with a display screen, that
`displays an image corresponding to the
`image signals”
`
`(’493 Patent claim 5)
`“an image-instability detector”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`(’493 Patent claim 6)
`“an image-instability of the electric camera”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`(’493 Patent claim 6)
`“an encoder/decoder apparatus”
`
`(’193 Patent claims 1 and 7)
`“open-loop power control”
`
`(’193 Patent claims 1 and 7)
`“closed-loop power control”
`
`(’193 Patent claims 1 and 7)
`“bias condition”
`
`(’193 Patent claims 1 and 7)
`“a function defining a relation between bias
`data and gain data stored in said memory”
`
`(’193 Patent claim 7)
`“capacity detector for detecting a remaining
`capacity of said battery”
`
`(’794 Patent claim 1)
`“controller for controlling operation of said
`function devices based on said remaining
`capacity”
`
`(’794 Patent claim 1)
`“a capacity detector detecting a remaining
`battery capacity of said battery”
`
`(’794 Patent claim 9)
`Preambles
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“the bias voltage and/or current setting
`of the amplifier”
`
`“a relationship between bias data and gain
`data such that each gain data value has a
`corresponding bias data value”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Preambles are limiting
`
`Page 12 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 13 of 117 PageID #: 4863Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 13 of 117 PageID #: 596
`
`
`
`(’695 Patent, all asserted claims)
`“packetized audio data sequences which are
`compressed and encoded and by multiplexing
`a plurality of those sequences”
`
`(’695 Patent claims 1 and 4)
`“a demultiplexer for extracting the one audio
`data sequence which is designated by the user
`from said group of packets depending upon a
`property or attribute information of each
`packet, and further for extracting a method of
`compression and encoding which is applied
`for compressing the audio data sequence from
`a header information of each audio data
`sequence”
`
`(’695 Patent claims 1 and 4)
`“a memory”
`
`(’695 Patent claims 1 and 4)
`“begins decoding processing”
`
`(’695 Patent claims 1 and 4)
`“a state display means including a display
`means and for displaying on said display
`means that said apparatus is in one of a
`standby state and an active state in response
`to said power saving state and said non-
`power saving state, respectively”
`
` (’443 Patent claim 2)
`
`“displaying means for displaying at least one
`of the moving pictures, the still pictures, and
`the first and second pictures; wherein the
`displaying means displays a plurality of
`reproduced ones of the first pictures, and
`wherein the displaying means displays ones
`
`“digitized audio data in packet form is
`compressed and encoded and by combining
`a plurality of the data”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Function: displaying on said display means
`that said apparatus is in one of a standby
`state and an active state in response to said
`power saving state and said non- power
`saving state, respectively
`
`Structure: State display unit 103 including
`a display device such as a liquid crystal
`display (LCD), a flat display panel, a light
`emitting diode (LED) panel, an
`electroluminescence (EL) panel, a plasma
`display panel, a cathode ray tube (CRT), and
`equivalents, together with a processor (e.g.
`CPU 501) programmed to display state
`information on the display device in
`accordance with the procedures set forth e.g.
`in the specification at 4:6– 9; 4:49–55;
`5:30–37; 7:7–60; 8:64– 68; Figs. 2–4 and
`11–13 as well as equivalents thereof
`Function: displaying at least one of the
`moving pictures, the still pictures, and the
`first and second pictures
`
`Structure: display medium 130, such as a
`liquid crystal panel. See, e.g., Figure 6
`(130); 13:45–47; 13:49–51; 13:54–57;
`
`Page 13 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 14 of 117 PageID #: 4864Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 14 of 117 PageID #: 597
`
`
`
`of the moving pictures corresponding to any
`selected first pictures”
`
`13:62–63.
