`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT 1-1
`EXHIBIT 1-1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC. and QUALCOMM
`INCORPORATED,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:15-cv-1477-J-39JRK
`
`/
`
`O R D E R
`
`THIS CAUSE is before the Court for patent claim construction of claim terms or
`
`phrases, as described in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The parties have submitted the following
`
`documents for the Court’s consideration: 1) ParkerVision’s Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief (Doc. 80; Plaintiff’s Brief); 2) Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc.
`
`81; Defendants’ Brief); 3) ParkerVision’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 83;
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Brief); 4) Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc.
`
`84; Defendants’ Responsive Brief); 5) Joint List of Claim Terms for Construction (Doc. 78;
`
`Claim Terms); and 6) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Doc. 86-1; Claim Construction
`
`Chart).
`
`I. Background
`
`On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. initiated this case alleging
`
`patent infringement against nine Defendants. (Doc. 1; Complaint). Plaintiff amended the
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`Complaint twice. (Docs. 1, 3, and 121).1 In the operative Second Amended Complaint
`
`(Doc. 121), Plaintiff alleges infringement of the United States Patent No. 9,118,528
`
`against the only two remaining Defendants—Apple, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated.
`
`See Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12–22.
`
`On August 31, 2018, the Court held a Technology Tutorial and Claim Construction
`
`hearing. (Doc. 113). In accordance with the Court’s Order (Doc. 112), the parties filed a
`
`Joint Notice Regarding Claim Construction (Doc. 125), representing that after they met
`
`and conferred on September 18 and 25, 2018, the parties were unable to reach an
`
`agreement on the disputed claim construction terms or phrases or claims alleged to be
`
`indefinite. The Court now constructs six claim terms or phrases, determines whether three
`
`claim phrases are invalid for indefiniteness, and considers whether three agreed-upon
`
`claim terms or phrases are properly construed by the parties. See Claim Constr. Chart at
`
`2–3.
`
`The ‘528 patent is titled “Method and System for Down-Converting an
`
`Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms for Same, and Aperture Relationships.” ‘(Docs.
`
`80-1, 80-2; ‘528 Patent). The ‘528 Patent concerns systems and methods used in wireless
`
`receivers, such as those used in cell phones, and is directed to a system for down-
`
`converting a high-frequency modulated carrier signal to a low-frequency baseband signal.
`
`(Doc. 80-20 ¶ 18; Declaration of Dr. Phillip E. Allen). As described in the abstract of the
`
`‘528 Patent,
`
`
`1 By Order dated June 5, 2019 (Doc. 141), the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States
`Magistrate Judge, denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 131).
`Plaintiff filed an Objection (Doc. 142) to Judge Klindt’s Order, which the Court overruled and
`affirmed Judge Klindt’s Order (Doc. 143).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`Briefly stated, in embodiments the invention operates by receiving an EM
`signal and recursively operating on approximate half cycles (½, 1 ½, 2 ½,
`etc.) of the carrier signal. The recursive operations can be performed at a
`sub-harmonic rate of the carrier signal. The invention accumulates the
`results of the recursive operations and uses the accumulated results to form
`a down-converted signal. In an embodiment, the EM signal is down-
`converted to an intermediate frequency (IF) signal. In another embodiment,
`the EM signal is down-converted to a baseband information signal. In
`another embodiment, the EM signal is a frequency modulated (FM) signal,
`which is down-converted to a non-FM signal, such as a phase modulated
`(PM) signal or an amplitude modulated (AM) signal.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ products, including the iPhone 6 and 6S smartphones,
`
`iPad Air tablet, radio frequency receivers, transceivers, and other semiconductors that
`
`enable wireless technology, infringe on claims 1, 5, 8–10, 17–19, 23, 26–28, and 33–36
`
`of the ‘528 Patent. See Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17–18.
`
`II. Claim Construction Standards
`
`A patent describes the scope and limits of an invention to alert the public to what
`
`exclusive rights the patentee holds, and by the same token, what remains open to the
`
`public. Markman, 52 F.3d at 978–79. A patent consists of claims which should
`
`“‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as his invention.’” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects, Ltd., 401
`
`F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112). A determination of patent
`
`infringement requires a two-step analysis: first, the meaning of the claim language is
`
`construed, then the facts are applied to determine if the accused device falls within the
`
`scope of the claims as interpreted. Markman, 52 F.3d at 976.
