Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 36
`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 36
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`OZMO LICENSING LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and
`DELL INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00642-ADA
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES A. PROCTOR, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`I, James A. Proctor, Jr., hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over 21 years old of age and otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I
`
`make this declaration based on facts and matters within my own knowledge and on information
`
`provided to me by others, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the
`
`matter set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Dell Technologies Inc. and
`
`Dell Inc. (collectively, “Dell” or “Defendants”) in the above-referenced litigation. I understand
`
`that this Declaration is being relied upon by the Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to opine on matters of claim construction for U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,599,814 (“the ’814 patent”); 9,264,991 (“the ’991 patent”); 10,873,906 (“the ’906 patent”);
`
`11,012,934 (“the ’934 patent”); 11,122,504 (“the ’504 patent”); and 11,252,659 (“the ’659
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the Asserted Patents and their file
`
`histories, the constructions proposed by the parties, and any other documents referenced in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I relied upon my education
`
`and experience in the relevant field of the art and have considered the viewpoint of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art as of March 14, 2005-2006.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this Declaration at my
`
`standard consulting rate of $500 per hour. My compensation is in no way dependent on the
`
`outcome of this matter and does not affect the substance of my statements and opinions in this
`
`Declaration. I do not have any financial interests relating to Defendants, Plaintiff Ozmo
`
`Licensing LLC (“Ozmo” or “Plaintiff”), or the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 4 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7.
`
`My background and expertise that qualify me as an expert are described in detail
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae attached as Attachment A, which further includes an accurate list of all
`
`publications authored by me in the previous 10 years and a list of all cases in which I testified as
`
`an expert at trial or by deposition during the previous 4 years. Below I have summarized those
`
`qualifications, as well as any other background and expertise relevant to the technical issues in
`
`this case:
`
`8.
`
`My educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering (BSEE) from the University of Florida in 1991 and Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering (MSEE) from the Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in 1992
`
`focusing on digital signal processing.
`
`9.
`
`I have worked as an engineer and entrepreneur in the field of wireless
`
`communications for over 25 years and have been involved with various aspects of wireless
`
`communications for the duration of my career.
`
`10.
`
`From 1986 to 1991, while at the University of Florida, I interned with Harris
`
`Corporation in various roles including mechanical design, software development, and digital
`
`design. From 1991 to 1992, while at Georgia Tech, I worked at the Georgia Tech Research
`
`Institute (GTRI) as a graduate research assistant, performing software development on classified
`
`government programs.
`
`11.
`
`From 1993 to 1995, while working for Harris Corporation, I designed various
`
`cellular communication systems for voice, data, and tracking/location. Many of these systems I
`
`designed utilized advanced communications technologies, such as those utilized in the then-
`
`developing and future telecommunications (such as IS95, W-CDMA, and aspects of LTE).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 5 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`12.
`
`From 1995 to 1998, I worked at Spectran in advanced development and technical
`
`marketing. At Spectrian, I interfaced with Nortel’s and Qualcomm’s product management and
`
`performed advanced technology development and systems analysis. In this role, I designed IS-95
`
`CDMA and GSM base station power amplifiers and control electronics, and received several
`
`patents associated with advanced linearization techniques for the reduction of transmitted
`
`distortion. I note that the peak to average ratio of various waveforms was of particular concern in
`
`the design of the power amplifiers and associated linearization techniques with the designs I was
`
`involved with during my work at Spectrian.
`
`13.
`
`From 1998 to 2002, I served as the Director of Strategic and Technical Marketing
`
`at Tantivy Communications, a venture capital-funded 3G cellular data and chip set company. At
`
`Tantivy, I helped to architect and standardize the I-CDMA Spread Spectrum Systems Air
`
`Interface Standard (T1P1.4). I also developed both wireless access terminals and base stations
`
`that complied with the standard. The base stations utilized various IP protocols, and interfaced
`
`with the wire line network utilizing IP over Ethernet. Additionally, I participated in and provided
`
`technical contributions to 3GPP/3GPP2 standardization efforts related to the development of
`
`CDMA2000 and 1xEV-DO. This work resulted in me being a named inventor on more than 150
`
`pending or issued U.S. patents or applications.
`
`14.
