Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 45
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`BANDSPEED, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00765-LY
`
`
`
`BANDSPEED’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 45
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS AND BLUETOOTH .....................................................1
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................1
`
`III. CONTESTED CLAIM TERM NOS. 1-11 ...........................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`Contested Term No. 1: “selection kernel” ............................................................3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Term Is Not Indefinite. ......................................................................3
`
`Realtek’s Alternative Proposed Construction Fails. .................................4
`
`Bandspeed’s Proposed Construction Should Be Adopted ........................7
`
`Contested Term No. 2: “the hopping sequence” ...................................................7
`
`Contested Term No. 3: “[first/second/third] performance [criterion/criteria]” ..10
`
`Contested Term No. 4: “a [first]/[second] time” ................................................12
`
`Contested Term Nos. 5 and 6: “channel index” and “apply[ing] an index to a
`channel index of the identified communications channel” .................................13
`
`Contested Term Nos. 7 and 8: “distinct channels” and “the number of distinct
`channels in the first set of two or more communications channels varies from
`the number of distinct channels in the second set of two or more
`communications channels” .................................................................................15
`
`Contested Term No. 9: “rescanning [the default channels]” ..............................17
`
`Contested Term Nos. 10 and 11: “bad” and “good” ...........................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`No Construction Is Necessary for These Terms. ....................................19
`
`Realtek’s Claims of Indefiniteness Fail. .................................................19
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Realtek Failed to Identify the Terms “bad” and “good” as
`Indefinite. ................................................................................... 19
`
`The Terms “bad” and “good” Are Not Indefinite. ..................... 19
`
`3.
`
`Realtek’s Alternative Proposed Constructions Should Be Rejected.......20
`
`IV. CONTESTED TERM NOS. 12-15: “INSTRUCTIONS” TERMS ....................................21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 3 of 45
`
`A.
`
`The “Instructions” Terms Are Not Mean-Plus-Function Terms .........................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Realtek Failed to Assert the Indefiniteness of Any of the “Instructions”
`Terms in Its Invalidity Contentions ........................................................22
`
`The “Instructions” Terms Lack the Word “Means” and §112, ¶6 Does
`Not Apply................................................................................................22
`
`Beauregard Claims Are Not Subject to M+F Treatment .......................23
`
`B.
`
`Even Under §112, ¶ 6, the “Instructions” Terms Are Not Indefinite, and
`Bandspeed’s Constructions Are Correct. ............................................................24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Contested Term No. 12: “Instructions that Cause . . . Generating [First /
`Second] Channel Identification Data that Identifies the [First / Second]
`Set of Two or More Communications Channels” ...................................24
`
`Contested Term No. 13: “[Instructions . . .] Causing the [First / Second]
`Set of Two or More Communications Channels to be Loaded into [a/the]
`[First] Register” ......................................................................................28
`
`Contested Term No. 14: “Instructions . . . Cause[ ] Loading a Set of
`Default Channels into a Default Channel Register; Loading a Set of
`Good Channels into a Good Channel Register” .....................................32
`
`Contested Term No. 15: “[instructions …causes] select[ing], based upon
`performance of [a/the] plurality of communications channels …
`communications channels” .....................................................................34
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Advanced Mktg. Sys., LLC v. CVS Pharm.,Inc.,
`Nos. 6:15-cv-134, 6:15-cv-137, 2016 WL 1741396 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2016) ..................... 24
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.,
`877 F.Supp.2d 838 (N.D. Cal., 2012) .................................................................................... 24
`
`Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC,
`771 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Bandspeed, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor, Corp.,
`No. Case No. 1:19-CV-00936-LY, Dkt. 53 (Aug. 18, 2020, W.D. Tex.) ............................. 25
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`No. 2016-1770, 875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 9, 14
`
`Bell Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. Altek Sys.,
`No. 97–1226, 132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................... 2
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`No. 2012–1289, 783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 9, 14
`
`Chimie v. PPG Industries, Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Digital-Vending Servs. Int'l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n,
` 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir.2006) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int’l Corp.,
` 742 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 23
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`No. 2009–1281, 599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................... 3, 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) ........................................... 24
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`Nos. 11, 37, 43, 86 S.Ct. 684 (1966) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`607 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 4, 17
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00030-JRG, 2021 WL 150442 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2021) ............................... 24
`
`In re Beauregard,
`53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Downing,
`754 Fed. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
` 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 2
