Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 40 PageID# 772
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA
`
`Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 40 PageID# 773
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................1
`’104, ’358, AND ’494 PATENTS .......................................................................................2
`“calibration data” (’104 Patent, cl. 1-2; ’358 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 15, 18, 41-42;
`A.
`’494 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 9-10, 25-26) ............................................................................3
`“observed network measurement data” (’104 Patent, cl. 1, 11; ’358 Patent,
`cl. 1, 15, 41, 49; ’494 Patent, cl. 1, 25, 32) ..............................................................5
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent, cl. 1, 41) .................................8
`C.
`’753 PATENT ....................................................................................................................12
`A.
`“network measurement report” (’753 patent, claims 1 and 32) .............................12
`“grid point” (’104 patent, cl. 2; ’358 patent, cls. 4, 18, and 42; ’494 patent,
`
`cls. 4, 26; ’753 patent, cls. 1, 32) ...........................................................................15
`“evaluating said at least one network measurement report with each of said
`sets of grid points as a function of select ones of said characterizing
`parameters”; “evaluate said at least one network measurement report with
`each of said sets of grid points as a function of select ones of said
`characterizing parameters” (’753 Patent, cl. 1, 32) ................................................18
`’784 PATENT ....................................................................................................................21
`A.
`“in proximity” (’784 patent, claim 2, 10, 11, 21, 22) ............................................21
`B.
`“determining said most likely street as a first one of said plural geographic
`locations” (and “determining from said status a most likely one of said
`plural streets upon which said wireless device is located”) (’784 patent,
`claims 2, 10, 11, 21, 22) .........................................................................................23
`Order of “obtaining” and “determining” steps (’784 patent, claim 2, 10, 11,
`21, 22) ....................................................................................................................25
`’264 PATENT ....................................................................................................................27
`A.
`“wireless device” (’264 Patent, cl. 1, 13) ...............................................................27
`B.
`“indication of transmission signal strength of said signal” (’264 patent,
`claims 1, 13) ...........................................................................................................29
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 40 PageID# 774
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abdou v. Alphatec Spine, Inc.,
`2014 WL 6611422 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014) .........................................................................22
`
`Altris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................26
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................13
`
`Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC,
`474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................4, 16
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................8
`
`Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................15
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................9
`
`Canon, Inc. v. TCL Elecs. Holdings Ltd.,
`2020 WL 2098197 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2020) ...........................................................................10
`
`Cap. Bridge Co. v. IVL Techs. Ltd.,
`2006 WL 2585529 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2006), aff’d, 232 F. App’x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......28
`
`Cap. Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp.,
`725 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................20, 21
`
`Daedalus Blue, LLC v. MicroStrategy Inc.,
`2022 WL 1611758 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2022) .......................................................................9, 12
`
`Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC,
`899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................10
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. NOVA Chemicals Corp. (Canada),
`629 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Del. 2009) .........................................................................................25
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................14
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2018 WL 647734 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) ............................................................................23
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 4 of 40 PageID# 775
`
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`Hardin v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:21-CV-00290, Dkt. 86 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022) ...............................................10
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................20
`
`Inguran, LLC v. ABS Glob., Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-446-WMC, 2019 WL 943515 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 26, 2019) .......................20, 21, 25
`
`Int’l Test Sols., Inc. v. Mipox Int’l Corp.,
`No. 16-CV-00791-RS, 2017 WL 1367975 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017) ..............................19, 20
`
`Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................6
`
`Kinetic Concepts v. Blue Sky Med. Grp.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................7
`
`Koki Holdings Co. v. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1092579 (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2021) ......................................................................23, 25
`
`Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Iancu,
`813 F. App’x 512 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................26
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................10
`
`Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Res. in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................26
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................4
`
`Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp.,
`2020 WL 7692767 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2020) ........................................................................10
`
`Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC,
`55 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................6
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .............................................................................................................2, 19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 5 of 40 PageID# 776
`
`
`Netscape Communs. Corp. v. Valueclick, Inc.,
`684 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 2009) ......................................................................................28
`
`
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .............................................................................1, 2
`
`In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................15
`
`Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................6, 7, 8
`
`Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021)............................................................................................9, 11
`
`Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`64 F.4th 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................24
`
`Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. CIV.A. 10-11571-RWZ, 2014 WL 898595 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2014) ..............................20
`
`Starhome GmbH v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................13
`
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`987 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..........................................................................................23, 25
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`248 F. App’x 170 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................................14
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.,
`2018 WL 626472 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) ................................................................................10
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Voice Techs. Grp., Inc. v. VMC Sys., Inc.,
`164 F.3d 605 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..............................................................................................8, 14
`
`Wastow Enterprises, LLC v. Truckmovers.com, Inc.,
`855 F. App’x 748 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................6
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 6 of 40 PageID# 777
`
`
`Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................26
`
`
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)........................................................................8, 9, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 7 of 40 PageID# 778
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Expert Declaration of William R. Michalson
`
`Ex.
