Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2014
`Nos. 14-1437 & 14-1485
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`WI-LAN, INC.
`
`– v. –
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Defendant-Cross-Appellant.
`_________________
`ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CASE NOS. 2:11-CV-68, 2:12-CV-600
`HON. JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP.
`_________________
`
`PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSE BRIEF OF
`DEFENDANT-CROSS-APPELLANT APPLE INC.
`_________________
`Mark S. Davies
`Siddhartha Venkatesan
`Andrew D. Silverman
`Katherine M. Kopp
`Will Melehani
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 339-8400
`mark.davies@orrick.com
`
`Mark C. Scarsi
`Miguel Ruiz
`Ashlee N. Lin
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`MCCLOY
`601 South Figueroa Street
`30th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Appellant Apple Inc.
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Claim 1
`
`A transceiver for transmitting a first stream of data symbols,
`1.
`the transceiver comprising:
`
`a converter for converting the first stream of data symbols
`into plural sets of N data symbols each;
`
`first computing means for operating on the plural sets of N
`data symbols to produce modulated data symbols
`corresponding to an invertible randomized spreading of the
`first stream of data symbols; and
`
`means to combine the modulated data symbols for
`transmission.
`
`A100, col. 6:42-51.
`
`10. The transceiver of claim 1 further comprising:
`
`Claim 10
`
`means for receiving a sequence of modulated data symbols,
`the modulated data symbols having been generated by
`invertible randomized spreading of a second stream of data
`symbols; and
`
`second computing means for operating on the sequence of
`modulated data symbols to produce an estimate of the
`second stream of data symbols.
`
`A101, col. 7:32-40.
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`Counsel for defendant-cross-appellant certifies the following:
`
`1. We represent Apple Inc.
`
`2.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in
`
`the caption is not the real party in interest) represented: N/A
`
`3.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies
`
`that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae
`
`represented: N/A
`
`4.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates
`
`that appeared for party or amicus now represented in trial court or
`
`agency or are expected to appear in this court are:
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE LLP:
`Mark S. Davies
`Siddhartha Venkatesan
`Andrew D. Silverman
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Brian Goldman
`Katherine M. Kopp
`Will Melehani
`
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY:
`Mark C. Scarsi
`Miguel J. Ruiz
`Ashlee N. Lin
`Jennifer L. Miremadi
`Michael K. Sheen
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`Melissa Richards Smith
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
`Luke L. Dauchot
`Robert A. Appleby
`Jeanne Heffernan
`Akshay S. Deoras
`
`WILLIAMS MORGAN, PC
`Christopher Needham Cravey
`Danny Lloyd Williams
`Kyung Kim
`
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
`David Wynne Morehan
`
`Date: December 15, 2014
`
`/s/ Mark S. Davies
`Mark S. Davies
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`mark.davies@orrick.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant-Cross-
`Appellant Apple Inc.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST................................................................i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................... v
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ....................................................xi
`INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT..........................................................2
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES..............................................................3
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................4
`The Basics Of Wireless Communication.........................................5
`Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) ....................................6
`Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) .........................................7
`Improvements To CDMA Transceivers ..........................................8
`Wi-LAN’s Patent ...........................................................................10
`Wi-LAN Enters “The Licensing Business” ...................................19
`Apple’s Products............................................................................21
`District Court Proceedings............................................................21
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................................................33
`STANDARD OF REVIEW......................................................................38
`ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................40
`I.
`The Jury Properly Found No Infringement Because The
`Accused Devices Do Not Convert A Data Stream Into
`Multiple Evenly Distributed Sets Of Data...................................40
`A.
`The ’802 Patent Claims A Transceiver That Converts A
`Stream Of Data Into Multiple Evenly Distributed Sets
`Of Data .................................................................................40
`The Accused Devices Do Not Convert A Data Stream
`Into Multiple Evenly Distributed Sets Of Data ..................48
`The Jury Correctly Found No Infringement Because The
`Accused Devices Do Not Randomize The Data Symbols
`Before The Symbols Are Combined ..............................................52
`iii
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`

`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’802 Patent Requires That Data Symbols Are
`Randomized Before They Are Combined.............................52
`The Accused Devices Do Not Randomize Data Before
`Combining And Are Not Equivalent To Devices That
`Do..........................................................................................60
`III. The Jury Properly Found The ’802 Patent Invalid ......................65
`A.
