Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 33
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`-v-
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORP.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`6:22-CV-01162-ADA
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Before the Court are the parties’ claim construction briefs: Defendant Realtek
`
`Semiconductor Corporation’s Opening and Reply briefs (ECF Nos. 72 and 75, respectively) and
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision Incorporated’s Response and Sur-Reply briefs (ECF Nos. 74 and 79,
`
`respectively). The Court provided preliminary constructions for the disputed terms nine days
`
`before the hearing. The Court held the Markman hearing on January 26, 2024. ECF No. 82.
`
`During that hearing, the Court informed the Parties of the final constructions for the disputed terms.
`
`Id. This Order does not alter any of those constructions.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Plaintiff asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 6,049,706, 6,266,518, 7,292,835, and 8,660,513. The
`
`parties only dispute the meaning of three terms from the ’835 Patent.1 This Court previously
`
`construed terms from these patents. ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs., No. 6-21-cv-00520, ECF No.
`
`
`1 The parties also dispute the meaning of seven other terms from the ’706 and ’513 Patents, for which they
`incorporate the briefing in prior litigation by reference. ECF No. 80 at 3–5.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 33
`
`55 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2022). The Court incorporates the Description of the Asserted Patents
`
`from that order, which is reproduced below.
`
`The Asserted Patents describe and claim systems for down-conversion of a modulated
`
`carrier signal. ’835 Patent at Abstract. Down conversion is the process of recovering the baseband
`
`(audio) signal from the carrier signal after it has been transmitted to and received by the receiver.
`
`This process is referred to as “down-conversion” because a high frequency signal is being down-
`
`converted to a low frequency signal.
`
`
`
`The Asserted Patents disclose at least two types of systems for down-conversion: (1) sample-and-
`
`hold (i.e., voltage sampling) and (2) “energy transfer” (also known as “energy sampling”). The
`
`key difference between the two is that the former takes a small “sample” of the input signal while
`
`the latter takes a very large sample, i.e., a large enough sample that a non-negligible amount of
`
`energy is transferred from the input signal. The following sub-sections describes each type of
`
`system, their respective operation, and compares them.
`
`A. Circuit configuration of down-sampling systems: sample-and-hold and energy
`transfer.
`
`Figure 78B depicts an exemplary sample-and-hold system while Figure 82B depicts an
`
`exemplary energy transfer system. ’518 Patent at 63:19–26 (sample-and-hold) and 7:63–64
`
`(energy transfer).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`While Figs. 78B and 82B depict that the respective circuits have similar structure, their respective
`
`parameter values (e.g., capacitor and load impedance values)—and concomitantly their
`
`respectively operation—are very different. It is important to note that the input signal, input EM
`
`signal, is the same in both figures.
`
`The circuits in both figures include a switching module (7806 in Fig. 78B and 8206 in Fig.
`
`82B). Id. at 62:65–66 (switching module 7806), 66:13–14 (switching module 8206). The
`
`switching module opens and closes (i.e., turns off and on, respectively) based on under sampling
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 33
`
`signal 7810 in Fig. 78B and energy transfer signal 8210 in Fig. 82B. Id. at 62:67–63:1 (under
`
`sampling signal 7810), 66:24–26 (energy transfer signal 8210). When the switching module is
`
`“closed,” input EM signal 7804 and input EM signal 8204 can propagate across the switching
`
`module to holding capacitance 7808 and storage capacitance 8208, respectively, but when the
`
`switching module is “open,” input EM signals 7804/8204 cannot propagate across the switching
`
`module. While both switching module 7806 and switching module 8206 open and close, the
`
`duration that each module is closed differs significantly. The specifications of the Asserted Patents
`
`describe that under sampling signal 7810 “includes a train of pulses having negligible apertures
`
`that tend towards zero time in duration.” Id. at 63:1–3. The specification discloses an embodiment
`
`of the “negligible pulse width” as being “in the range of 1–10 p[ico]sec[onds] for under-sampling
`
`signal a 900 MHz signal.” Id. at 63:3–5. By contrast, the specifications describe that energy
`
`transfer signal 8210 “includes a train of energy transfer pulses having non-negligible pulse widths
`
`that tend away from zero time in duration.” Id. at 66:26–28 (emphasis added). The specification
`
`discloses an embodiment where the “non-negligible pulse” is approximately 550 picoseconds for
`
`a 900 MHz signal.