`A
`
`A1
`
`A2
`
`A3
`
`UserPlane Location Protocol Candidate Version 1.0 –27 Jan 2006- Open Mobile
`Alliance UTMS Radio Resource Control Protocol Specification
`
`Buchanan et al., Analysis and Migration of Location-Finding Methods for GSM and
`3G Networks, IEE International Conference on 3G Mobile Communication
`Technologies (2004)
`Horn et al., Nonlinear Set–Theoretic Position Estimation of Cellular Phones, 2003
`European Control Conference (ECC)
`Hussain et al., Positioning a Mobile Subscriber in a Cellular Network System based
`on Signal Strength, IAENG International Journal of Computer Science (2007)
`Han et al., How to Mitigate Signal Dragging during Wardriving, 9 IEEE Pervasive
`Computing 20 (2010)
`A6 Wireless phone, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104
`
`A4
`
`A5
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`K
`
`L
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,406,753
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/899,379
`
`’753 File History, Dec. 20, 2011 Remarks
`
`’784 File History, June 19, 2015 Interview Summary
`
`’784 File History, June 19, 2015 Notice of Allowance
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 8 of 40 PageID# 779
`
`
`
`
`
`M
`
`’264 File History, Oct. 11, 2010 Remarks
`
`N
`
`O
`
`P
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`’264 File History, Mar. 22, 2011 Remarks
`
`’264 File History, Jan. 17, 2012 Remarks
`
`Excerpted Deposition Testimony of Selcuk Mazlum
`
`Excerpt of Ex. 15 to Deposition of Selcuk Mazlum: A-GPS and U-TDOA Location
`Alternatives for GSM Mobile Location
`
`Excerpted Deposition Testimony of John Carlson
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 9 of 40 PageID# 780
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants propose claim constructions for Plaintiff’s mobile location patents that are
`
`based entirely on the intrinsic evidence: the claim language itself, the patent specification and the
`
`prosecution history before the Patent Office. Plaintiff, in contrast, seeks to rewrite its claims to try
`
`to cover inventions it did not make. Over and over, Plaintiff tries to broaden the claim language
`
`well beyond the alleged inventions actually recited in the claims and disclosed in the patents.
`
`Claim construction is not an opportunity for a patent holder to expand its monopoly. The Court
`
`should reject Plaintiff’s efforts and construe the Asserted Claims1 consistent with the patents.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A claim term’s “ordinary and customary meaning” is its meaning to a “person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) in question at the time of the invention” “after reading the entire
`
`patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). While
`
`it is a “bedrock principle” of patent law that “the claims of a patent define the invention,” the
`
`specification of a patent “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis” and “is the
`
`single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id., 1312, 1315. “[A] Court should also
`
`consider the patent’s prosecution history.” Id., 1317. As with the specification, “the prosecution
`
`history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent,” and can reveal
`
`“whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope
`
`narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id. The claims, specification and file history are called
`
`“intrinsic evidence,” and are of paramount importance. Id., 1314-17.
`
`The Court also may consult “extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles,
`
`the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id., 1314. Extrinsic evidence includes
`
`
`1 As used herein, “Asserted Claims” refers to claims 1, 2, and 11 of the ’104 patent, claims 1, 4,
`15, 18, 24, 25, 41, 42, 49, and 52 of the ’358 patent, claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 25, 26, 32, and 35 of the
`’494 patent, claims 1, 7, 9, 32, and 35 of the ’753 patent, claims 2, 10, 11, 21, and 22 of the ’784
`patent, and claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 15, 16 17, and 20 of the ’264 patent.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 10 of 40 PageID# 781
`
`
`“expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id., 1317.
`
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, the claims must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[]
`
`the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” Nautilus, Inc.