`The Jury Properly Found The ’802 Patent Invalid
`Under The District Court’s Pre-Trial Claim
`Constructions .......................................................................65
`The District Court’s Post-Trial Re-Construction Of
`“First Computing Means” Was Procedurally Improper
`And Substantively Incorrect................................................67
`IV. The District Court Properly Denied Wi-LAN A New Trial..........73
`A. Wi-LAN Waived Its Challenge To Apple Witnesses’
`Description Of The ’802 Patent As “Limited To LANs” ......74
`B. Wi-LAN Waived Its Challenge To Apple’s Opening And
`Closing Statements ..............................................................76
`Apple Properly Highlighted Functional Differences
`Between The Asserted Claims And The Accused
`Products................................................................................78
`There Is Nothing For A Jury To Decide In A New Trial.....79
`D.
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 81
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..................................................................1
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER FEDERAL RULES
`OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32(a)(7) AND FEDERAL
`CIRCUIT RULE 32 .........................................................................2
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.,
`520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................51
`Alix v. Quarterman,
`309 F. App’x 875 (5th Cir. 2009).........................................................77
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 34, 52
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`No. 1:11-cv-8540 (N.D. Ill.)...................................................................1
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`No. 3:11-cv-178 (W.D. Wis.)..................................................................1
`Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................79
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB,
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ...........................................................75
`Bettcher Indus. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................77
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................68
`Communique Lab., Inc. v. Bomgar Corp.,
`No. 1:12-cv-00003 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2012)..........................................20
`Cook Biotech, Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...........................................................80
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
`138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................48
`Devices for Medicine, Inc. v. Boehl,
`822 F.2d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ...........................................................74
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG,
`745 F.3d 490 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................76
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`493 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................63
`Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co.,
`420 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................63
`Function Media, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................75
`Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:12-cv-4882 (N.D. Cal.) .................................................................1
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................... 37, 47, 68, 69
`Industrias Magromer Cueros y Pieles S.A. v. La. Bayou Furs Inc.,
`293 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2002)...............................................................40
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 76, 77
`JumpSport, Inc. v. Jumpking, Inc.,
`191 F. App’x 926 (Fed. Cir. 2006).......................................................39
`Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................57
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................75
`Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp.,
`181 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...........................................................52
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................38
`Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................52
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...........................................................46
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`553 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................54
`Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 3:10-cv-2618 (S.D. Cal.)..................................................................1
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001).............................................................................57
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................51
`Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 1:09-791 (D. Del.)............................................................................1
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................54
`Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................54
`Prytania Park Hotel, Ltd. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co.,
`179 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 1999)...............................................................39
`Shipman v. Cent. Gulf Lines, Inc.,
`709 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1983)...............................................................76
`Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co.,
`773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985)...............................................................39
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...........................................................73
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................39
`Streber v. Hunter,
`221 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2000)...............................................................75
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................43
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................39
`Tip Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................... 62, 63
`Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc.,
`474 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................58
`Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................... 36, 38, 51
`Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)................................................77
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997)................................................................... 35, 62, 63
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp.,
`316 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...........................................................54
`Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-00473 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2007)...................... xi, 20, 22, 66
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Acer, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-00124 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2010) ........................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.,
`No. 6:10-cv-00521 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2010).........................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00600 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2011).......................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:11-cv-00453 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2011).......................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00920 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2012) ........................................20
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Calix, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-00117 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2010) ........................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Conexant Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:09-cv-00300 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2009).........................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:11-cv-00068 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2011) ........................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 1:10-cv-00432 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010) .......................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-23611 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 3, 2012) ...........................................20
`Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Research in Motion Corp.,
`No. 2:08-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. June 19, 2008) ................................xi, 20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00921 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2012) ........................................20
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2010)......................................20
`Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Westell Techs., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-00474 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2007)...................................xi, 20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-23568 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 1, 2012) ...........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-24318 (S.D. Fl. Dec. 6, 2012) ...........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Ericsson, Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-23569 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 1, 2012) ...........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 1:12-cv-24319 (S.D. Fl. Dec. 6, 2012) ...........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`No. 1:12-cv-20232 (S.D. Fl. Jan. 20, 2012) .........................................20
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`No. 1:13-cv-21662 (S.D. Fl. May 8, 2013)...........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`No. 1:13-cv-24349 (S.D. Fl. Dec. 10, 2012) .........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc.,
`NO. 1:12-cv-24320 (S.D. Fl. Dec. 6, 2012) ..........................................20
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`No. 1:12-cv-23744 (S.D. Fl. Oct. 15, 2012)..........................................20
`WiLAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-01507 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2014)......................................20
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp.,
`769 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................39
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`28 U.S.C. § 1295 ........................................................................................3
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................2
`28 U.S.C. § 1338 ........................................................................................2
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................65
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (2010)....................................................................... 49, 59
`RULES
`E.D. Tex. Patent Rule 3-6(a(2)(b)) ..........................................................70
`Fed. R. App. P. 4........................................................................................3
`Fed. R. Evid. 606 .....................................................................................79
`
`x
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 13 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`No other appeal involving this civil action was previously before
`
`this or any other appellate court.
