CCase 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 6466
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:13-cv-507
`
`CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent
`
`Nos. 6,819,923 (“the ’9923 Patent”), 6,810,019 (“the ’019 Patent”), 7,941,174 (“the ’174
`
`Patent”), 8,055,820 (“the ’820 Patent”), and 7,218,923 (“the ’8923 Patent”), asserted in this suit
`
`by Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC. Also before the Court is Defendants’
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness (Docket No. 287).
`
`On December 16, 2014, the parties presented oral arguments on the disputed claim terms
`
`and on the Motion for Summary Judgment at a Markman hearing. For the reasons stated herein,
`
`the court ADOPTS the constructions set forth below and DENIES Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, a group of mobile device manufacturers and mobile
`
`network carriers, infringe the five patents asserted here. The patents-in-suit were acquired from
`
`Nokia Siemens Networks and generally relate to mobile communications, such as the UMTS,
`
`GSM, and LTE wireless standards. Docket No. 277 at 1. This Memorandum Opinion reflects
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 6467
`
`the Court’s claim constructions and indefiniteness rulings regarding the terms presented at the
`
`first of two Markman hearings scheduled in this case.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“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) (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 define
`
`the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–1314; 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
`
`Page 2 of 40
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 6468
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`Page 3 of 40
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 6469
`
`Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
`
`the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`
`treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
`
`skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
`
`definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
`
`pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
`
`term 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.
`
`Where a claim limitation is expressed in means-plus-function language and does not
`
`recite definite structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, § 112
`
`mandates that “such a claim limitation be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . .
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.).
`
`Accordingly, when faced with means-plus-function limitations, courts “must turn to the written
`
`description of the patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the
`
`[limitations].” Id.
`
`Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves two inquiries. The first step
`
`requires “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). Once a court has
`
`determined the limitation’s function, “the next step is to determine the corresponding structure
`
`Page 4 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 5954Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 6470
`
`
`disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A structure is corresponding “only if
`
`the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim.” Id. Moreover, 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.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`“Summary judgment is appropriate in a patent case, as in other cases, when there is no
`
`genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law.” Nike, Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 43 F.3d 644, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1994); FED. R. CIV.
`
`P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis
`
`for its motion” and identifying the matter that “it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a
`
`genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the
`
`moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must then set forth “specific facts showing
`
`that there is a genuine issue for trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
`
`Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
`
`A party seeking to invalidate a patent must overcome a presumption that the patent is
`
`valid. See 35 U.S.C. § 282; Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2243 (2011);
`
`U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Nat’l Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This presumption
`
`places the burden on the challenging party to prove the patent is invalid by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Microsoft, 131 S. Ct. at 2243; U.S. Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d at 1212.
`
`A claim is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 if it fails to particularly
`
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant regards as the invention. The
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 5955Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 6471
`
`
`party seeking to invalidate a claim as indefinite must show by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the claim, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, does not “inform those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v.
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129, 2130 n.10 (2014).
`
`CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS
`
`
`
`The parties have submitted the following agreements (Docket No. 245 at 1–2):
`
`Term
`“means for receiving a neighbor cell
`information message”
`(’9923 Patent, Claim 11)
`
`“means for associating a specific value of said
`set of specific parameter values indicated by
`one of said index with the corresponding
`second parameter of a neighbor cell”
`(’9923 Patent, Claim 11)
`
`Agreed Construction
`The parties agree this is a means-plus-function
`element to be construed in accordance with 35
`U.S.C. 112(6).
`
`The parties further agree that the function is
`“receiving a neighbor cell information
`message.”
`
`The parties do not agree regarding the
`structure.
`The parties agree this is a means-plus function
`element to be construed in accordance with 35
`U.S.C. 112(6).
`
`The parties further agree that the function is
`“associating a specific value of said set of
`specific parameter values indicated by one of
`said index with the corresponding second
`parameter of a neighbor cell.”
`
`The parties do not agree regarding the
`structure.