`
`v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). Claims define the scope of the invention
`
`with “reasonable certainty” and provide “clear notice” of what is claimed, “appris[ing] the public
`
`of what is still open to them.” Id., 901, 909-10. Indefiniteness renders a claim invalid, and the
`
`Court may not rewrite claims to preserve their validity. See id., 902. Indefiniteness is considered
`
`as a matter of law as part of claim construction. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014).
`
`II.
`
`
`
`’104, ’358, and ’494 PATENTS
`
`The ’104, ’358, and ’494 patents (collectively, the “’104 Patent Family”) share the same
`
`specification, and generally relate to determining the location of a “mobile station” (e.g., a mobile
`
`device like a cell phone) by comparing previously collected “calibration data” in a cellular network
`
`for a known or defined location with network measurement data observed at an unknown location.
`
`Ex. B, Abstract; Ex. A, ¶ 25.2 “Calibration data” can be collected in advance for a geographic
`
`region, e.g., by driving around the known or defined locations. Id., 1:65-2:6; 10:55-58. Thereafter,
`
`when a mobile device observes network measurement data from an unknown location, that
`
`observed data can be compared (or “matched”) to the “calibration data” to estimate the device’s
`
`location. Id., 1:50-54, 7:1-6; see also Ex. R, 71:11-17.
`
`
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’104 Patent Family generally recite providing a “database” of
`
`previously-gathered “calibration data” associated with known locations, collecting observed
`
`network measurement data at an unknown location, “modifying” that observed network
`
`
`2 Citations are to the ’104 patent, but the ’358 and ’494 patents share the same disclosures.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 11 of 40 PageID# 782
`
`
`measurement data, and comparing the two sets of data to determine the mobile device’s location.
`
`
`
`The alleged advance is in modifying the observed data before comparing it, which the patent
`
`purports is useful because cellular signals are sometimes weaker indoors. Ex. B, 1:33-36
`
`A.
`
`“calibration data” (’104 Patent, claims 1-2; ’358 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 15, 18, 41-42;
`’494 Patent, claims 1, 4, 9-10, 25-26)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning (no construction
`necessary); in the alternative, information
`based on prior network measurements
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“network measurement data associated with a
`defined geographic location”
`
`Defendants’ construction of “calibration data”—in every Asserted Claim—is mandated by
`
`the intrinsic record as well as its well-understood meaning in the art.
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the claims recite determining a mobile device’s location by comparing
`
`observed at an unknown location with pre-gathered “calibration data.” The claims and
`
`specification make clear that “calibration data” must be associated with a known or defined
`
`geographic location. For example, the shared specification of the ’104 Patent Family states that
`
`“[t]he [calibration] database may be a collection of data from . . . grids that contain network
`
`measurements with associated location estimates.” Ex. B, 10:55-58; see also id., 9:47-49.3 The
`
`claims are fully consistent, since they recite determining the location of the mobile station by
`
`comparing modified data from an unknown location against the calibration data, which would only
`
`make sense if the calibration data is associated with particular locations. Ex. A, ¶ 30.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/899,379 (the “’379 Provisional”) to which the ’104 Patent
`
`Family claims priority and which is incorporated by reference as part of its shared specification,
`
`further explains calibration data. Ex. A, ¶ 31. “This [calibration] data [is] obtained at each discrete
`
`point (calibration point)” and contains the information such as “[s]ignal strengths observed for the
`
`
`3 All emphasis added throughout unless noted otherwise.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 12 of 40 PageID# 783
`
`
`signal transmitted by a set of transmitters of known location,” and “[s]ignal strength[s] of a
`
`
`
`transmitter located at the calibration point as measured by a set of receivers of known location[.]”
`
`Ex. H, 1.
`
`The asserted ’753 patent, which also is based on the same ’379 Provisional, further explains
`
`that “calibration data may be obtained at each of several calibration points, which may be discrete
`
`points within region R each having geographical coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude)
`
`associated therewith.” Ex. E, 9:56-59; Ex. A, ¶ 32. See Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC,
`
`474 F.3d 1361, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (relying on sibling patent specification to construe term
`
`both patents). During prosecution of that patent, the patentee confirmed that network measurement
`
`data gathered for the calibration data must be associated with known or defined geographic
`
`locations. “The claimed subject matter [of the ’753 patent] gathers calibration data for these
`
`locations and analyzes the calibration data so that particular points . . . within the geographic
`
`region can be generated and associated with a particular set or sets of calibration data[.]” Ex.