`
`Wi-LAN, Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) previously asserted the patent at issue
`
`against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and a host of other technology companies
`
`alleging infringement by various wireless and other products, such as
`
`laptop computers and cameras. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer Inc., et al.,
`
`No. 2:07-cv-00473 (filed Oct. 31, 2007) (E.D. Tex.); Wi-LAN, Inc. v.
`
`Westell Techs., Inc., et al., No. 2:07-cv-00474 (filed Nov. 1, 2007) (E.D.
`
`Tex.); Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Research In Motion Corp., et al., No. 2:08-cv-
`
`00247 (filed June 19, 2008) (E.D. Tex). Those cases settled. This case
`
`involves Wi-LAN’s assertion of the same patent against Apple’s iPhone
`
`and iPad products compatible with 3G cellular technology.
`
`xi
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 14 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is yet another patent suit against Apple purportedly based on
`
`Apple’s incorporation of industry-standard technology into its
`
`innovative and popular mobile devices.1 Here, a once promising device
`
`manufacturing company, Wi-LAN, now centers its business around
`
`patent licensing and litigation efforts. The technology at issue here
`
`regards the wireless transmission of data. Wi-LAN asserts U.S. Patent
`
`No. RE37,802, a patent that claims a device that converts a single
`
`lengthy stream of data into multiple evenly distributed data sets and
`
`then pseudo-randomizes the data before recombining the data for
`
`transmission. This technique makes sense in a local area wireless
`
`network (like in a home) because it improves processing speed by
`
`sacrificing plentiful local signal bandwidth and power.
`
`By contrast, the parties and the district court all agree that the
`
`accused products, Apple’s 3G mobile devices, such as the iPhone and
`
`iPad, convert the stream of data into multiple data sets that are
`
`1 See, e.g., Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:12-
`cv-4882 (N.D. Cal.); Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-8540 (N.D.
`Ill.); Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc., No. 3:10-cv-2618 (S.D. Cal.);
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-178 (W.D. Wis.); Nokia
`Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:09-791 (D. Del.).
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 15 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`not evenly distributed and that Apple’s devices pseudo-randomize the
`
`data after the data is recombined for transmission. This approach
`
`makes sense in the cellular network setting because it conserves scarce
`
`bandwidth and power. Because of these key differences between the
`
`patent and the accused products, the jury’s non-infringement verdict
`
`was correct on the merits and the district court properly deferred to it.
`
`The jury also found Wi-LAN’s patent invalid because this
`
`industry-standard technology had already been revealed by prior art.
`
`But the district court overruled the jury, announcing after trial―for the
`
`first time―that the asserted claims include a “complex multiplier.”
`
`That construction was contrary to the one agreed upon by both parties
`
`before trial. Based on this post-trial construction, the district court
`
`reversed the jury’s anticipation verdict. The district court’s belated
`
`U-turn was erroneous. The jury’s invalidity ruling should be reinstated.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`The district court had jurisdiction over this patent litigation.
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a). After the jury returned a verdict for Apple,
`
`A361-65, the district court entered judgment on October 24, 2013, A1,
`
`and then granted, in part, Wi-LAN’s motion for judgment as a matter of
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 16 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`law (“JMOL”) on April 3, 2014, A2-17. Wi-LAN appealed, A10,313-15,
`
`and Apple timely cross appealed on May 1, 2014, A10,316-18; Fed. R.
`
`App. P. 4(a). This Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a).
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`Claim 1 requires a device that converts a stream of data
`
`1.
`
`symbols “into plural sets of N data symbols each.” The first question is
`
`whether the jury’s non-infringement verdict should be affirmed because
`
`the accused devices do not convert a stream of data into multiple data
`
`sets by evenly distributing the data among output paths.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 requires a means for producing “modulated data
`
`symbols” “corresponding” to pseudo-randomized data and a “means to
`
`combine the modulated data symbols for transmission.” The second
`
`question is whether the jury’s non-infringement verdict should be
`
`affirmed because the accused devices do not pseudo-randomize the data
`
`before it is combined for transmission.