`
`Intelligent Agency, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
`No. 4:20-CV-0185-ALM, 2022 WL 760203 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2022) .............................. 24
`
`Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF & Thoracic, LLC,
`799 F. App'x 847 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 25
`
`Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`No. 90–1359, 968 F.2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ......................................................................... 2
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys. Inc.,
`Nos. 03–1138, 03–1139, 357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................... 2
`
`MorphoTrust USA, LLC v. United States,
`No. 16–227C, 132 Fed. Cl. 419 (2017) ......................................................... 4, 8, 9, 15, 20, 23
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`Nos. 96–1255, 96–1274, 133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................... 2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`No. 13–369, 572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................. 2, 9, 14
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`No. 03–1615, 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 2
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`Nos. 03–1269, 03–1286, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................... 2, 3, 14
`
`Renishaw PLC v. MarpossSocieta’ Per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-03227-PSG, 2016 WL 791792 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2016) ....... 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, 20, 23
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 535 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ..................................................................................... 24
`
`Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Syncpoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-00247-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 55118 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) ........................... 25
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 11, 20
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`No. 04 C 5312, 2006 WL 3147697 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2006) ................................................ 24
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:18-CV-00492-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 569858 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2020) ........................ 24
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. C18-1732 RSM, 2020 WL 6270825 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2020) ................................. 25
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
` 2008 WL 3914098 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 19, 2008) .................................................................... 24
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 23
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(e) .......................................................................................................... 9, 10, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Bandspeed, LLC (“Bandspeed” or “Plaintiff”) alleges that Realtek infringes
`
`multiple claims of multiple patents.1 The Patents relate to improvements in personal area network
`
`(PAN) communications at the time of the invention. The ‘418, ‘624, ‘608, ‘643, ‘500, ‘769 and
`
`‘520 Patents disclose an approach for selecting sets of communications channels that involves
`
`determining the performance of communications channels. The ’614 Patent discloses an approach
`
`for managing communications channels based on performance.
`
`On August 12, 2011, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding
`
`Claims Construction wherein it construed certain claim terms pertaining to the ’418 and ’614
`
`Patents for a related case, Bandspeed, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al., Cause No. A09-CA-
`
`593-LY, Doc. No. 256 (Ex. 11). As part of the claims construction process, the parties submitted
`
`to the Court an Amended Joint Claims Construction Statement, which includes an updated list of
`
`agreed claim constructions and contested claim constructions (including contested means plus
`
`function constructions). See Doc. 39-1. Plaintiff’s technical expert, Dr. Jose Melendez, has
`
`submitted, at the request of Plaintiff, an expert declaration regarding certain of Plaintiff’s claim
`
`construction positions. Ex. 1 (“Melendez Decl.”); Ex. 2 (“Melendez CV”).
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim construction is the first step in any infringement or validity analysis.2 A district court
`
`should construe the claims in light of their explicit language as informed by their preambles, as
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Nos. 7,027,418 (“’418 Patent”) (Ex. 3); 7,477,624 (“’624 Patent”) (Ex. 4);
`7,570,614 ( “’614 patent”) (Ex. 5); 7,903,608 (“’608 Patent”) (Ex. 6); 8,542,643 (“‘643 Patent”)
`(Ex. 7); 8,873,500 (“’500 Patent”) (Ex. 8); 9,379,769 (“’769 Patent”) (Ex. 9); and 9,883,520
`(“’520 Patent”) (Ex. 10) (collectively, the “Patents”).
`2 See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S.
`370 (1996).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`well as the patent’s specification, figures, and prosecution history.3 The specification is the “best
`
`source for understanding a technical term,” to be supplemented, “as needed, by the prosecution
`
`history.”4 The prosecution history represents key evidence of how the examiner and the inventor
`
`construed the patent.5 Claims should generally be interpreted in a manner consistent with other
`
`claims, as well as with the prosecution history.6 Moreover, claim terms in patents sharing a
`
`common specification and application should usually be given the same interpretation.7 It is
`
`improper to confine a claim to a particular embodiment; the claim language itself is paramount.8
`
`Extrinsic evidence may also be relevant to claim construction.9 The Federal Circuit has warned
`
`that while extrinsic evidence “can shed useful light on the relevant art,” it is “less significant than
`
`the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.”10
`
`A claim is invalid for indefiniteness only when its language, 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.”11 “The definiteness requirement, so understood,
`
`mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.”12 “The certainty which
`
`
`3 See id. at 980; see also Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 33 (1966).