`
`I, 2; Ex. A, ¶ 32. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (“Any statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a related application as to the
`
`scope of the invention would be relevant to claim construction[.]”).
`
`Inventor testimony confirms Defendants construction is correct. One lead inventor
`
`testified that the “[calibration] database would assoc’iate network measurement information with
`
`a particular known location.” Ex. P, 76:3-10; see also id., 75:18-22. Another testified that
`
`calibration data as used in the patent “is referring to data that a device can measure at a particular
`
`known point.” Ex. R, 64:12-20; see also id., 101:11-17. Of course, that only makes sense: if
`
`“calibration data” were not associated with a defined location, the location-determination method
`
`claimed in the ’104 Patent Family would not work because neither of the two sets of data compared
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 13 of 40 PageID# 784
`
`
`in the method would have any association with any known or defined location.
`
`
`
`In contrast, Plaintiff seeks to broaden the term calibration data beyond recognition, whether
`
`the term is given its plain meaning or Plaintiff’s “alternative construction.” Indeed, Plaintiff’s
`
`proposed alternative belies its intent to excise all meaning from the term. Plaintiff’s view of the
`
`term—to mean any “information based on prior network measurements”—would permit
`
`information wholly untethered to a known or defined geographic region to be calibration data. Ex.
`
`A, ¶ 33. However, “information” that lacks any association to a geographic location would defeat
`
`the purpose of generating a database of calibration data, because without calibration data
`
`associated with a location, the method recites no way to determine the location of the mobile
`
`device. Id.
`
`B.
`
`“observed network measurement data” (’104 Patent, cl. 1, 11; ’358 Patent,
`claims 1, 15, 41, 49; ’494 Patent, claims 1, 25, 32)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning (no construction
`necessary); in the alternative, measurement
`data representing at least one network
`characteristic observed by a mobile device
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“measurement data from a network
`measurement report (i.e., a report used in
`cellular networks which provides the results
`of a measurement from a mobile device on
`one or more cells).”
`
`
`The intrinsic record makes clear through consistent disclosures that the purported invention
`
`of the ’104 Patent Family is the use of a known report called a “network measurement report”
`
`(NMR) obtained by a cellular device to determine the device’s location. That idea is foundational
`
`to the claimed invention. Defendants’ proposal captures that the claimed “observed network
`
`measurement data” refers to the measurement data from a network measurement report (“NMR”).4
`
`The specification consistently and exclusively makes clear that using data from NMRs is
`
`
`4 As discussed in Section III.A, the POSITA would understand that NMR is a term of art that refers
`to a report generated by the mobile device in a cellular network on the surrounding cell towers.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 14 of 40 PageID# 785
`
`
`the purported invention. Beginning with the provisional application, which is incorporated by
`
`
`
`reference and is therefore “effectively part of the specification as though it was explicitly contained
`
`therein,”5 the inventors chose the title “Mobile Location using Network Measurement Reports.”
`
`Ex. H, 1; see Wastow Enterprises, LLC v. Truckmovers.com, Inc., 855 F. App’x 748, 751 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (title “indicates that a relevant artisan would understand that the claims” require a
`
`specific feature). Under this title, the provisional exclusively describes the claimed invention as
`
`using NMRs. For example, it states that “[t]hese inventions are applicable to the problem of
`
`estimating the location of a mobile device when one or more Network Measurement Reports
`
`(NMRs) are generated by the network or the mobile in association with the unknown location of
`
`the mobile.” Ex. H, 1. It further explains that “[t]his invention proposes several methods of
`
`adjusting the NMRs, the NUG characteristics, or both, in order to improve the accuracy of indoor
`
`location estimation of a wireless device[.]” Id., 21. The POSITA would thus know that the
`
`claimed “observed network measurement data” is obtained from NMRs. Mosaic Brands, Inc. v.
`
`Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (limiting “lip” to “extrudable plastic
`
`materials” where patent stated “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable
`
`plastic materials”); Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“A patent’s
`
`statement of the described invention’s purpose informs the proper construction of claim terms”);
`
`Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (limiting
`
`term to “technique [that] is foundational to the written description’s ensuing description” of
`
`claimed system).