`
`“When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim
`
`term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
`
`Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When the Court determines claim
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`construction based on evidence intrinsic to the patent, such determinations are questions
`
`of law subject to de novo review. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,
`
`837 (2015). To the extent that the Court makes underlying factual findings based on
`
`extrinsic evidence, such findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 837–38. A court need
`
`construe “only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary
`
`to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and
`
`technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by
`
`the claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.”).
`
`In claim construction, courts first examine the patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
`
`the patented invention’s scope. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims, the specification, and
`
`the prosecution history. See id. at 1314–17. Claim construction begins with the words of
`
`the claims themselves. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1301
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Such ordinary meaning
`
`“is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “Furthermore, a claim term should
`
`be construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`claims of the same patent.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001).
`
`The task of comprehending these words is not always a difficult one. “‘In some
`
`cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the
`
`art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases
`
`involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`
`understood words.’” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 805 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314). However, a patent “specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would
`
`otherwise possess.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. “In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.” Id.
`
`“When dealing with technical terms . . . a court should look to ‘the words of the
`
`claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and
`
`extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical
`
`terms, and the state of the art.’” Amgen Inc., 457 F.3d at 1301 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1314). Other asserted or un-asserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s
`
`meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in
`
`understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a
`
`limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not
`
`include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`A “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
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. Accordingly, the specification
`
`“‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis,’” and provides the “‘single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90
`
`F.3d at 1582). The specification may resolve ambiguous 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. v. Ficosa N.
`
`Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`“‘[W]hile . . . claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a
`
`view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification
`
`may be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,
`
`1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
`
`Importing limitations from the specification therefore “should be avoided unless the
`
`patentee clearly ‘intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be
`
`strictly coextensive.’” Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323). In this regard, “‘[a]lthough the specification
`
`may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular
`
`embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into
`
`the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc., 156 F.3d at 1187 (citation omitted); see also
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“although the specification often describes very specific
`
`embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims
`
`to those embodiments.”).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
`
`“prosecution history provides evidence of how the [USPTO] and the inventor understood
`
`the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However, because the prosecution history
`
`represents negotiation between the USPTO and the applicant, “it often lacks the clarity of
`
`the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. Nevertheless,
`
`the prosecution history can be helpful “by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
`
`invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of the prosecution.”
`
`Id. “Disclaimers based on disavowing actions or statements during prosecution, however,
`
`must be both clear and unmistakable.” Sorenson v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 427 F.3d 1375,
`
`1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, it is the applicant and not the examiner who must “‘give
`
`up or disclaim subject matter’” that would otherwise be included within the scope of the
`
`claim. Id. at 1379 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The statement of an examiner alone will not
`
`necessarily limit a claim. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Though not preferred over intrinsic evidence, the Court may also rely on extrinsic
`
`evidence, which is “all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including
`
`expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at
`
`980. Expert testimony may be useful in claim construction,
`
`“as to provide background on the technology . . . to explain how an invention
`works, to ensure that the court’s understanding of the technical aspects of
`the patent is consistent with that of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or to
`establish that a particular term in the patent or prior art has a particular
`meaning in the pertinent field.”
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318). Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant
`
`than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks and citation 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. However, 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 1321–22. Similarly, expert testimony
`
`may aid the 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 entirely unhelpful to the court. Id. at 1318.
`
`Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history
`
`in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. Finally, claim construction must proceed
`
`“without regard to the accused device.” See Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208
`
`F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`III. Discussion
`
`a. Claim construction of the six disputed claim terms or phrases
`
`The parties disagree over the construction of the following six terms in the ‘528
`
`Patent:
`
`1. portion of energy that is distinguishable from noise
`2. energy storage element
`3. baseband signal portion
`4. outputs
`5. integrated
`6. derived
`
`Claim Constr. Chart at 2. The Court considers each in turn.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i. portion of energy that is distinguishable from noise
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`‘528 Patent Term or
`Phrase
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`portion of energy that
`is distinguishable
`from noise
`
`
`“enough energy to
`allow the system to
`successfully
`distinguish the
`portion of energy
`from noise; if the
`circuit successfully
`down-converts, the
`portion of energy is
`distinguishable from
`noise”
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that the Federal Circuit in previous litigation construed “portion of
`
`energy that is distinguishable from noise” as Plaintiff’s proposed construction in this case.