`
`From 2002 to 2007, as co-founder of WiDeFi, Inc., I served in various roles
`
`including President, CEO, CTO, and board member. As the CEO, my responsibilities included
`
`advanced development of platform technologies. I was a named inventor of wireless technology
`
`components, including a frequency translating TDD repeater, a same frequency repeater
`
`architecture for TDD/FDD-based systems, and physical layer multi-stream MIMO repeater
`
`technology. WiDeFi invented and pro-vided wireless home networking products based on WiFi
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 6 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`and cellular technologies. While at WiDeFi, I was a named inventor on over 25 issued U.S.
`
`patents or patent applications.
`
`15.
`
`From 2007 to 2009, I consulted as a principal engineer for Qualcomm Inc. as part
`
`of the acquisition of WiDeFi’s technology. While at Qualcomm, I worked with its corporate
`
`R&D division and developed consumer 3G and 4G cellular coverage enhancement systems
`
`utilizing WiDeFi’s baseband interference cancellation technologies. My responsibilities included
`
`working with international cellular operators on product requirements, detailed W-CDMA
`
`simulations, Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) systems analysis, and participation in prototype
`
`product realization. I am currently a named inventor on roughly 45 issued U.S. patents or patent
`
`applications assigned to Qualcomm.
`
`16.
`
`From 2010 to the present, I have served as managing director and co-founder of
`
`Proxicom Wireless, LLC, which has developed and continues to develop cloud-based, mobile
`
`social networking and mobile payments technology based upon the proximity and location of
`
`mobile devices. Proxicom currently holds twelve issued U.S. patents and multiple pending patent
`
`applications, of which I am a named inventor. Significant aspects of Proxicom’s technology
`
`involve a mobile device’s use of short range wireless technologies (802.11, near field
`
`communications, Bluetooth) in combination with cellular data links (3G/WCDMA or 4G/LTE,
`
`for example) to facilitate frictionless interactions via a wireless networked central cloud server.
`
`17.
`
`Since 2007, I have also been the principal of Proctor Consulting, LLC. In this
`
`role, I have been a consultant relating to wired, wireless, and cellular communication and
`
`technologies, start-up companies and intellectual property. I have also been involved with
`
`numerous patent infringement, patent validity, and patent analysis assignments for public and
`
`private companies in the wired, wireless, and cellular networking industries.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 7 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`18.
`
`Additionally, I have worked and consulted for both cellular infrastructure and
`
`device focused companies (Spectrian, Qualcomm, Fastback Networks), and defense contractors
`
`(Harris Corporation), where I developed covert-tracking and location technologies involving
`
`CDMA and smart-antenna technologies.
`
`19.
`
`In various of the above-detailed roles, I have been responsible for the
`
`development of business plans, product development plans, product development budgets, and
`
`product bill of materials estimations. I have been responsible for numerous product development
`
`teams, including schedule and costs of the development process at various stages of my career.
`
`For example, at Tantivy Communications, I ran a joint development of I-CDMA cellular base
`
`stations in Seoul, Korea that were used in a field trial in that country. Additionally, as founder
`
`and CEO of WiDeFi, Inc., I was responsible for similar such activities, as required to raise
`
`venture capital funding and reporting to the board of directors.
`
`20.
`
`I am currently a named inventor on more than 320 issued U.S. patents, and more
`
`than 700 international patent publications in total. A substantial portion of my work has focused
`
`on wireless communication systems and products. A number of these patents and patent
`
`applications are related to the subject matter of the patents asserted in this matter. For example,
`
`the following patents, for which I am a named inventor, are examples of some of my experience
`
`relevant to the subject matter of this declaration:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,787,408
`7,990,904
`8,060,009
`
`8,111,645
`
`Title
`“Wireless repeater with master/slave configuration”
`“Wireless network repeater”
`“Wireless local area network repeater with automatic gain
`control for extending network coverage”
`“Wireless local area network repeater with detection”
`
`Priority Date
`May 19, 2006
`Dec. 16, 2002
`Oct. 15, 2002
`
`Nov. 15, 2002
`
`21.
`
`Based on my professional experience, I believe I am qualified to testify as an
`
`expert on matters related to the patent at issue.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 8 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`II.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`22.
`
`I am not a legal expert and therefore I offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed and am aware of legal standards that are relevant to my analysis, as
`
`summarized below.
`
`23.