`4 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Multiform Desiccants,
`Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`5 See Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`6 See, e.g., Bell Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`7 See, e.g., NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(rehearing en banc denied); Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys. Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) (rehearing en banc denied).
`8 See, e.g., Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1325 (favoring plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language over
`importing limitation from the preferred embodiment).
`9 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Such evidence consists of all evidence extrinsic to the patent
`and its prosecution history, including “expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`treatises.”
`10 Id.
`11 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`12 Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`the law requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter.”13
`
`Reasonable certainty” does not require “absolute or mathematical precision.”14 “In the face of an
`
`allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of claim construction apply.”15 “In that regard,
`
`claim construction involves consideration of primarily the intrinsic evidence, viz., the claim
`
`language, the specification, and the prosecution history.”16 “The person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
`
`disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.”17
`
`III. CONTESTED CLAIM TERM NOS. 1-11
`
`A.
`
`Contested Term No. 1: “selection kernel”
`
`Term to be Construed
`Selection kernel
`
`‘643 patent, claims 5, 10, 15
`
`
`Bandspeed’s Construction
`a device or mechanism of a
`participant that selects
`communications channels to
`form the hopping sequence
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The Term Is Not Indefinite.
`
`Realtek’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Alternatively: the configuration
`of hardware and software
`illustrated in any of Figures
`11.3 and 11.4, which is
`described in Bluetooth
`Specification 11.12 v.1.0B
`
`A party may not seek to invalidate a claim as indefinite without disclosing such contention
`
`in its invalidity contentions.18 Realtek’s invalidity contentions fail to disclose its contention that
`
`
`
`13 Id.
`14 Id.
`15 Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
`marks and citation omitted).
`16 Id.
`17 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13.
`18 Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., No. 14-CV-03227-PSG, 2016 WL 791792, at *3
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2016) (denying summary judgment where indefiniteness theory not disclosed
`in invalidity contentions as to certain challenged terms); see also MorphoTrust USA, LLC v.
`United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 419, 420 (2017) (in the absence of Local Patent Rules, denying leave
`to amend to add indefiniteness assertions against seven terms not disclosed in invalidity
`contentions).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`“selection kernel” is indefinite, which is fatal to its claim of indefiniteness. Ex. 12, Inv. Cont. at
`
`54-64. The Court may deny Realtek’s claim of indefiniteness on this ground alone.19
`
`Further, to show indefiniteness, Realtek must “show by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area.”20
`
`Realtek cannot meet its burden. A POSITA would understand the meaning of “selection kernel”
`
`in the context of the ‘643 Patent and “selection kernel” is not indefinite. Ex. 1 at 10-11. A selection
`
`kernel in a frequency hopping system in the early “Bluetooth…communication system” cited by
`
`the ‘643 patent is a logically separate part of a routine that selects the channels to be used in
`
`forming a hopping sequence by addressing a register or an array of memory of channels. In early
`
`Bluetooth systems all available channels were used regardless of performance, and were selectable
`
`by a basic selection kernel. Ex. 13, Bluetooth Spec. v.1.0B at 129-133.
`
`The PTAB previously determined that “selection kernel” was not indefinite using a
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation to determine “selection kernel” to mean “a software module that
`
`encapsulates a register addressing function,” consistent with Bandspeed’s construction requiring
`
`“a device or mechanism of a participant that selects communications channels to form the hopping
`
`sequence.”21 Ex. 14, PTAB-IPR2015-00531-39 FWD at 11. The term is not indefinite. Ex. 1 at 14.
`
`2.
`
`Realtek’s Alternative Proposed Construction Fails.
`
`Realtek offers the following alternative proposed construction for “selection kernel”: “the
`
`configuration of hardware and software illustrated in Figures 11.3 and 11.4, which is described in
`
`
`19 Silicon Labs., 2016 WL 791792 at *3; MorphoTrust USA, 132 Fed. Cl. at 420.