`
`The specifications describe that holding capacitance 7808 and storage capacitance 8208
`
`are capacitors that charge when switching module 7804 and switching module 8204, respectively,
`
`are closed. Id. at 63:10–13 (holding capacitance 7808), 66:38–42 (storage capacitance 8208). The
`
`specifications disclose that holding capacitance 7808 “preferably has a small capacitance value”
`
`and disclose an embodiment wherein holding capacitance 7808 has a value of 1 picoFarad (“pF”).
`
`Id. at 63:9–15. By contrast, the specifications disclose that storage capacitance 8208 “preferably
`
`has the capacity to handle the power being transferred” and disclose an embodiment wherein
`
`storage capacitance 8208 has a value “in the range of 18 pF.” Id. at 66:38–49.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 5 of 33
`
`The specifications describe that holding capacitance 7808 and storage capacitance 8208
`
`discharge through load 7812 and load 8212 when switching module 7804 and switching module
`
`8204, respectively, are open. See id. at 63:19–26 (load 7812), 66:61–65 (load 8212). Fig. 78B
`
`depicts that “high impedance” load 7812 has an impedance of approximately 1 MΩ while Fig. 82B
`
`depicts that “low impedance” load 8212 has an impedance of approximately 2 KΩ. The
`
`specifications describe that “[a] high impedance load is one that is relatively insignificant to an
`
`output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency. A low impedance load is one
`
`that is relatively significant.” Id. at 66:58–61.
`
`B. Operation of down-converting systems
`
`At a very high level, both systems operate similarly. In particular, when the switching
`
`module (switching modules 7806 / 8206) is closed, the input signal (input EM signal 7804 / 8204)
`
`propagates to the capacitor (holding capacitance 7808 and storage capacitance 8208) and charge
`
`the voltage across the capacitor to the voltage of input signal. But when the switching module is
`
`open, the input signal cannot propagate to the capacitor, i.e., cannot charge the voltage across the
`
`capacitor to the voltage of input signal. Rather, the charge on the capacitor discharges through the
`
`load impedance (load 7812 / 8212).
`
`While both systems operate similarly at a high level, differences in (1) the width of the
`
`sampling aperture, (2) value of the capacitor, and (3) value of the load are what dictates whether
`
`the system operates as a sample-and-hold system or an energy transfer system.
`
`1. Operation of sample-and-hold system
`
`In a sample-and-hold system, the sampling aperture in under sampling signal 7810 is
`
`negligible which means only a small amount of charge from input EM signal 7804 propagates to
`
`the holding capacitance 7808 before switching module 7806 opens. Id. at 62:63–63:8. Because
`
`the sampling aperture has a negligible (i.e., very small) width, there is only enough time take a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 6 of 33
`
`“sample” of input EM signal 7804, i.e., only a small amount of charge is transferred to holding
`
`capacitor 7808. Given that only a small amount of charge is transferred to the capacitor, the value
`
`of holding capacitor 7808 needs to be relatively low in order for the voltage across holding
`
`capacitance 7808 change to the voltage of input EM signal 7804. More specifically, the
`
`relationship between charge (Q) and voltage (V) across a capacitor (with a capacitance of C) is Q
`
`= C * V, or Q / C = V. As such, if the capacitance C is large, more charge Q is needed to order to
`
`increase the voltage to V. For example, for the same amount of charge, if the capacitance is 2C in
`
`one case and C in other case, the voltage in the former case will be half the voltage of the voltage
`
`in the latter case. Id. at 65:29–35. Therefore, to ensure that the value of holding capacitance 7808
`
`does not limit the voltage across the capacitor, the value of holding capacitance 7808 needs to be,
`
`as described above, low. Id. at 63:9–15.
`
`When sampling module 7806 is open, the charge on holding capacitance 7808 discharges
`
`through load impedance 7812. See id. at 63:19–26. When value of load impedance 7812 is high,
`
`the charge on holding capacitance 7808 discharges very slowly as compared to when the load
`
`impedance is low. More specifically, the time to discharge a capacitor is related to R * C (also
`
`known as the time constant τ) where R is the value of the load impedance. Using the exemplary
`
`values depicted in Figs. 78B (1 MΩ) and 82B (2 KΩ), assuming that the capacitance is the same,
`
`it will take 500 times longer to discharge the capacitor with the 1 MΩ load impedance as compared
`
`to the circuit with the 2 KΩ load impedance. Because it takes significantly longer to discharge the
`
`capacitor using with a 1 MΩ load impedance (as compared to the 2 KΩ load impedance), the 1
`
`MΩ load impedance in “holds” the charge.