`
`See Pl. Br. at 20–21 (citing ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 621 F. App'x 1009, 1019
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he system successfully distinguishes the transferred energy from
`
`noise. No reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise.”) (“ParkerVision, I”)). Plaintiff
`
`argues that its “proposed construction simply adopts the Federal Circuit’s interpretation,
`
`consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning . . . .” Pl. Br. at 21.
`
`Defendants argue that the Court does not need to reword the claim language
`
`because the term uses common words without special meaning. See Def. Br. at 13 (citing
`
`Cambrian Sci. Corp. v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 617 F. App'x 989, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“we
`
`look to the claim language, as [t]he actual words of the claim are the controlling focus.”
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted)); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The district court did not err
`
`in concluding that these terms have plain meanings that do not require additional
`
`construction.”)). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed construction has two parts—
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`one part before the semicolon and the other part after the semicolon. See Def. Br. at 13.
`
`Defendants contend that the first part invites confusion in that it “merely rearranges words,
`
`swapping the claim language ‘portion of energy that is distinguishable from noise’ for
`
`language indicating that the system must ‘successfully distinguish the portion of energy
`
`from noise.’” Def. Resp. Br. at 8. As to the second part, Defendants argue that Plaintiff
`
`“improperly seeks to transform a factual issue—whether the system at issue actually
`
`transfers energy to a storage device in amounts distinguishable from noise—into a per-
`
`se legal rule.” Def. Br. at 14 (citing Shire Dev. v. Watson Pharm., 787 F.3d 1359, 1368
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (that a factual “question may need to be resolved does not compel a
`
`claim construction that departs from the customary and ordinary meaning of the claims .
`
`. . .”).
`
`Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s proposed construction does not adopt the
`
`construction in ParkerVision, I, but instead “seeks to equate successful downconversion
`
`with transferring energy to a capacitor, regardless of how the downconverter actually
`
`operates.” Def. Resp. Br. at 9. Defendants represent that the court in ParkerVision, I,
`
`focused specifically on the Weisskopf prior art reference, “and the remainder of its opinion
`
`shows that the Weisskopf discussion cannot be stretched to cover devices that
`
`downconvert in other ways.” Id. (citing ParkerVision, I, 621 F. App'x at 1013–16). In other
`
`words, Defendants maintain that “successful downconversion does not require
`
`transferring any energy into a capacitor, let alone amounts distinguishable from noise.”
`
`Def. Resp. Br. at 10. Defendants argue that adopting Plaintiff’s “proposed construction
`
`would lead to the absurd result that a downconverter that successfully downconverted but
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 11 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`did not include any capacitors whatsoever would still be found to have transferred energy
`
`to a capacitor in amounts distinguishable from noise.” Id.
`
`After careful review, the Court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to re-write the “portion
`
`of energy that is distinguishable from noise.” Claim 1 states in part:
`
`a first switch coupled to a first control signal which comprises a sampling
`aperture with a specified frequency, wherein the first switch is on and a
`portion of energy that is distinguishable from noise is transferred from the
`modulated carrier signal as an output of said first switch during the sampling
`aperture of the first control signal . . . .
`
`‘528 Patent claim 1 (emphasis added). A reading of the plain language in claim 1 supports
`
`that the plain and ordinary meaning is the proper construction as it pertains to this case.
`
`See id.; see also (Doc. 81-1; Declaraton of Behzad Razavi ¶¶ 26–32 (“[T]he part of
`
`[Plaintiff]’s construction reading ‘if the circuit successfully downconverts, the portion of
`
`energy is distinguishable from noise’ is mistaken.”)). Plaintiff’s proposed construction is
`
`redundant and injects confusion into otherwise clear language. The construction invites
`
`confusion by adding “successfully distinguish” and “enough energy.” These words are
`
`unsupported by the claim language or evidence extrinsic to the ‘528 Patent. Defendants’
`
`expert Behzad Razavi opined that “[p]eople in this field have long known that transferring
`
`energy into a storage element, such as a capacitor, is not necessary for downconversion
`
`. . . some devices downconvert using energy in a capacitor, and some devices do not.”
`
`Razavi Decl. ¶ 29.