`20 Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 783 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`21 Petitioner’s expert’s opined that “selection kernel” is not indefinite because, “[a]s would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, a selection kernel selects channels to use for
`transmission of data.” Ex. 15, IPR2016-00623 Petitioner’s Ex. 1002 “Ding Declaration” at ¶39.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`Bluetooth Specification 11.12 v.1.0B.” The prior art selection kernel Realtek’s proposes does not
`
`account for the advancement described by the ‘643 Patent. The prior art selection kernel is a one-
`
`stage selection kernel where all 79 channels are hopped. Compare that to the new selection kernel
`
`introduced in the ‘643 Patent, which describes a two-stage selection kernel where a “good channel
`
`register” is created and used in hopping of the subset of channels. Realtek’s proposal improperly
`
`excludes this two-stage selection kernel embodiment—an outcome the Federal Circuit has
`
`cautioned is “rarely, if ever, correct.”22 Figure 11.3—relied upon by Realtek for its construction—
`
`is from the prior art Bluetooth Specification v. 1.0B cited in the prosecution of the ‘643 patent.
`
`
`
`
`22 See Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) (“A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct
`and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.”) (internal quotations omitted); Chimie
`v. PPG Industries, Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514
`F.3d 1271, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that
`excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification ...”).
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`Ex. 13 at 129; Ex. 7 (‘643 Patent) at 19:45-21:13. This is a basic, prior art “selection kernel” that
`
`takes inputs that subsequently address a register storing 79 numbered channels listed first as odd
`
`then even for selecting communications channels to form the hopping sequence. This exemplary
`
`selection kernel utilizes addition (“ADD”), exclusive OR (“XOR”), and permutation operations
`
`within a single stage in order to address a register. It utilizes modulo 79 (“mod 79” in the above
`
`figure) to select from all 79 default communications channels to form the hopping sequence.
`
`The’643 patent describes implementation of adaptive frequency hopping which may also make
`
`some use of the basic selection kernel:
`
`According to another embodiment of the invention, after a participant has received
`the set of selected communications channels, the participant stores data that
`indicates the new set of selected channels. For example, in a Bluetooth or IEEE
`802.15.1 FH communications system, each participant has a selection kernel that
`addresses a register. The output of the kernel is a set of addresses for each slot in
`the register, while the content of the slot in the register is a channel number. Instead
`of modifying the selection kernel, which is usually complicated, the register is
`loaded using only the selected set of communications channels. As a result, when
`the kernel addresses the register, only the selected set of channels are used.
`
`Ex.7 at 19:42-54 (emphasis added). To use the prior art selection kernel shown in Figure 11.3, the
`
`selection kernel would need to be changed to determine a selected set of channels in the register
`
`(i.e., mod N) is less than the full set, and N becomes a system variable that is the number of good
`
`channels in the good channel register. Ex. 1 at 12-13.
`
`The specification discusses another adaptive frequency hopping embodiment having a two-
`
`stage selection kernel that utilizes the basic selection kernel as a first stage for addressing, but not
`
`necessarily selecting, default channels that includes a second stage for addressing the set of
`
`selected good channels for selection “[t]he major difference between the example of FIG. 5A and
`
`FIG. 5B is that in FIG. 5B, whenever selection kernel 510 addresses a channel classified as bad in
`
`register with default channels 520, the bad channel is replaced with a good channel that is randomly
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 14 of 45
`
`selected from table of good channels 570. Thus, only good channels are selected to form the
`
`hopping sequence.” Ex. 7 at Fig. 5B & 20:40-46 (emphasis added). Ex. 1 at 13-14.
`
`Thus, the ‘643 patent discloses a two-stage selection kernel for selecting communication
`
`channels from the set of good communications channels in forming the hopping sequence. This is
`
`expressly claimed in ‘643 patent: “if a selection kernel addresses a bad channel stored in a
`
`particular location of the default channel register, then replacing, by the selection kernel, the bad
`
`channel stored in the particular location of the default channel register with a good channel selected
`
`from the set of good channels loaded in the good channel register. Ex. 7, claims 1, 6, 11 (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, Realtek’s construction reads out these preferred embodiments describing the two-
`
`step selection kernel and must be rejected.
`
`3.
`
`Bandspeed’s Proposed Construction Should Be Adopted
`
`A selection kernel is implemented as a combination of hardware and software programs
`
`comprising a module and such combinations are understood to comprise software modules
`
`including devices or mechanisms. Consistent with the disclosures of the ‘643 patent specification,
`
`cited Bluetooth specification prior art, and the understanding of a POSITA “selection kernel”
`
`should be construed as “a device or mechanism of a participant that selects communications
`
`channels to form the hopping sequence.” Bandspeed’s proposal should be adopted. Ex. 1 at 14-15.