`
`To summarize, in a sample-and-hold down-sampling system, a negligible sampling
`
`aperture for switching module 7806 and a small value for holding capacitance 7808 only allows
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 7 of 33
`
`for a “sample” of the voltage of the input EM signal 7804 when switching module 7806 is closed.
`
`And because of the high value of load impedance 7812, the capacitor “holds” that value when
`
`switching module 7806 is open.
`
`2. Operation of energy transfer system
`
`As described above, in an energy transfer system, the sampling aperture is non-negligible
`
`(e.g., 550 picoseconds versus 1 picosecond for the sample-and-hold system for a 900 MHz input
`
`signal). Therefore, there is significantly more time to transfer charge from the input signal to
`
`storage capacitance. Id. at 66:42–44. Because significantly more charge is transferred to the
`
`capacitor, the value of storage capacitance 8208 can be larger, in spite of the fact that charge and
`
`voltage are inversely related (i.e., V = Q / C). The fact that this system transfers a large amount
`
`of charge—or energy—to the capacitor gives rise to the name “energy transfer” system.
`
`When sampling module 8206 is open, the charge on holding capacitance 8208 discharges
`
`through load impedance 8212. See id. at 66:61–65. Because the load impedance in an energy
`
`transfer system is “low,” e.g., 2 KΩ, the charge on storage capacitance 8208 discharges much
`
`faster than the charge on a capacitor in a sample-and-hold system, e.g., 500 times faster as
`
`compared to using a 1 MΩ load impedance.
`
`To summarize, in an energy transfer down-sampling system, a non-negligible sampling
`
`aperture for switching module 8206 and a high value for holding capacitance 8208 allows for a
`
`large amount of charge—or energy—to be transferred from the input signal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 8 of 33
`
`C. Comparison of sample-and-hold and energy transfer systems
`
`The following summarizes the key difference between sample-and-hold and energy
`
`transfer systems.
`
`Parameter
`Sampling aperture
`
`Capacitor
`
`Load impedance
`
`Sample-and-hold
`Negligible
`(e.g., 1–10 picoseconds)
`Holding capacitance
`(e.g., 1 pF)
`High
`(e.g., ~1 MΩ)
`
`Energy transfer
`Non-negligible
`(e.g., 550 picoseconds)
`Storage capacitance
`(e.g., 18 pF)
`Low
`(e.g., ~2 KΩ)
`
`
`
`It is important to emphasize that differences in the set of parameter values is what
`
`determines whether a system functions as a sample-and-hold system or an energy transfer system.
`
`For example, there is nothing special in the structure of a holding capacitance as compared to the
`
`structure of a storage capacitance. A circuit designer could, in theory, swap the holding
`
`capacitance in a sample-and-hold system with the storage capacitance in an energy transfer system
`
`and still have a sample-and-hold system by appropriately adjusting the sampling aperture and load
`
`impedance to “match” the larger capacitor value of the holding capacitance.
`
`It is important that changing one parameter without adjusting the other parameters will
`
`prevent each system from operating as intended or have other problems. For example, using a
`
`non-negligible sampling aperture in a sample-and-hold system is unnecessary as the holding
`
`capacitance can be fully charged (to the voltage of the input signal) with a negligible aperture, but
`
`using a non-negligible sampling aperture may distort or destroy the input EM signal by transferring
`
`to much of its energy to the holding capacitance. Id. at 62:30–39.
`
`Even worse, using a high load impedance in an energy transfer system or a low load
`
`impedance in a sample-and-hold system could result in a system with poor performance. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at 65:52–55. More specifically, in the latter situation, the low value of the holding capacitance
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 9 of 33
`
`combined with a low load impedance means that its corresponding time constant τ is very low,
`
`which means that the holding capacitance may discharge significantly when the switching module
`
`is open. As a result, the down-converted signal “cannot provide optimal voltage reproduction, and
`
`has relatively negligible power available at the output.” Id. at 64:49–51.
