Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 38 PageID# 1375
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01331-
`MSN-JFA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01373-
`MSN-JFA1
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`1 Google and Apple, the defendants in the above-captioned cases (collectively, “Defendants”),
`have taken identical positions on claim construction and stated that they are submitting identical
`claim construction briefs. Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) includes both
`case captions above to indicate that it is filing an identical brief on both dockets given that the
`issues in dispute are the same across both cases. By doing so, Geoscope does not suggest that the
`cases against Google and Apple are consolidated.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 38 PageID# 1376
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Background and Technology Overview ..............................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents ....................................................................................2
`
`’753 Patent ...............................................................................................................3
`
`’784 Patent ...............................................................................................................3
`
`’264 Patent ...............................................................................................................4
`
`Relevant Legal Standards ....................................................................................................4
`
`Disputed Claim Terms From the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents ...........................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“observed network measurement data” (’104 Patent, cl. 1, 11; ’358 Patent, cl.
`1, 15, 41, 49; ’494 Patent, cl. 1, 25, 32) ...................................................................6
`
`“calibration data”(’104 Patent, cl. 1-2; ’358 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 15, 18, 41, 42;
`’494 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 9-10, 25-26; and ’753 Patent, cl. 1, 7, 32, 38) ......................10
`
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent, cl. 1, 41) ...............................12
`
`V.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms From the ’753 Patent ....................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“grid point” (cl. 1, 32) ............................................................................................14
`
`“network measurement report” (cl. 1, 7, 32) .........................................................17
`
`VI.
`
`Disputed Claim Term From the ’784 Patent ......................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`Order of “obtaining” and “determining” steps (cl. 1, 12) ......................................20
`
`VII. Disputed Claim Terms From the ’264 Patent ....................................................................21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“wireless device” (cl. 1, 11, 13) .............................................................................21
`
`“indication of transmission signal strength of said signal” (cl. 1, 13) ...................22
`
`VIII. Defendants’ Indefiniteness Allegations For the Other Disputed Terms Are Baseless
`and Wrong ..........................................................................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`Indefiniteness Should Not Be Decided at the Claim Construction Stage ..............24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 38 PageID# 1377
`
`B.
`
`Even if the Court Addresses Indefiniteness Now, Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Evidence Support that a POSA Would Understand the Terms with
`Reasonable Certainty .............................................................................................25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“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) ..............................................................................................................26
`
`“characterizing parameters” (’753 Patent, cl. 1, 9, 32, 40) ........................27
`
`“determining said most likely street as a first one of said plural
`geographic locations” (’784 Patent, cl. 1, 12) ............................................28
`
`“in proximity” (’784 Patent, cl. 1, 12) .......................................................29
`
`IX.
`
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 4 of 38 PageID# 1378
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc.,
`No. 2:12–cv–01004, 2013 WL 4828152 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013) .........................................30
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................7
`
`Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................1, 5
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................10, 24
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................20
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................12
`
`Cont'l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788, 799 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................20
`
`Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................23
`
`ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`566 F.3d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................8
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................6, 9, 20
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................18
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................9
`
`Junker v. Med. Components, Inc.,
`No. 13-4606, 2017 WL 4922291 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2017) .....................................................25
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 5 of 38 PageID# 1379
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................19, 22
`
`Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp.,
`29 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................29
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................30
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`No. 17-6921, 2019 WL 943532 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2019) ..........................................................25
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ...................................................................................................................24
`
`Nature Simulation Sys. Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................24
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...........................................................................................................24, 26
`
`Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as amended (Sept. 20, 2018) ......................................7, 12, 22
`
`Par Pharm. Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-14895, 2020 WL 1130387 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2020) ...............................................25
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)..................................................................5, 6, 19, 20
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC,
`8 F.4th 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................6, 10, 20
`
`Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc.,
`66 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................20
`
`Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................26, 27
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................5, 9, 19
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 6 of 38 PageID# 1380
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)................................................................................13
`
`Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................5, 10, 19
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................12, 13, 14, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ..............................................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 7 of 38 PageID# 1381
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of a patent define its scope. The terms used in those claims—the words the
`
`inventor chose, and the Patent Office approved—should be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. While that meaning is informed by how those skilled in the technological art would
`
`understand those words in light of the intrinsic record—i.e., the context of the claims, the teaching
`
`of the specification, the prosecution history before the Patent Office—those words themselves still
`
`control. It is a bedrock principle of patent law that other limitations of the specification (or from
`
`extrinsic evidence such as inventor testimony) cannot be forced into the claim to limit the
`
`invention, nor the scope of the patent limited to the exemplary embodiments shown.
`
`Defendants’ claim construction proposals violate this defining principle, and try to rewrite
`
`and limit the patent claims to manufacture an infringement defense where none otherwise exists.
`
`This is improper for claim construction, as the Federal Circuit has made clear: “the role of a district
`
`court in construing claims is not to redefine claim recitations or to read limitations into the claims
`
`to obviate factual questions of infringement and validity but rather to give meaning to the
`
`limitations actually contained in the claims.” Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637
`
`F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011). And where the meaning of claim terms is understandable on
`
`their face, no construction is needed by the Court.
`
`Defendants’ attempts to limit “data” to specific data reports, restrict “network” to only
`
`“cellular networks,” and rewrite “wireless device” to exclude disclosed examples, violate multiple
`
`canons of claim construction as discussed in detail below. But, at heart, they all embody the same
`
`flaw—improperly limiting the claim scope to deny terms their plain and ordinary meaning in order
`
`to try to distinguish their accused products. This contravenes controlling precedent, and the Court
`
`should reject this approach and construe the claims as written.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 8 of 38 PageID# 1382
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`Geoscope has asserted that the Defendants infringe multiple claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,561,104 (Dkt. No. 1-1, “’104 Patent”), 8,400,358 (Dkt. No. 1-2, “’358 Patent”), 8,786,494 (Dkt.