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 5956Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 6472
`
`
`“processing means for arranging gaps in a
`time-slot frame according to the measurement
`pattern definitions”
`(’019 Patent, Claim 11)
`
`The parties agree this is a means-plus function
`element to be construed in accordance with 35
`U.S.C. 112(6).
`
`The parties further agree that the function is
`“arranging gaps in a time-slot frame according
`to the measurement pattern definitions.”
`
`The parties do not agree regarding the
`structure.
`
`In view of the parties’ agreements on the proper functions for these terms, the Court
`
`ADOPTS these proposed functions.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’9923 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ’9923 Patent, titled “Method for Communication of Neighbor Cell Information,”
`
`issued on November 16, 2004 and bears a priority date of December 16, 1998. The Abstract of
`
`the ’9923 Patent states:
`
`The invention is related to signaling in cellular telecommunication systems,
`namely to reduction of resources used by signaling. According to the invention, a
`list of neighbor cell information is communicated to a mobile station in
`compressed form. Preferably, the neighbor cell information list is transmitted in
`such a way, that a table reciting parameter values in use by the neighboring cells,
`and for each of these cells, each value listed in the table is represented by a
`pointer such as an index to the table. In this way, same parameter values do not
`need to be repeated for each cell using the same values. The neighbor cell
`information list can be further compressed by expressing a first frequency
`parameter value in the normal way, but expressing further frequency parameter
`values relative to the first, or as in a further embodiment, relative to the previous
`frequency parameter value. Such ways of representing frequency values allow the
`use of fewer bits to represent the frequency values.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 5957Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 6473
`
`
`A. “means for receiving a neighbor cell information message” (Claim 11)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Function:
`“receiving a neighbor cell information
`message”
`
`Structure:
`“an antenna, a receiver, and a
`microprocessor (1:34-47; 2:4-7; 6:19-61;
`Fig. 7), and equivalents thereof (no special
`algorithm required)”
`
`The parties agree
`
`that
`
`this
`
`term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Function:
`“receiving a neighbor cell information
`message”
`
`Structure:
`No corresponding structure (algorithm)
`disclosed
`
`is a means-plus-function
`
`term subject
`
`to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 but disagree as to the structure disclosed in the specification. Plaintiff
`
`argues that “the structure for performing the claimed function is a combination of hardware (an
`
`antenna, receiver, and microprocessor), and no algorithm is required.” Docket No. 277 at 6–7.
`
`Plaintiff contends that “the link between ‘receiving’ a message, on the one hand, and the
`
`‘receiver’ and ‘antenna’ described in the patent, on the other hand, is self-evident to” a person
`
`skilled in the art. Id. at 7. Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that “even if the supporting structure
`
`was simply a processor (without an antenna and receiver), the claimed function — ‘receiving’ a
`
`message — is so basic that it may be performed by any general-purpose computer, and no
`
`special algorithm is necessary.” Docket No. 277 at 7.
`
`
`
`Defendants contend that the claim is indefinite because “[t]he specification clearly links
`
`the claimed function . . . to means 410 shown in Figure 7” but “provides no detail regarding this
`
`generic software program or its underlying algorithm.” Docket No. 288 at 22–23 (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Defendants emphasize that the specification does not link the
`
`disclosed receiver, antenna, or microprocessor to the function of receiving a neighbor cell
`
`information message. Id. at 23. Whereas these elements may be disclosed for receiving signals
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 5958Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 6474
`
`
`generally, Defendants argue, “the claimed function is not merely ‘receiving,’ but ‘receiving a
`
`neighbor cell information message.’” Id. at 24.
`
`
`
`Claim 11 of the ’9923 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`11. A mobile communication means for communication with a cellular
`telecommunication network, comprising:
`means for receiving a neighbor cell information message, wherein said
`
`neighbor cell information message comprises:
`a set of specific parameter values; and
`cell information, wherein, for each cell of a plurality of
`neighbor cells, said cell information comprises:
`at least one specific parameter value for a first
`parameter, and
`an index for a second parameter, said index
`indicating which value of said set of specific
`parameter values is used for said second
`parameter; and
`means for associating a specific value of said set of specific parameter
`
`values indicated by one of said index with the corresponding second parameter of
`a neighbor cell.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 5959Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 6475
`
`
`The specification discloses a mobile station that includes a receiver and a transmitter.