`
`It has been explained to me that a patent is presumed valid. I understand that a
`
`patent (or the claims of a patent) may be invalidated only if the party challenging validity proves
`
`that the claims are invalid by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the patent specification and
`
`prosecution history. Such an individual is considered to possess ordinary skills and knowledge in
`
`a particular technical field, and is not an automaton. Other than the patent specification and
`
`prosecution history, I understand that it is also sometimes permissible to refer to “extrinsic”
`
`evidence which includes, among other things, relevant scientific principles, the general meaning
`
`of technical terms, and the state of the art. However, these extrinsic sources of evidence are
`
`inherently less reliable than the intrinsic evidence identified above.
`
`25.
`
`Although the words in the claims are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, I have also been informed that a patentee may choose to act as a
`
`lexicographer. I understand that when a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent
`
`specification, then the patentee’s definition control.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, I have been advised that when a patentee describes a feature or
`
`embodiment in the specification in reference to the invention as a whole or as a critical
`
`component, such description(s) may limit the scope of claimed invention.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 9 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`27.
`
`I have further been advised that if a term has no ordinary or customary meaning, it
`
`may be considered a “coined term.” I understand that for a “coined term,” a POSITA must
`
`determine whether the intrinsic evidence provides objective boundaries to the scope of the term.
`
`28.
`
`I have also been advised that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who is capable of
`
`understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the relevant art of the
`
`claimed subject matter. I understand that a POSITA is presumed to have known the relevant
`
`prior art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`29.
`
`It has been explained to me that the patent statute includes a requirement that
`
`claims be definite. I have been informed that, to meet this “definiteness” requirement, the claims
`
`must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant regards as his
`
`or her invention. I understand that indefiniteness is evaluated from the perspective of a POSITA
`
`at the time of a patent’s filing. It has been explained to me that a patent claim is indefinite if the
`
`claim, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fails to inform, with
`
`reasonable certainty, a POSITA of the scope of the invention. It was further explained to me that
`
`absolute or mathematical precision in claim language is not required. However, it is not enough
`
`that some meaning can be ascribed to a patent’s claims. A claim is indefinite if its language
`
`might mean several different things and no informed and confident choice is available among the
`
`contending definitions.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and that the final
`
`claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the Court.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`31.
`
`I have reviewed the Asserted Patents and I understand that they are related and
`
`share a common specification. Thus, for convenience, when referencing the common
`
`specification (“specification”) in this Declaration, I will cite to the ’814 patent.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 10 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`A.
`
`32.
`
`Summary of Asserted Patents
`
`To provide context, I will provide a brief overview of the Asserted Patents. Each
`
`asserted patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent Application No. 11/376,753 (“Vleugels I”).
`
`See 814 patent, 1:18-20. Vleugels I published as U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US2006/0227753A1.
`
`When citing to Vleugels I, this Declaration will cite to the publication of Vleugels I. The
`
`Asserted Patents are continuation applications of U.S. Patent App. No. 11/376,729, which was
`
`filed on March 14, 2006.
`
`33.
`
`The Asserted Patents relate generally to wireless communications. More
`
`particularly, the invention relates to seamlessly integrating short-range wireless personal area
`
`networks (“WPANs”) into longer-range wireless local area networks. (“WLANs”). ’814 patent,
`
`1:25-29.
`
`34.
`
`Further, the Asserted Patents explains that there is a need for an apparatus and
`
`method to “enable seamless integration of WPAN into WLAN infrastructure, and at a power
`
`dissipation levels that meet the stringent requirements of battery-operated devices.” Id., 3:29-33.
`
`35.
`
`Indeed, the specification makes clear that to establish interoperability between
`
`WPAN and WLAN networks, power dissipation must be considered to maximize the battery life
`
`of “WPAN technologies [which] are typically used to establish communications with a remote
`
`battery-operated device for which it is inconvenient, impractical, or may be impossible to replace
`
`batteries.” Id., 2:45-62.
`
`B.
`
`36.
`
`Earliest Effective Filing Date
`
`I understand that Plaintiff has not disclosed the date of the alleged invention.
`
`However, I have been informed that Plaintiff contends that the Asserted Patents have a priority
`
`claim to U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/661,763, filed March 14, 2005.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 11 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`37.
`
`Defendants have asked me to consider March 14, 2006 as the earliest effective
`
`filing date, which I understand to be the filing date of U.S. Patent App. 11/376,729.
`
`38.
`
`For the purpose of the Declaration, I have conducted my analysis under both the
`
`March 14, 2005 and March 14, 2006 effective filing date for the Asserted Patents. In my opinion,
`
`my analysis and opinions set forth in this Declaration do not change under effective filing date.