`
`In the former situation, the high value of the storage capacitance combined with a high load
`
`impedance means that its corresponding time constant τ is very high, which means it will take
`
`considerably more time (as compared to a low load impedance) to discharge the storage
`
`capacitance. This may result in less than optimal voltage reproduction, e.g., when the voltage of
`
`the input EM signal is lower than the voltage across the capacitor. Furthermore, the down-
`
`converted signal could have substantially less power (e.g.: V2/R; ~2 mV and 1 MΩ) than the energy
`
`transfer system with a low impedance load (e.g.: V2/R; ~2 mV and 2 kΩ) or even the sample-and-
`
`hold system with a high impedance load (e.g.: V2/R; ~5 mV and 1 MΩ). See id. at 67:28–33.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A. General principles
`
`The general rule is that claim terms are generally given their plain-and-ordinary meaning.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Azure Networks, LLC v.
`
`CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 575 U.S. 959, 959
`
`(2015) (“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the
`
`relevant community at the relevant time.”) (internal quotation omitted). The plain-and-ordinary
`
`meaning of a term 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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 10 of 33
`
`The “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain-and-ordinary meaning are when the patentee (1) acts as his/her own lexicographer or
`
`(2) disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal
`
`Circuit has counseled that “[t]he standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.”
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To act as his/her
`
`own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term”
`
`and “‘clearly express an intent’ to [define] the term.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
`
`“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the
`
`inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “[D]istinguishing the claimed
`
`invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what a claim does not cover.” Spectrum
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The doctrine of prosecution
`
`disclaimer precludes a patentee from recapturing a specific meaning that was previously
`
`disclaimed during prosecution. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). “[F]or prosecution disclaimer to attach, our precedent requires that the alleged
`
`disavowing actions or statements made during prosecution be both clear and unmistakable.” Id. at
`
`1325–26. Accordingly, when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable
`
`interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v.
`
`Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`A construction of “plain and ordinary meaning” may be inadequate when a term has more
`
`than one “ordinary” meaning or when reliance on a term’s “ordinary” meaning does not resolve
`
`the parties’ dispute. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 11 of 33
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). In that case, the Court must describe what the plain-and-ordinary meaning is.
`
`Id.
`
`“Although 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.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described
`
`in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication
`
`in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim
`
`Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`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
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Technical
`
`dictionaries may be helpful, but they may also provide definitions that are too broad or not
`
`indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Expert testimony may also be helpful,
`
`but an expert’s conclusory or unsupported assertions as to the meaning of a term are not. Id.
`
`B. Claim differentiation
`
`Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, a court presumes that each claim in a patent
`
`has a different scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–15. The presumption is rebutted when, for
`
`example, the “construction of an independent claim leads to a clear conclusion inconsistent with a
`
`dependent claim.” Id. The presumption is also rebutted when there is a “contrary construction
`
`dictated by the written description or prosecution history.” Seachange Int’l., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`
`413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The presumption does not apply if it serves to broaden the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 12 of 33
`
`claims beyond their meaning in light of the specification. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`C. Indefiniteness
`
`“[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc.
`
`v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Patent claims must particularly
`
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, must “inform those skilled in the art about
`
`the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). If it does not, the claim fails § 112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid as
`
`indefinite. Id. at 901. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application was filed. Id. at 911.
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
`
`A. Term #1: “quadrature-phase oscillating signal”
`
`
`
`Term
`
`#1: “quadrature-phase
`oscillating signal”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835,
`Claims 1, 2, 18
`
`Proposed by Defendant
`
`
`
`The Parties’ Positions:
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively: “oscillating
`signal that is out of phase
`with an in-phase oscillating
`signal”
`
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`“oscillating signal that is out
`of phase with the in-phase
`oscillating signal by 90
`degrees”
`
`
`Defendant contends that Plaintiff is attempting to broaden the meaning of this term by
`
`construing it to encompass signals that are more or less than 90 degrees out of phase, i.e.,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 13 of 33
`
`“substantially 90 degrees,” which is required by dependent Claim 2, in order for Claim 2 to
`
`“survive.” Opening at 6.
`
`Defendant contends that the “specification states repeatedly and consistently that the
`
`quadrature-phase oscillating signal is precisely 90 degrees out of phase from the in-phase
`
`oscillating signal.” Id. (citing ’835 Patent at 46:1–4 (describing that the Q-oscillating signal is
`
`preferably shifted “by 90 degrees”), 47:27–30 (same)). Defendant contends that specification
`
`never describes that a quadrature-phase oscillating signal was shifted by “more or less than 90
`
`degrees, or around 90 degrees.” Id. Defendant contends that “when a term can encompass
`
`‘around’ or ‘substantially’ a value, the patent specification states so.” Id. at 6–7 (citing ’835 Patent
`
`at 14:48–49, 48:22–26).