`
`The rest of the specification confirms the invention is directed to obtaining and modifying
`
`
`5 Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016). Geoscope has claimed the priority date of the provisional here.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 15 of 40 PageID# 786
`
`
`measurement data from NMRs. For example, the specification says that “[t]he observed data
`
`
`
`would typically be the same or similar to the data in a network measurement report (NMR).” Ex.
`
`B, 9:42-44. This is also reflected in how the specification describes the exemplary “observed
`
`network measurement data,” which contains the exact data the patent indicates is part of the NMR
`
`as reflected in the chart below. Id., 4:13-18.
`
`“Observed network measurement data”
`
`“[O]bserved network measurement data
`includes a data set comprising:
`[P1, P2 . . . , Pn, TA]” Ex. B, ’104 patent,
`claim 12.
`“An exemplary NMR may be represented by
`example_data_vector=[P1, P2, P3, TA1].”
`Ex. B, ’104 patent, 4:13-14
`
`Indeed, the specification discusses “obtaining NM data” and obtaining an “NMR”
`
` “Network Measurement Report”
`
`
`
`interchangeably. For example, in explaining Figure 6 (Annotated below), the specification
`
`equates step 601 (“[o]btaining NM data.”) with obtaining an “NMR”:
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 6; id., 10:25-30 (“[an] NMR may be obtained (operation 601)”). And every embodiment
`
`of “observed network measurement data” in the specification involves measurement data from an
`
`NMR. There are no examples of how to obtain network measurement data other than by receiving
`
`NMRs, nor are there any examples of observed network measurement data that would not be part
`
`of the NMR. Ex. A, ¶ 46. The specification and provisional application thus confirm that the use
`
`of NMR is not merely a preferred embodiment; it is “foundational to the claimed invention” itself.
`
`Quanergy Sys, 24 F.4th at 1414. The POSITA would therefore have understood that “observed
`
`network measurement data” is obtained from NMRs. Kinetic Concepts v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., 554
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 16 of 40 PageID# 787
`
`
`F.3d 1010, 1018-19 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (improper to “expand the scope of the claims far beyond
`
`
`
`anything described in the specification”); Quanergy Sys, 24 F.4th at 1414 (limiting “lidar” to
`
`“pulsed time-of-flight lidar” where written description focuses exclusively on this technique); In
`
`re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (construing “coupled” narrowly
`
`where “every embodiment” in the patent shows a given feature).
`
`Finally, one of the lead inventors confirmed that observed network measurement data refers
`
`specifically to “data from a network measurement report.” Ex. R, 231:20-232:10. Mr. Carlson’s
`
`understanding of the term further demonstrates that a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`observed network measurement data is obtained from an NMR, as Defendants propose. See Voice
`
`Techs. Grp., Inc. v. VMC Sys., Inc., 164 F.3d 605, 615 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“An inventor is a
`
`competent witness to explain the invention and what was intended to be conveyed by the
`
`specification and covered by the claims.”).
`
`C.
`
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent, claims 1, 41)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“equipment that processes received
`information to locate a position of a mobile
`device”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`Function: “comparing said modified network
`measurement data with said database of
`calibration data”
`Structure: Indefinite
`
`
`Means-plus-function claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 allows a patentee to claim a
`
`“means or step for performing a specified function without . . . recit[ing] [the] . . . structure,
`
`material, or acts in support thereof.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (en banc). The scope of such a claim is restricted to the “structure, materials, or acts
`
`described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof,”
`
`if any. Id. If no such structure is reasonably disclosed, the claim is invalid as indefinite. Id., 1351-
`
`52. The purpose of this “structure” requirement is “to avoid pure functional claiming.” Aristocrat
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 74 Filed 05/26/23 Page 17 of 40 PageID# 788
`
`
`Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Otherwise,
`
`
`
`a patentee could “claim all possible means of achieving a function” and thus turn a claiming
`
`technique intended for the patentee’s convenience into a monopoly broader than the invention
`
`scope. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Although a phrase lacking the word “means” is presumptively not a means-plus-function
`
`term, it is nonetheless subject to § 112 ¶ 6 “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails
`
`to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure
`
`for performing that function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348–49 (quotations omitted). The
`
`question is whether it is “understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently
`
`definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id., 1349. The use of “nonce word[s]” such as
`
`“module” or “mechanism” i