`
`Having participated as an expert in ParkerVision, I, Dr. Razavi opines that
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`proposed construction contradicts the technological underpinnings of the
`Federal Circuit’s opinions in [ParkerVision, I]. In particular, [Plaintiff’s]
`construction eliminates the technical distinction the Federal Circuit drew
`between devices that downconvert using energy stored in a capacitor and
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 12 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`devices that downconvert in other ways. For devices like [Plaintiff’s] claimed
`energy sampler and the cited prior art that downconvert using energy in a
`capacitor, successful downconversion can provide evidence that the
`amount of energy transferred into the capacitor is distinguishable from
`noise. But for devices like Qualcomm’s that downconvert using double-
`balanced mixers, successful downconversion is unrelated to how much
`energy is in a downstream capacitor.
`
`Razavi Decl. ¶¶ 30–31. The Federal Circuit in ParkerVision, I, held that one of the
`
`inventors, David Sorrells’s,
`
`testimony thus establishes that to determine whether or not energy in
`amounts distinguishable from noise has been transferred from the carrier
`signal, one may look to whether the down-converting circuit functions in
`practice. If a circuit successfully down-converts, that is proof that enough
`energy has been transferred to overcome the noise in the system.
`
`ParkerVision, I, 621 F. App'x at 1019. The Court agrees with Defendants’ interpretation
`
`of ParkerVision, I, to the extent that the discussion on downconversion focused on a prior
`
`art, Weisskopf, and the remainder of the opinion supports that the Weisskopf discussion
`
`cannot be stretched to cover devices that may downconvert in other ways. See id. at
`
`1013–1017 (“It is undisputed that double-balanced mixers existed prior to ParkerVision's
`
`invention and that a double-balanced mixer by itself (i.e., without the addition of output
`
`capacitors) can be used to convert high-frequency carrier signals into low-frequency
`
`baseband signals.”). Moreover, the Court will not resolve issues of fact at the claim
`
`construction phase. See Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., 628 F.3d
`
`1359, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“This court agrees with the [d]efendants that the parties'
`
`dispute concerns factual questions relating to the test for infringement and not the legal
`
`inquiry of the appropriate scope of the ‘positional accuracy’ limitation.”).
`
`The Court relies on the words of the Claim, the specification, and the minimal
`
`extrinsic evidence needed to demonstrate that a “portion of energy that is distinguishable
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 13 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`from noise” is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such evidence intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic to the ‘528 Patent supports that the term is due to be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. The construction for the term “portion of energy that is distinguishable
`
`from noise” in the ‘528 Patent is as follows:
`
`‘528 Patent Term or
`Phrase
`portion of energy that
`is distinguishable
`from noise
`
`
`Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`ii. energy storage element
`
`‘528 Patent Term or
`Phrase
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`energy storage
`element
`
`
`“energy storage
`circuit or device”
`
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Alternatively, “energy
`storage device.”
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that its proposed construction adopts the plain and ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning of “energy storage element,” as proposed by Defendants, by encompassing both
`
`an energy storage “circuit” or “device.” See Pl. Bf. at 24–25. The parties agree that
`
`“element” could be constructed as “device.” See Def. Br. at 15. The parties disagree
`
`whether an “element” can be constructed as a “circuit.” See id.
`
`Plaintiff argues that limiting “element” to “‘device’ is inconsistent with the ordinary
`
`meaning, as demonstrated by the Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics, Seventh Edition,
`
`which defines ‘element’ as including both a ‘circuit component’ and a ‘circuit, such as an
`
`AND gate, that can be taken as a unit because it performs a special function.’” Pl. Br. at
`
`25 (citing Ex. M at “element”; Ex. N at “element”; Allen Decl. ¶ 57). Plaintiff also argues
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 14 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 15 of 30
`
`that the ‘528 Patent language “describes the energy storage element as comprising more
`
`than just a single capacitor.” Pl. Resp. Br. at 16 (emphasis omitted) (citing ‘528 Patent
`
`105:60–106:7).
`
`Defendants state that Plaintiff’s proposed construction requires the term “element”
`
`include entire “circuits.” Def. Resp. Br. at 12. Defendants argue that this is improper
`
`because an “element” is a narrower term that does not encompass entire circuits and
`
`draws no support from the ‘528 Patent. See Def. Br. at 15–16. Defendants maintain that
`
`the ‘528 Patent “depicts energy storage elements as individual devices, such as a
`
`capacitor, rather than entire circuits.” Id. at 16 (citing ‘528 Patent Fig. 68C (identifying
`
`“CAPACITOR(S)”)).