`
`The receiver portion comprises elements 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, and 462, the last of which is
`
`“an earpiece 462 or a loudspeaker 462 for producing the audible received signal.” ’9923 Patent
`
`at 6:20–28. The mobile station also comprises “an antenna 498, an oscillator block 496, a
`
`control block 490, a display 492 and a keypad 494.” Id. at 6:33–36. The specification continues
`
`that the mobile station “further comprises at least . . . means 410 for receiving a neighbor cell
`
`information message.” Id. at 6:41–44 (emphasis added). “Preferably the means 410 and 420 are
`
`realized using software programs stored in a memory element of a control block 490 of the
`
`mobile communication means 10, the programs being executed by a microprocessor of the
`
`control block 490.” Id. at 6:57–61 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the structure “clearly
`
`link[ed]”
`
`to
`
`the claimed function
`
`is
`
`the
`
`“microprocessor of the control block 490,” which executes the function of “receiving a neighbor
`
`cell information message.” See Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he written description must clearly link or associate structure to the
`
`claimed function.”). Contrary to Plaintiff’s proposal, no such linkage exists for the other
`
`components disclosed in Figure 7 and the accompanying description. See Asyst Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Structural features that do not actually
`
`perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as
`
`claim limitations.”). For instance, the disclosure of a microphone 472 and a loudspeaker 462,
`
`evidently for voice calls, weighs against finding that the general purpose components in Figure 7
`
`are linked to the function of receiving a neighbor cell information message.
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 5960Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 6476
`
`
`
`
`Where, as here, the corresponding structure is a general purpose computer, the
`
`specification generally must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that “to
`
`meet the definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,” the specification
`
`“must disclose some algorithm; it cannot merely restate the function recited in the claim”).
`
`
`
`However, there is an exception to the general rule requiring an algorithm. Specifically,
`
`when the corresponding structure is a general purpose computer, an algorithm is required unless
`
`the recited function can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special
`
`programming. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and
`
`‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special
`
`programming. As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose
`
`processor that performs those functions.”).
`
`
`
` In Katz, the Federal Circuit held that the term “analysis structure for receiving and
`
`processing said caller data signals” was not indefinite even though only a general purpose
`
`processor was disclosed for the “receiving” and “processing” functions. See id. at 1314, 1316.
`
`However, the Court further held that other claim language containing the term “receiving” was
`
`indefinite where the claim also included the additional limitation “based on a condition coupling
`
`an incoming call to the operator terminal, the processing means visually displaying the customer
`
`number data.” Id. at 1315. The Court explained that this term was indefinite because the
`
`specification did not disclose an algorithm corresponding to this latter function. Id.
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 5961Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 6477
`
`
`
`
`Here, the “receiving a neighbor cell information message” function is more akin to the
`
`receiving function held not indefinite in Katz than the function held indefinite. See id. The
`
`function here requires the microprocessor to have no more capability than what is required to
`
`receive the message. The limitation does not specify any further action to be performed on the
`
`neighbor cell information message once it is received. Thus, “receiving a neighbor cell
`
`information message” is a “receiving” function that can be carried out by a general purpose
`
`computer without special programming.
`
`
`
`The Court therefore holds that for the term “means for receiving a neighbor cell
`
`information message,” the function is “receiving a neighbor cell information message,” the
`
`corresponding structure is “a microprocessor of control block 490; and equivalents thereof,”
`
`and no algorithm is required. Accordingly, Defendants’ indefiniteness challenge is rejected.