`
`B.
`
`Contested Term No. 2: “the hopping sequence”
`
`Term to be Construed Plaintiff’s Construction
`the hopping sequence
`the order in which the communications
`network hops among the set of
`frequencies
`
`’608 patent
`
`Realtek’s Construction
`Indefinite (lack of
`antecedent basis)
`
`The parties agree that “the hopping sequence” as used in the ’418 and ’614 Patents should
`
`be construed as “the order in which the network hops among the set of frequencies.” With regard
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`to the ’608 Patent, however, Realtek claims the term is indefinite for lack of antecedent basis,
`
`despite its failure to disclose this contention in its invalidity contentions.
`
`A party may not seek to invalidate a claim as indefinite without disclosing such contention
`
`in its invalidity contentions.23 The party asserting invalidity bears a heavy burden to show by clear
`
`and convincing evidence that the disputed claims are indefinite.24 A claim is invalid for
`
`indefiniteness only when its language, 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.”25 The requirement that each claim term have an antecedent basis is a rule of patent
`
`drafting, administered during patent examination.26 A claim may provide an explicit antecedent
`
`basis by introducing a given term using an indefinite article (e.g., “a” or “an”) before referring to
`
`it in definite form, using “the” or “said.”27 “Obviously, however, the failure to provide an explicit
`
`antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite.”28 “When the meaning of a
`
`claim would be reasonably understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the
`
`specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent
`
`basis.’”29 A claim term is not invalid for indefiniteness if its antecedent basis is present by
`
`
`23 Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., No. 14-CV-03227-PSG, 2016 WL 791792, at *3
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2016) (denying summary judgment where indefiniteness theory not disclosed
`in invalidity contentions as to certain challenged terms); see also MorphoTrust USA, LLC v.
`United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 419, 420 (2017) (in the absence of Local Patent Rules, denying leave
`to amend to add indefiniteness assertions against seven terms not disclosed in invalidity
`contentions).
`24 BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Biosig
`Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A patent is presumed
`valid . . . .”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 282).
`25 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`26 Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`27 See Morgan D. Rosenberg, The Essentials of Patent Claim Drafting app. B, at 183 (2012).
`28 MPEP § 2173.05(e).
`29 Id. See also In re Downing, 754 Fed. App’x 988, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Energizer Holdings,
`435 F.3d at 1370–71.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 40 Filed 10/17/22 Page 16 of 45
`
`
`
`implication.30
`
`Realtek’s invalidity contentions fail to disclose its contention that “the hopping sequence”
`
`as used in the ’608 Patent is indefinite. Ex. 12 at 54-64. The Court may deny Realtek’s claim of
`
`indefiniteness on this ground alone.31 In all events, the ’608 Patent provides sufficient detail to
`
`allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of these claims even absent strict
`
`compliance with grammatical rules. Ex. 1 at 15-17. The hopping sequence, as claimed in claims 2
`
`and 4 of the ’608 Patent, is defined in the specification: “The order in which the communications
`
`network hops among the set of frequencies is known as the hopping sequence.”32 The language of
`
`claims 2 and 4 shows that each claim refers to a single hopping sequence. Claims 2 and 4 depend
`
`from claim 1, which does not include the term “hopping sequence.”33 As a result, Realtek cannot
`
`credibly claim that “the hopping sequence” as initially used in claim 2 and in claim 4 ambiguously
`
`refers to more than one previous recitation of hopping sequence. Ex. 1 at 15.34
`
`In addition, the initial reference to “the hopping sequence” in claim 2 states “the hopping
`
`sequence to be performed based on a frequency hopping protocol, wherein:” and subsequently
`
`recites additional limitations with “hopping sequence.”35 As a result, a POSITA would understand
`
`these subsequent references to “hopping sequence” refer to the hopping sequence introduced
`
`
`30 Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1319 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`31 Silicon Labs., 2016 WL 791792 at *3; MorphoTrust USA, 132 Fed. Cl. at 420.
`32 Ex. 6 at 2:19-21. See also id. at 2:60-62 (“Typi