`
`The claim language states “a first energy storage element that stores the
`
`transferred energy from the modulated carrier signal.” ‘528 Patent claim 1. The Court
`
`accepts the parties’ agreement that “element” can be constructed as “device.” Weighing
`
`the evidence intrinsic and extrinsic to the ‘528 Patent, the Court concludes that “circuit”
`
`shall be included in the construction. Initially, the Court notes that the ‘528 Patent
`
`language supports Plaintiff’s proposed construction. See ‘528 Patent 105:60–106:7, Fig.
`
`68C). Likewise, the extrinsic evidence supports Plaintiff’s proposed construction. See Pl.
`
`Br. at 25, Ex. M at “element” (“circuit component” and “[a] circuit, such as an AND gate,
`
`that can be taken as a unit because it performs a special function.”), Ex. N at “element”
`
`(“A circuit or device performing some specific elementary data-processing function.”). The
`
`Court relies on the words of the ‘528 Patent and the minimal extrinsic evidence needed
`
`to demonstrate that “energy storage element” is due to be constructed in accordance with
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 15 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 16 of 30
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction. The construction for the term “energy storage element”
`
`in the ‘528 Patent is as follows:
`
`‘528 Patent Term or
`Phrase
`energy storage
`element
`
`
`Construction
`
`“energy storage circuit or device”
`
`
`iii. baseband signal portion
`
`‘528 Patent Term or
`Phrase
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`baseband signal
`portion
`
`
`“part of the baseband
`signal”
`
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that the proper construction of “baseband signal portion” is “part of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the baseband signal” because this is the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pl. Br. at 23.
`
`Plaintiff represents that the parties agree on the construction for “baseband signal” but
`
`dispute whether “portion” is part of the “baseband signal.” See id. To support its proposed
`
`construction, Plaintiff provides that its expert Dr. Allen opined that the ‘528 Patent
`
`“distinguishes between the part/portion of baseband signal sent to the load from the
`
`switch (5710A) and the part/portion sent from the energy storage element (5710B) . . . .”
`
`Id. (citing Allen Decl. ¶ 53). Plaintiff also relies on the Oxford American Dictionary of
`
`Current English, 1999, American Heritage College Dictionary, 2000, and Webster’ Ninth
`
`New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989. See id. at 23. Plaintiff argues that Defendants
`
`improperly assert a new construction for the “baseband signal portion” “to mean an entire
`
`baseband signal, such as a ‘down-converted in-phase baseband signal’ or a ‘down-
`
`converted inverted in-phase baseband signal.’” Pl. Resp. Br. at 17 (citing Def. Br. at 18).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 16 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 17 of 30
`
`Defendants argue that “baseband signal portion” should be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning in the context of the claims. See Def. Br. at 16. Defendants make three
`
`arguments why the Court should reject Plaintiff’s proposed construction: 1) the term
`
`“obfuscates the nature of its proposed construction by plucking a short phrase out of
`
`context from four much longer limitations”; 2) Plaintiff “seeks to rewrite what the claimed
`
`‘portion’ refers to”; and 3) the proposed construction attempts “to ignore the claim
`
`language immediately before the term.” Id. at 16–19. Defendants argue that Plaintiff
`
`ignores the claim language, which “uses a different reference point” than is used by
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction. See Def. Resp. Br. at 14–15 (citing ‘528 Patent 91:44–
`
`48, 176:61–179:53, Fig. 197; Razavi Decl. ¶ 40). In support, Defendants provide that the
`
`claim language makes clear that “portion” refers to: 1) “‘portion of said modulated carrier
`
`signal’”; 2) “a specific portion of the modulated carrier signal, i.e., the ‘down-converted in-
`
`phase baseband signal portion of the modulated carrier signal’”; or 3) “‘down-converted
`
`inverted in-phase baseband signal portion.’” Def. Br. at 17–18 (citing ‘528 Patent claim 1)
`
`(emphasis omitted).
`
`Beginning with the claim language, claim 1 states in part:
`
`a first energy storage element that stores the transferred energy from the
`modulated carrier signal and outputs a down-converted in-phase baseband
`signal portion of said modulated carrier signal; . . .
`
` a
`
` second energy storage element that stores the transferred energy from
`the modulated carrier signal and outputs a down-converted inverted in-
`phase baseband signal portion of said modulated carrier signal; . . .
`
`‘528 Patent claim 1 (emphasis added). The Court will not ignore the language following
`
`“portion” and will not rewrite the claim terms. See Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom
`
`Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Courts cannot rewrite claim
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 51-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 17 of 29Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 03/16/22 Page 18 of 30
`
`language.” (internal citation omitted)). The