`
`(’440 Patent claim 7)
`“displaying means for displaying at least one
`of said first still picture, said second still
`picture and said first picture, wherein said
`displaying means displays a plurality of
`reproduced pictures from the reproducing
`means, and wherein said displaying means
`displays said first still picture corresponding
`to a selected picture”
`
`(’760 Patent claim 13)
`
`“a relation of said direction and a direction
`from said present place to said destination”
`
`(’317 Patent claims 1 and 10)
`“a signal processing unit configured to form
`image signals”
`
`(’729 Patent claim 1)
`“characterizing quantities of the
`communication quality for each of the
`groups”
`
`(’139 Patent claims 1 and 11)
`
`Docket No. 115-2 at B-1–B-14.
`
`Function: displaying at least one of said
`first still picture, said second still picture
`and said first picture such that the displaying
`means displays a plurality of reproduced
`pictures from the reproducing means, and
`wherein said displaying means displays said
`first still picture corresponding to a selected
`picture
`
`Structure: display medium 130, such as a
`liquid crystal panel. See, e.g., Figure 6
`(130); 13:43–46; 13:47–49; 13:52–55;
`13:60–61.
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“group scores derived from the indication of
`communication quality for each base station
`in a group”
`
`
`
`At the oral hearing the parties also agreed to the constructions of the following terms:
`
`“GPS receiver means for receiving GPS-
`oriented signals and generating received GPS
`signals”
`
`(’292 Patent claim 1)
`
`“cellular receiver means for receiving
`cellular-oriented signals and generating
`received cellular signals”
`
`(’292 Patent claim 1)
`
`Function: receiving GPS oriented signals and
`generating received GPS signals
`
`
`Structure: GPS receiver 200 of a mobile
`handset, the GPS receiver 200 performing
`block 600 in Figure 2, as disclosed at 3:24–
`32, 2:53–57, or equivalents thereof
`Function: receiving cellular-oriented signals
`and generating received cellular signals
`
`Structure: cellular receiver 300 of a mobile
`handset, the cellular receiver performing
`block 603 in Figure 2, as disclosed at 2:66–
`3:4, 4:4–9, or equivalents thereof
`
`Page 14 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 15 of 117 PageID #: 4865Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 15 of 117 PageID #: 598
`
`
`
`“GPS position calculation means for
`calculating the mobile handset’s position
`from the received GPS signals and outputting
`a GPS-based position result”
`
`(’292 Patent claim 1)
`
`“when any change occurs in the video signal
`inputted to the input portion” / “when the
`change of the video signal does not occur and
`when the illumination detected by the
`illumination sensor is above a predetermined
`value”
`
`(’901 Patent claim 1)
`“an input entered by the user”
`
`(’438 Patent claim 1)
`“a cellular telephone adapted to be used in a
`CDMA system, comprising”
`
`(’193 Patent, all asserted claims)
`
`H’rg Tr. at 6:7–10, 111:19–112:6.
`
`Function: calculating the mobile handset’s
`position from the received GPS signals and
`outputting a GPS-based position result
`
`Structure: position calculation unit for GPS
`201 of a mobile handset, the position
`calculation unit for GPS 201 performing
`block 601 in Figure 2 and utilizing
`synchronization acquisition and reception
`timing measurements for position
`determination, as disclosed at 2:54–57, 2:57–
`60, 3:24–32, 3:33–43, or equivalents thereof
`“in response to any change occurring in the
`video signal inputted to the input portion”
`
`“in response to the change of the video signal
`not occurring and the illumination detected by
`the illumination sensor being above a
`predetermined value”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`The preambles are limiting
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A. The ’139 Patent
`
`The ’139 Patent relates generally to wireless communication systems, more specifically
`
`to methods for selecting, from multiple base stations within a wireless system, one base station
`
`for communication with a terminal. The Abstract of the ’139 Patent recites:
`
`When one base station to which a terminal is to connect is determined from a
`plurality of base stations in a wireless communication system, the best base
`station is selected according to the communication quality or the content of
`communication services. In the wireless communication system, the plurality of
`base stations are classified into a plurality of groups. Indexes of communication
`quality between the base stations and the terminal are obtained and, for each
`
`Page 15 of 117
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00178-RWS Document 175 Filed 01/31/18 Page 16 of 117 PageID #: 4866Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/19/18 Page 16 of 117 PageID #: 599
`
`
`
`g