`
`Defendant contends that extrinsic evidence (dictionaries) describe that “quadrature”
`
`describes that there is a 90 degree separation between items. Id. at 8 (citing dictionaries).
`
`In its response, Plaintiff contends that the intrinsic evidence does not support Defendant’s
`
`proposed construction. Response at 3–5. Plaintiff contends that ’835 Patent repeatedly
`
`incorporates U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940. Id. at 3 (citing ’835 Patent at 1:24–26, 12:63–67, 45:34–
`
`38, 46:47–52). Plaintiff contends that the ’940 Patent recites “Quadrature-phase (‘Q’) signal: A
`
`signal that is out of phase with an in-phase (‘I’) signal. The amount of phase shift is
`
`predetermined for a particular application, but in a typical implementation, the ‘Q’ signal is 90°
`
`out of phase with the ‘I’ signal.” Id. at 3–4 (citing ’940 Patent at 9:4–8 (emphasis in Plaintiff’s
`
`brief)). Plaintiff contends that, contrary to Defendant’s proposed construction, the quadrature-
`
`phase oscillating signal is “typically” only 90 degrees out of phase with the in-phase signal. Id. at
`
`4. Plaintiff contends that when the specification generally describes the quadrature-phase
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 14 of 33
`
`oscillating signal, it does not mention a specific phase offset, let alone that the offset is 90 degrees.
`
`Id. (citing ’835 Patent at 40:40–45).
`
`Plaintiff contends that while the specification describes that the offset can be 90 degrees in
`
`one embodiment, limiting the offset to 90 degrees would read out embodiments where the offset
`
`is not 90 degrees. Id. (citing Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 913).
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s proposed construction violates the principle of claim
`
`differentiation. Id. at 5 (citing Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc., 285 F.3d 1362, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002)). More specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s proposed construction would import
`
`“90 degrees” from dependent Claim 2 into Claim 1, which erases any difference between Claims
`
`1 and 2, thus violating the principle of claim differentiation. Id. (citing Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar
`
`Techs., Corp., 483 F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff further contends that interpreting
`
`Claim 1 to require that the quadrature-phase oscillating signal is exactly 90 degrees out of phase
`
`would make it narrower than Claim 2, which only requires that the quadrature-phase oscillating
`
`signal is substantially 90 degrees. Id. at 6.
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s reliance on dictionary definitions is misplaced as it
`
`cannot override intrinsic evidence. Id. at 5 (citing cases).
`
`Plaintiff finally contends that a POSITA would understand that wireless signals are not
`
`perfectly out of phase by 90 degrees, but would “still consider these signals to be 90 degrees out
`
`of phase.” Id. at 6.
`
`In its reply, with respect to Plaintiff’s proposed alternative construction, Defendant
`
`contends that it confirms that Plaintiff construes the claim term to cover an oscillating signal that
`
`is out of phase by any amount. Reply at 2.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 15 of 33
`
`With respect to the phrase “typical implementation” in the ’940 Patent, Defendant contends
`
`that it “confirms that a Q signal is ordinarily 90 degrees out of phase” and that the ’940 Patent is
`
`“clear that ‘quadrature-phase’ means out of phase ‘by 90 degrees’[.]” Id. at 2–3 (citing ’940 Patent
`
`at 9:4–10, 28:63–64, 29:13–15, Figure 17, 23:54–56). Defendant contends that when the ’940
`
`Patent does not describe signals that are out of phase by phases other than 90 degrees, e.g., 180
`
`degrees, as being quadrature-phase. Id. at 3 (citing ’940 Patent at 13:33–36, 11:34–39, 25:56–61).
`
`Defendant contends that, by contrast, the ’940 differentiates 90 degree phase shifts from “more
`
`exotic embodiments wherein the intermediate signals are shifted by some amount other than 90°.”
`
`Id. (citing ’940 Patent at 29:17–25).
`
`Defendant contends that there is no support in any embodiment of the ’835 Patent for
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed alternative construction. Id. Defendant contends that, by contrast, each
`
`embodiment involves exactly a 90 degree shift. Id. (citing ’835 Patent at 43:21–24, 46:1–4, 47:27–
`
`30). As such, Defendant contends that Plaintiff is incorrect that its proposed construction is based
`
`on a single embodiment. Id. at 4. Defendant contends that “claim terms must be read in light of
`
`the specification ‘to tether the claims to what the specifications indicate the inventor actually
`
`invented.’” Id. (quoting Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011)).