`
`3.
`
`The jury found the asserted patent invalid after Apple
`
`presented three prior art references. Post-trial, the district court for the
`
`first time ruled that the claimed invention had an additional element (a
`
`“complex multiplier”) and solely on the basis of this new, post-trial
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 17 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`construction of the claim reversed the jury’s invalidity ruling. The third
`
`question presented is whether the district court erred in overruling the
`
`jury’s invalidity verdict.
`
`4.
`
`The technology described in the asserted patent is more
`
`appropriate to local area networks than wide external networks. At
`
`trial, Wi-LAN did not object to Apple referring to the patent as a
`
`“Wi-Fi” or “LAN” patent. The fourth question presented is whether the
`
`district court properly denied Wi-LAN’s request for a new trial based on
`
`Apple’s description of the patent as a Wi-Fi or LAN patent.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`This case involves the technology for transmitting large amounts
`
`of digital information wirelessly. The patent (consistent with Wi-LAN’s
`
`name) covers a transmission technique most appropriate in a local area
`
`network (“LAN”) or Wi-Fi network. A local area network or LAN is
`
`your typical home wireless network—a PC or a laptop that connects
`
`wirelessly to a nearby router. A1022. As detailed below, the technology
`
`used to allow mobile wireless devices to transfer information to one
`
`another is complex but builds off of long-standing methods used in
`
`broadcast radio.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 18 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`The Basics Of Wireless Communication
`Radio communication requires a transmitter and a receiver or a
`
`“transceiver” serving both roles. A1731. A transmitter is a type of
`
`electric circuit that creates a pattern of electromagnetic waves. The
`
`transmitter uses an oscillator to cause the electric current within the
`
`circuit to rise and fall in accordance with a sine wave, thereby
`
`generating an electromagnetic wave that is broadcast into space.
`
`A3545. The wave’s “frequency” refers to how many times the wave
`
`cycles per second. A3545.
`
`Digital information exists as a series of 0s and 1s. A730. Radio
`
`waves can represent this digital information through a process called
`
`“modulation.” A3546. Amplitude modulation (AM) and frequency
`
`modulation (FM) are the most familiar examples of modulation. When
`
`a radio wave is amplitude modulated, the data is put on the wave by
`
`slight increases and decreases in the wave’s strength. When a radio
`
`wave is frequency modulated, the data is put on the wave by slight
`
`increases and decreases in the wave’s frequency. A3546. A
`
`demodulator at the receiver can interpret these changes in the wave’s
`
`strength or frequency and determine the transmitted digital message.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 19 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`Digital information conveyed by radio waves is sometimes referred
`
`to as “data symbols.” With basic forms of AM and FM modulation, the
`
`radio wave can be changed between two states, and each state
`
`correlates to either a 0 bit or a 1 bit. There are more complex
`
`modulation schemes that allow a wave to be changed between more
`
`than two states. In those cases, each change represents a single “data
`
`symbol,” which potentially correlates to several bits. For example, if the
`
`wave can be changed between four states, each “data symbol” can
`
`represent two bits of data (00, 01, 10, 11).
`
`Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS)
`“Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum” (DSSS) is a method of solving
`
`the problem of message intercept with AM and FM methods of radio
`
`wave modulation. A98, col. 1:22-48. For example, it is relatively easy
`
`for an eavesdropper to scan the radio spectrum, intercept a transmitted
`
`message, and listen to messages intended for others. A1729. Or, as
`
`anyone with a radio has experienced, a much stronger signal on the
`
`same frequency could (either intentionally or unintentionally) disrupt
`
`the message. A98, col. 1:35-48.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 20 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`DSSS is a method of “spreading” a transmitted signal so that it
`
`cannot be so easily intercepted. It can be used in combination with
`
`several modulation methods. A1729. To form a DSSS signal, the
`
`original data signal carrying digital information (or data symbols) is
`
`multiplied by a very high frequency signal carrying a long sequence of
`
`random-seeming code. A98, col. 1:25-28. This sequence of code symbols
`
`is referred to as a “pseudo random noise (PN) sequences,” sometimes
`
`referred to as “pseudo-noise” sequences for brevity. A98, col. 1:26-28.
`
`By multiplying the signal by the pseudo-noise sequence, the DSSS
`
`modulated signal is spread over several frequencies called a “band.” A
`
`receiver with the corresponding code can “invert” or reverse the
`
`spreading and recover the original data. A1747.