`
`In fact, as explained in greater detail below, it is my opinion that an earlier effective filing date
`
`would further support my opinions.
`
`C.
`
`39.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of
`
`the Asserted Patents (on or around March 14, 2006) would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least
`
`two years of experience in the field of wireless communication systems and protocols, with an
`
`allowance for additional education or experience that might substitute for these requirements.
`
`IV. OPINIONS REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`40.
`
`I have read the Asserted Patents and their prosecution histories. I have arrived at
`
`my opinions as set forth below based upon my analysis of the materials identified throughout this
`
`Declaration.
`
`A.
`
`“WLAN” – ’814 patent (claim 3), ’991 patent (claims 3-5), and ’906, ’934,
`’504, and ’659 patents (all claims); and “WPAN” – ’814 patent (claim 5), ’991
`patent (claims 11-12, 19-20), and ’906, ’934, ’504, and ’659 patents (all
`claims)
`
`Dell’s Constructions
`“WLAN”: a wireless network with a typical
`coverage range on the order of 300 feet
`“WPAN”: a wireless network with a typical
`coverage range on the order of 30 feet
`
`Ozmo’s Constructions
`“WLAN”: plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“WPAN”: a short-range network usable to
`connect peripherals to devices in close
`proximity
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 12 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the parties dispute the term “WLAN”—including “wireless local
`
`area network (‘LAN’),” “wireless LAN,” and “wireless local area network (WLAN)”—and the
`
`term “WPAN”—including “wireless personal area network (‘WPAN’)”—and propose the
`
`constructions identified in the above table. In my opinion, Defendants’ proposed constructions
`
`are correct.
`
`“WLAN” limitations
`
`1.
`In my opinion, the terms “WLAN,” “wireless local area network,” “wireless local
`
`42.
`
`area network (‘LAN’),” “wireless LAN,” and “wireless local area network (WLAN)” are recited
`
`throughout the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents in the same manner. For example:
`
`43.
`
`Claim 3 of the ’814 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`wherein the first wireless network connection provides a link via an access point
`of a wireless local area network (“LAN”).
`
`44.
`
`Claim 3 of the ’991 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`wherein the first network connection provides a link via an access point of a
`wireless LAN.
`
`45.
`
`Claim 5 of the ’991 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`at least one software module forming a software platform that allows the wireless
`radio circuit to connect to both the wireless LAN and the PAN.
`
`46.
`
`Each of independent claim 1 and 4 of the ’906, ’934, and ’504 patents recites, in
`
`relevant part:
`
`a wireless radio circuit configured to communicate over a physical medium of a
`wireless local area network (WLAN) using a WLAN protocol.
`
`47.
`
`Each of independent claim 7 of the ’934 and ’504 patents, recites in relevant part:
`
`maintain a first association and a first synchronization over the wireless medium
`with an access point of a wireless local area network (WLAN) over a first
`wireless connection via the wireless radio circuit, using a WLAN protocol.
`
`48.
`
`The sole independent claim of the ’659 patent, claim 1, recites, in relevant part:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 13 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`maintaining, via the wireless radio circuit, a first association with the first wireless
`network over a first wireless network connection, the first wireless network
`connection using a WLAN protocol operable to connect end stations via a WLAN
`access point.
`
`49.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that these terms carry the same
`
`meaning and should be construed consistently across the Asserted Patents. Thus, for
`
`convenience, this Declaration will refer to these terms collectively as “WLAN.”
`2.
`In my opinion, the terms “WPAN” and “wireless personal area network
`
`“WPAN” limitations
`
`50.
`
`(‘WPAN’)” are recited throughout the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents in the same
`
`manner. For example:
`
`51.
`
`Claim 5 of the ’814 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`wherein the network-enabled hub includes logic to coordinate a mutually
`agreeable inactivity period between the network-enabled hub and wireless
`personal area network (“WPAN”).
`
`52.
`
`Each of claim 11, 12, and 20 of the ’991 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`wherein the network-enabled hub includes logic to coordinate a mutually
`agreeable inactivity period between the network-enabled hub and wireless
`personal area network (“WPAN”).
`
`53.