`
`Defendant contends that “quadrature-phase oscillating signal” “cannot encompass any and
`
`all out of phase oscillating signals because the specification simply does not describe a quadrature
`
`signal as being anything other than 90 degrees out of phase, nor does the specification teach a
`
`skilled artisan how to implement such a device.” Id. at 4–5.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 16 of 33
`
`With respect to Plaintiff’s claim differentiation argument, Defendant contends that “claim
`
`differentiation cannot be used to ‘broaden claims beyond their correct scope.’” Id. at 5 (quoting
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s proposed alternative construction is inconsistent with
`
`contemporaneous extrinsic evidence. Id. Defendant contends that Plaintiff is incorrect that the
`
`extrinsic evidence conflicts with the intrinsic evidence as both describe that “quadrature” is out of
`
`phase by 90 degrees. Id. at 5–6.
`
`Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s proposed alternative construction reads “quadrature”
`
`out of the claim term to broaden the claim to include any signal that is out of phase with an in-
`
`phase oscillating signal. Id. at 6.
`
`In its sur-reply, Plaintiff contends that the incorporation of the ’940 Patent into the ’835
`
`Patent indicates that the patentee did not intend to limit “quadrature-phase oscillating signal” to
`
`signals that are exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the in-phase signal. Sur-Reply at 1. Plaintiff
`
`contends that Defendant fails to identify any lexicography or disavowal that justifies its proposed
`
`construction. Id. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant agrees that a 90 degree phase offset is
`
`ordinary, which means that the signal is not always 90 degrees out of phase. Id.
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s proposed construction improperly attempts to limit the
`
`claim term to the disclosed embodiments. Id. Plaintiff contends that Defendant ignores passages
`
`in the ’940 Patent was describe that 90 degree phase offset is exemplary. Id. (citing ’940 Patent at
`
`28:53–57, 29:17–25).
`
`With respect to Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s alternative proposed construction
`
`reads out “quadrature,” Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s argument is based on its overly narrow
`
`interpretation of “quadrature.” Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 17 of 33
`
`Finally, with respect to Defendant’s extrinsic evidence, Plaintiff contends that “extrinsic
`
`evidence cannot be used to justify Realtek’s construction which is at odds with the intrinsic
`
`evidence.” Id. (citing cases) (emphasis in Plaintiff’s brief).
`
`
`
`The Court’s Analysis:
`
`After reviewing the parties’ arguments and considering the applicable law, the Court agrees
`
`with Plaintiff that this term should be construed according to its plain-and-ordinary meaning for
`
`the reasons that follow. First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed according
`
`to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 F.3d at 1347. Second, Defendant does
`
`not expressly allege lexicography or disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general
`
`rule that a term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning. Thorner, 669 F.3d
`
`at 1365.
`
`Third, the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the ’940 Patent, which is incorporated into the ’835
`
`Patent, describes that a 90 degree offset is only “typical,” but is not required or mandatory. ’940
`
`Patent at 9:4–8 (“Quadrature-phase (‘Q’) signal: A signal that is out of phase with an in-phase (‘I’)
`
`signal. The amount of phase shift is predetermined for a particular application, but in a typical
`
`implementation, the ‘Q’ signal is 90° out of phase with the ‘I’ signal.”). More generally, the
`
`intrinsic evidence describes that a quadrature-phase signal is a “signal that is out of phase with an
`
`in-phase (‘I’) signal.” Id. Notably, this passage does not specify a particular amount of phase
`
`offset; only that quadrature-phase signal is out of phase with an in-phase signal. Id.
`
`Fourth, Defendant’s proposed construction improperly attempts to limit the claim scope
`
`to the disclosed embodiments. Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 913 (“[I]t is improper to read
`
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 18 of 33
`
`embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
`
`intended the claims to be so limited.”). But Defendant does not appear to identify any disclosure—
`
`let alone a clear indication in the intrinsic record—that the patentee intended the claim scope to
`
`the disclosed embodiments. By contrast, the incorporated ’940 Patent describes that a 90 degree
`
`phase offset is merely “typical,” which is indicates that the patentee did not intend to limit the
`
`claim term to the disclosed embodiments.
`
`Fifth, because the intrinsic evidence does