`
`With a DSSS signal, a person scanning the spectrum would only
`
`detect what appears to be natural ambient noise on several frequencies.
`
`Because of this, it is very difficult for others to intercept or jam the
`
`hidden signal.
`
`Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)
`A downside of DSSS is that one message occupies a large band of
`
`the spectrum, making it difficult for multiple users to transmit data at
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 21 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`the same time. A98, col. 1:48-50. “Code Division Multiple Access”
`
`(CDMA) is one technique for addressing this problem. Id., col. 1:52-54.
`
`Under CDMA, multiple users transmit signals modulated across
`
`the same band with each user using a different DSSS spreading code.
`
`A1022-23; A3557, col. 2:21-35. As with DSSS, the transmitted code is
`
`pseudo-random to allow the message to appear noise-like. A1038. A
`
`receiver with the corresponding pseudo-noise code can demodulate the
`
`combined signal and recover the user’s specific transmitted message.
`
`A1023. As the “multiple” in “CDMA” indicates, the primary difference
`
`between CDMA and DSSS is that the resulting noise-like signal under
`
`CDMA is broadcast together on the same band as the other noise-like
`
`signals of other users, forming a combined noise-like signal. A1023.
`
`And because the receivers on the other end have only the code to
`
`recover the message intended for that particular receiver, only the
`
`message intended for that receiver can be and is decoded.
`
`Improvements To CDMA Transceivers
`As mobile devices became more popular, there was a need for
`
`faster CDMA solutions. Many solutions were suggested. See, e.g.,
`
`A1041-42, 10,340-65.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 22 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`One solution was explained in a 1989 paper written by
`
`Shingenobu Sasaki. Sasaki introduced the concept of modulating
`
`CDMA messages in a series of parallel operations. A10,334. Rather
`
`than taking an entire message, coding it with one code, and
`
`transmitting it, Sasaki disclosed a CDMA transceiver that divided a
`
`message into multiple sets that were each modulated, randomized at
`
`the same time, and finally recombined into a message for transmission.
`
`A1035-38, 10,335. As illustrated below from left to right, the device
`
`uses a “serial-parallel” converter, which is a converter that takes a
`
`stream of data and splits it among multiple parallel output paths. The
`
`data on these output paths is simultaneously modulated by separate
`
`“SS MOD” modulators. After being modulated in parallel, the data is
`
`recombined for transmission by the combiner “∑”.2
`
`2 A similar solution was set out by Klein S. Gilhousen at
`Qualcomm. A1038-40, 3552-73.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 23 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`A10,335. By modulating parts of the message at the same time (rather
`
`than modulating the whole message as one piece), the system disclosed
`
`by Sasaki is able to process the message for transmission much faster.
`
`Wi-LAN’s Patent
`In the early 1990s, Wi-LAN’s founders, Drs. Zaghloul and
`
`Fattouche, introduced Model 902-20, a wireless network router that
`
`promised to allow users to “cut the [internet] cord.” A796. The signal’s
`
`range was limited to the local area (i.e., a house). See A772, 1005-06.
`
`Notably, “in a [LAN] environment, … bandwidth … can be
`squandered… to simplify some other aspect of the design or the
`
`operation of the wireless local area network” because local bandwidth is
`
`free, A1071, and, typically, “only a handful of clients” are using any
`
`given wireless router, A1022. Devices that operate on a LAN (like a
`
`laptop or desktop computer) tend to be either plugged in or charged
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 46 Page: 24 Filed: 12/15/2014
`
`frequently so power conservation is less critical than in other mobile
`
`contexts, like cellular phones. See A772, 1005-06.
`
`In 1992, Drs. Zaghloul and Fattouche filed for a patent on a
`
`wireless communication method, and the patent later issued as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,282,222. Drs. Zaghloul and Fattouche then filed a
`
`continuation-in-part to the ’222 patent, with an entirely different
`
`specification, in January of 1994. That continuation-in-part is the
`
`patent at issue here, U.S. Patent No. RE37,802, entitled “Multicode
`
`Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum.”3
`
`The ’802 patent was filed nearly four years after the Sasaki paper
`
`was published. The ’802 patent’s purported contribution to the field is
`
`the same as that set out in the Sasaki reference. Whereas in traditional
`
`DSSS systems, all of a single transmission is spread using the user’s
`
`specific pseudo-noise code, the ’802 patent’s method splits each user’s
`
`message up into multiple