`
`Claim 19 of the ’991 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`a wireless radio circuit that can send and receive data wirelessly, providing the
`hub with bi-directional wireless data communication capability, the radio circuit
`configured to handle 802.11x packet transmissions, and wherein the wireless
`radio circuit supports communications on both a wireless local area network
`(“WLAN”) and wireless personal area network (“WPAN”).
`
`54.
`
`Each of independent claim 1, 4, and 7 of the ’906 and ’934 patents recites, in
`
`relevant part:
`
`discover, via the wireless radio circuit, a second wireless device using a WPAN
`protocol.
`
`55.
`
`Each of independent claim 1, 4, and 7 of the ’504 patent recites, in relevant part:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 14 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`determine, via the wireless radio circuit, that a second wireless device
`corresponds to a wireless personal area network (WPAN) protocol.
`
`56.
`
`The sole independent claim of the ’659 patent, claim 1, recites, in relevant part:
`
`maintaining, via the wireless radio circuit, a second association with the second
`wireless network over a second wireless network connection, the second wireless
`network connection using a WPAN protocol operable to connect end stations
`without going through a WLAN access point.
`
`57.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood that these terms carry the same
`
`meaning and should be construed consistently across the Asserted Patents. Thus, for
`
`convenience, this Declaration will refer to these terms collectively as “WPAN.”
`3.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction Is Consistent with the
`Specification
`
`58.
`
`The specification provides that “the invention relates to seamlessly integrating
`
`short-range wireless personal area networks (‘WPANs’) into longer-range wireless local area
`
`networks. (‘WLANs’).” ’814 patent, 1:25-29. Notably, this statement relates to the field of the
`
`invention and the invention as a whole. Id. Accordingly, in my opinion, a POSITA reading this
`
`statement would have understood that the claims are limited to a short-range WPAN and a
`
`longer-range WLAN.
`
`59.
`
`However, “short-range” and “longer-range” are terms of degree that do not have
`
`any set definition. Therefore, I understand that a POSITA must consult the intrinsic record to
`
`determine whether the Asserted Patents provide some standard for measuring these degrees.
`
`Based on the following disclosures of the specification, it is my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`have understood “short-range” to be 10m (30 ft) and “longer-range” to be 100m (300 ft).
`
`60.
`
`For example, the specification consistently discusses WLAN and WPAN in terms
`
`of their respective coverage ranges. In fact, the specification plainly states that “WPAN is a
`
`short-range wireless network, with typical coverage ranges on the order of 30 feet” (id., 9:36-37),
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 15 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`and WLAN as “typically on the order of 300+ feet” (id., 5:66-6:4). These statements mirror the
`
`following disclosures of Vluegels I which, as I noted (supra ¶ 32), is incorporated by reference
`
`into the Asserted Patents:
`
`[0007] Wireless communication systems can be categorized based
`on coverage range, which in some cases is directed by use. A
`wireless local area network or “WLAN” has a typical coverage
`range on the order of 300 feet …
`
`[0008] A personal area network or “PAN” is a short-range
`wireless network, with typical coverage ranges on the order of 30
`feet …
`
`Vleugels I at [0007]-[0008]. Therefore, it is my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`have understood that the patentee defined WLAN and WPAN in accordance with
`
`these statements in Vluegels I and the ’814 patent.
`
`61.
`
`Furthering this understanding, in defining WPAN, the specification provides that
`
`WPAN can be used to “connect peripherals to devices in close proximity.” ’814 patent, 9:37-38.
`
`Although “close” is another term of degree, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have
`
`understood it to be commensurate in scope with “short.” Specifically, the specification provides
`
`that “WPAN is generally used for the interconnection of … devices within the range of an
`individual person, typically within a range of 10 meters.” ’814 patent, 9:48-50.
`
`62. Moreover, consistent with the definitions of WLAN and WPAN, the specification
`
`also explains that “WLAN” and “WPAN” networks, among other network types, can be
`
`categorized “[b]ased on targeted range and supported data rates.” ’814 patent, 1:35-39. The
`
`specification further provides the following illustration of the various network types (i.e., WLAN
`
`and WPAN) and their respective range and data rates:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 16 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1. As can be seen from Figure 1, the Asserted Patents identify WLAN has having a
`
`range of less than 100m (300 ft) and WPAN has having a range of less than 10m (30 ft).
`
`63.