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 5962Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 6478
`
`
`B. “means for associating a specific value of said set of specific parameter values indicated
`by one of said index with the corresponding second parameter of a neighbor cell”
`(Claim 11)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Function:
`“associating a specific value of said set of
`specific parameter values indicated by one of
`said index with the corresponding second
`parameter of a neighbor cell”
`
`Structure:
`“a microprocessor (6:57–61; Fig. 7)
`configured to use a parameter (or set of
`parameters) specified by an index (or pointer)
`for a parameter of a neighbor cell1 (2:15–28;
`2:35–43; 3:4–26; 4:11–5:17; 5:35–46; 7:39–
`49; Figs. 2–5), and equivalents thereof”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`
`This is a means-plus-function element to be
`construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`¶ 6.
`
`Function:
`“associating a specific value of said set of
`specific parameter values indicated by one of
`said index with the corresponding second
`parameter of a neighbor cell”
`
`Structure:
`No corresponding structure (algorithm)
`disclosed
`
`
`
`The parties agree
`
`that
`
`this
`
`term
`
`is a means-plus-function
`
`term subject
`
`to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 but disagree as to the structure disclosed in the specification. Plaintiff
`
`asserts that “[t]he algorithm disclosed for performing this function is simple: using the parameter
`
`value specified by the index for the second parameter.” Docket No. 304 at 15. Further, Plaintiff
`
`submits, “multiple passages [in the specification] confirm that the pointer or index may specify a
`
`set of specific parameter values.” Docket No. 277 at 11 (citing ’9923 Patent at 3:23–26 & 5:35–
`
`46).
`
`
`
`Defendants contend that the claim is indefinite because the specification clearly links the
`
`claimed function to the “means 420” shown in Figure 7, but “the specification fails to disclose
`
`any algorithm that describes how the software performs that function.” Docket No. 288 at 26.
`
`1 Plaintiff previously proposed to “relate” a parameter specified by an index “to” a parameter of a
`neighbor cell rather than to “use . . . for.” Docket No. 245, Ex. A at 1.
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 5963Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 6479
`
`
`Defendants argue that the figures cited by Plaintiff show only the content of the neighbor cell
`
`information messages and not the algorithm by which “a general purpose computer is to go about
`
`using, accessing, or associating the data within the message.” Id. Defendants further argue that
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed corresponding structure, which incorporates a function that “merely us[es] a
`
`parameter,” “is a drastic expansion from the claimed function that is limited to ‘associating a
`
`specific value.’” Id. at 29. Finally, Defendants criticize Plaintiff’s proposed structure because it
`
`“impermissibly broadens ‘a specific value’ to mean ‘a set of parameters.’” Id. at 30.
`
`
`
`As explained above in conjunction with the previous disputed term, the specification
`
`discloses a mobile station that comprises, among other things, “control block 490.” ’9923 Patent
`
`at 6:33–36. The specification continues that the mobile station “further comprises at least . . .
`
`means 420 for associating a value of said set of parameter values indicated by one of said
`
`second values with the corresponding parameter of a neighbor cell.” Id. at 6:41–54 (emphasis
`
`added). “Preferably the means 410 and 420 are realized using software programs stored in a
`
`memory element of a control block 490 of the mobile communication means 10, the programs
`
`being executed by a microprocessor of the control block 490.” Id. at 6:57–61 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, the structure “clearly link[ed]” to the claimed function is the “microprocessor of
`
`control block 490,” which executes the function of “associating a value of said set of parameter
`
`values indicated by one of said second values with the corresponding parameter of a neighbor
`
`cell.” See Telcordia Techs., Inc., 612 F.3d at 1376.
`
`As discussed above with respect to the “means for receiving” term, where the
`
`corresponding structure is software operating on a general purpose computer, the specification
`
`generally must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See Augme, 755 F.3d
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 5964Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 6480
`
`
`at 1337. Mere disclosure of inputs, without more, is insufficient to constitute an algorithm. See
`
`Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“Table 10 merely lists inputs without specifying any single formula or function or algorithm
`
`defining the contribution of any of the inputs to a computation.”). However, the patentee need
`
`not disclose every conceivable detail or implementation of an algorithm, so long as some
`
`algorithm is disclosed. See Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (“[T]he amount of detail that must be included in the specification depends on the
`
`subject matter that is described and its role in the invention as a whole, in view of the existing
`
`knowledge in the field of the invention.”). Further, “the algorithm may be expressed in any
`
`understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any
`
`other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Augme, 755 F.3d at 1337 (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted).
`
`
`
`Here, the specification repeatedly explains that a neighbor cell value is associated with a
`
`set of values by using a “pointer.” See, e.g., ’9923 Patent at 2:35–43 (“The length of a neighbor
`
`cell information message . . . can be considerably shortened by . . . specifying at least some
`
`repetitive values only once, and replacing the occurrences of the value with a pointer to the
`
`single specification of the value.”); id. at 3:15–21 (“[V]alues of the particular parameter used in
`
`the neighboring cells are placed in a table, and references to a value of this parameter are
`
`replaced by a pointer such as an index to the table, which pointer specifies which of the entries in
`
`the table is to be used.”); id. at 5:35–46, 2:15–28, 5:6–17. Thus, the corresponding structure is a
`
`microprocessor configured to specify a parameter or set of parameters by using an index or a
`
`pointer.
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 5965Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 6481
`
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that the claim is invalid because the patent discloses only inputs but no
`
`algorithm for how to use those inputs. However, the alleged inputs, the relationships between
`
`those inputs, and the method by which they are to be applied together are all disclosed in the
`
`specification. The comprehensive disclosure of the index and pointer system provides ample
`
`structure for the claimed function. Accordingly, Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments are
`
`rejected.
`
`
`
`The Court holds that for the term “means for associating a specific value of said set of
`
`specific parameter values indicated by one of said index with the corresponding second
`
`parameter of a neighbor cell,” the function is “associating a specific value of said set of
`
`specific parameter values indicated by one of said index with the corresponding second
`
`parameter of a neighbor cell,” and the corresponding structure is “a microprocessor of
`
`control block 490 configured to indicate a parameter value of a neighbor cell by using an
`
`index, or a pointer, to identify a parameter value, or set of parameter values; and
`
`equivalents thereof.”
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’019 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ’019 Patent, titled “Reducing Interference in Inter-Frequency Measurement,” issued
`
`on October 26, 2004 and bears a priority date of February 18, 2000. The Abstract of the ’019
`
`Patent states:
`
`A method for defining measurement gaps in a wireless telecommunications
`system comprising at least one base station and several wireless terminals. The
`telecommunications system comprises defining measurement patterns for
`terminals, which measurement patterns set
`locations of gaps used for
`measurements in a time-slot frame, and the base station comprises a transmitter
`for transmitting the measurement patterns to the corresponding terminals. In the
`method, measurement patterns are defined for the terminals, setting the locations
`of the gaps used for measurements in a time-slot frame, the measurement patterns
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 40
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00507-KNM Document 363 Filed 03/09/15 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 5966Case 6:14-cv-00251-KNM Document 163 Filed 08/09/16 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 6482
`
`
`are transmitted through the base station to the corresponding terminals and
`various delays are defined for the measurement patterns of the terminals so that
`the gaps of different terminals are in substantially different locations in the time-
`slot frame.
`
`
`A. “processing means for arranging gaps in a time-slot frame according to the
`measurement pattern definitions” (Claim 11)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Function:
`“arranging gaps in a time-slot frame
`according to the measurement pattern
`definitions”
`
`Structure:
`“a processor, controller, or application
`specific integrated circuit (10:34–52; Fig. 6)
`configured to apply transmission gap length
`(TGL), transmission gap distance (TGD),
`transmission gap pattern length (TGPL), and/or
`transmission gap period repetition count
`(TGPRC) parameters (5:53–67; 6:1–19; 6:20–
`7:3; 7:31–9:5; Fig. 3; Fig. 4A; Fig. 4B; Fig. 5),
`and equivalents”
`
`
`The parties agree
`
`that
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Function:
`“arranging gaps in a time-slot frame
`according to the measurement pattern
`definitions”
`
`Structure:
`No corresponding structure (algorithm)
`disclosed
`
`is a means-plus-function
`
`term subject
`
`to
`
`this
`
`term
`
`