`
`Further, it is my opinion that the specification’s discussion of the need for
`
`seamlessly integrating WPANs into WLANs in a hub while maintaining the power dissipation
`
`levels that meet the stringent requirements of battery-operated devices at the time of the
`
`invention (id., 1:25-29, 2:22-3:28) also demonstrates that Defendants’ proposed constructions are
`
`correct.
`
`64.
`
`For instance, the specification notes that WPAN devices are typically battery-
`
`powered devices and therefore stringent requirements on the power that could be dissipated by a
`
`WPAN device in establishing and maintaining a wireless communication had to be in place to
`
`maximize battery life. Id. at 2:58-62 (emphasis added). A POSITA would have understood that
`
`primary factors which impact the amount of power dissipated in establishing and maintaining a
`
`wireless communication include transmit power and receiver sensitivity. Indeed, as the
`
`specification states that “in order to be able to communicate with an AP, which may be, for
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 17 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`example, 300 feet away, a standard WLAN STA transmits at high transmit powers (up to
`
`20dBm)…[which] result[s] in relatively large power dissipation in the network interface
`
`circuits.” Id. at 2:65-3:7. In other words, transmit power and coverage range have a direct
`
`relationship—to establish a wireless communication at a longer distance (i.e., to have a larger
`
`coverage area), a device must transmit at high transmit powers and to establish a wireless
`
`communication at a shorter distance (i.e., to have a smaller coverage area), a device can transmit
`
`at low transmit powers, generally speaking. However, with respect to WPAN devices, the
`
`specification makes clear that using WLAN protocols for WPAN applications “would be several
`
`orders of magnitude higher than what is acceptable.” Id. 2:45-51. Thus, in my opinion, a
`
`POSITA would have therefore understood that WPAN, as discussed in the specification, used
`
`transmit powers several orders of magnitude less than WLAN, and by extension, WPAN devices
`
`dissipate less power. Based on this understanding, a POSITA would have further understood that
`
`WPANs had a smaller coverage range than WLANs.
`
`65.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have therefore understood that to minimize
`
`power dissipation and, in turn, maximize battery life, as desired by the Asserted Patents, a
`
`WPAN operates in a smaller coverage range.
`
`66.
`
`Thus, in view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the specification defined WLAN and WPAN as a “longer-range” network having
`
`a coverage range of 100m (300 ft) and a “short-range” or “close” network having a coverage
`
`range to be 10m (30 ft), respectively.
`
`67.
`
`Accordingly, in my opinion, Defendants’ proposed constructions for WLAN and
`
`WPAN are correct.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 18 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`B.
`
`“802.11x” – ’814 patent (claim 4), ’991 patent (claims 7-8, 19-20),
`and ’906, ’934, and ’504 patents (all claims), and ’659 patent
`(claims 13, 24)
`
`Dell’s Constructions
`
`Indefinite
`
`Alternatively, all amendments to 802.11 as of
`March 14, 2006
`
`Ozmo’s Constructions
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`68.
`
`I understand that the parties dispute the proper construction of this term.
`
`Specifically, I understand that Defendants contend that this term is indefinite, while Plaintiff
`
`proposes that this term should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. I also understand that
`
`Defendants alternatively propose the construction of “all amendments to 802.11 as of March 14,
`
`2006” if this term is found definite. In my opinion, Defendants’ position that this term is
`
`indefinite is correct. Further, to the extent the Court finds that this term is definite, it would be
`
`my opinion that Defendants’ alternative proposed construction is correct.
`1.
`The IEEE is the standard setting organization that published the original 802.11-
`
`The IEEE Standard Development Processes
`
`69.
`
`1997 standard. However, the 802.11 standard is not a static set of requirements and initially
`
`published standard may be iteratively modified, corrected, adjusted, amended and/or updated
`
`numerous times depending on a variety of factors.
`
`70.
`
`Indeed, each standard, whether an entirely new standard or an amendment to an
`
`existing standard, undergoes an extensive iterative process before being published. First, a
`
`Working Group (as it is called by the IEEE) consisting of various third parties is formed to
`
`promulgate proposed standards. This drafting process is an iterative process in and of itself.
`
`Indeed, members of a Working Group submit changes and/or modifications to the then-operative
`
`proposal(s) which are compiled into a draft standard. Drafts undergo a similar process as
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-4 Filed 03/31/23 Page 19 of 36
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PROCTOR
`
`proposals in that they may be subject to multiple rounds of revisions which would then be
`
`compiled into a new draft version. This draft process continues unless and until the Working
`
`Gro