`
`No. 1-3, “’494 Patent”), 8,406,753 (Dkt. No. 1-4, “’753 Patent”), 9,097,784 (Dkt. No. 1-5, “’784
`
`Patent”), and 8,320,264 (Dkt. No. 1-6, “’264 Patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”). As
`
`described in further detail below, the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents relate to the
`
`geolocation of mobile devices and provide solutions to specific problems in that field.
`
`’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents
`
`A.
`The related ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents claim priority to the same original application and
`
`are all directed to methods and systems for determining a location of a mobile device using
`
`information related to wireless networks. To accomplish this, the claimed inventions recite
`
`providing a database of “calibration data” and collecting “network measurement data” observed
`
`by the mobile device. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at claim 1; Dkt. No. 1-2 (’358 Patent)
`
`at claim 1; Dkt. No. 1-3 (’494 Patent) at claim 1.2 The observed network measurement data is then
`
`modified to account for varying conditions and other variables that may be caused by, for example,
`
`environmental factors or signals propagating indoors. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 3:43-
`
`49. Once modified, the observed network measurement data is compared with the database of
`
`calibration data to determine the location of the mobile device. Id. Thus, the claimed inventions
`
`directly improved on prior art systems by mitigating the negative effects of disparities between
`
`calibration data and observed network measurement data that can arise due to various factors,
`
`including the environment in which the network measurements were made.
`
`
`2 The ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents share a common specification but have different claims. For
`ease of readability, only citations to the specification of the ’104 Patent (Dkt. No. 1-1) are provided
`herein despite identical language existing in the ’358 and ’494 Patents.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 9 of 38 PageID# 1383
`
`’753 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’753 Patent is directed to methods and systems for determining the location of a mobile
`
`device using information related to wireless networks and what it refers to as “grid points.” The
`
`claimed invention involves generating grid points based on calibration data and then using those
`
`grid points to determine the location of the mobile device. Dkt. No. 1-4 (’753 Patent) at claim 1.
`
`The ’753 Patent explains that these grid points—which “do not necessarily have to be part of a
`
`uniform grid and usually will not be uniformly distributed throughout [a] geographic region”—are
`
`determined based on analyzing calibration data and then associated with a particular set or sets of
`
`calibration data. Id. at 2:31-35, 2:43-50. The determination of grid points allows the creation of a
`
`more robust and denser “map” of locations that can be used to geolocate a mobile device. These
`
`dynamic and non-uniform grid points can also be updated over time as more data is collected, to
`
`continue to improve accuracy. This addressed problems in the prior art related to having a sparse
`
`set of locations to use for geolocation of a mobile device, which could result in reduced accuracy,
`
`and enabled more efficient handling of the data used for geolocation. Id. at 2:21-26.
`’784 Patent
`C.
`The ’784 Patent is directed to methods and systems for generating a calibration database
`
`that can be used in conjunction with known map data for determining the location of a mobile
`
`device. Dkt. No. 1-5 (’784 Patent) at claim 1. The claimed invention of the ’784 Patent uses map
`
`data to verify and improve calibration data that can later be used for geolocation of mobile devices.
`
`Id. at 3:39-50. Measurements made as part of generating calibration data may have errors based
`
`on, for example, malfunctions of equipment or signal degradation at particular times. Id. at
`
`1:25-37. These errors can cause inaccuracies in the resulting calibration data which can, in turn,
`
`cause inaccuracies in the geolocation of a mobile device. The invention of the ’784 Patent
`
`addressed this problem in the prior art by using maps data and the status of the mobile device to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 10 of 38 PageID# 1384
`
`correct errors that result in inaccurate calibration data. As a result, the claimed invention mitigates
`
`the negative effects of errors in calibration data caused by a variety of factors, including
`
`shortcomings in the equipment and techniques used to generate calibration data.
`
`’264 Patent
`
`D.
`The ’264 Patent is directed to a method and system for “determining a path loss value of a
`
`
`
`signal transmitted by a wireless device and received by a receiver” where the “wireless device and
`
`the receiver operate within a wireless communication system.” Dkt. No. 1-6 (’264 Patent) at
`
`Abstract, claim 1. As the ’264 Patent explains, “[p]ath loss is a measure of signal attenuation”
`
`constituting “the difference between the transmitted signal power and the received signal power.”
`
`Id. at 1:19-21. Path loss can be used in connection with geolocating mobile devices—such devices
`
`can receive a number of different types of signals from various transmitters and use path loss
`
`values to determine their position in relation to those transmitters. The claimed invention of the
`
`’264 Patent describes an approach to determining path loss while a wireless device and receiver
`
`are actively communicating as part of a wireless communication system without disabling any
`
`other communication channel. Id. at claim 1. This improved on prior art systems which
`
`“determine[d] the path loss value by assigning a dedicated frequency channel to the wireless device
`
`and disabling interfering frequency channels within the wireless communication system” because
`
`“[s]etting aside a dedicated frequency channel also requires revising the frequency use plan for the
`
`entire geographic area which is costly and inefficient.” Id. at 3:39-45. The claimed invention
`
`avoids these inefficiencies by forgoing the use of a dedicated channel for path loss determination.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`Claim language is typically given its “ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSA”]” at the time of the invention. Thorner v. Sony Comput.
`
`Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 11 of 38 PageID# 1385
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). It is well-settled that a court, in interpreting a patent claim, should look
`
`to the intrinsic evidence—i.e., the patent claims, the specification, and the prosecution history—
`
`with the language of the claims being of primary import. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14. “[T]he role
`
`of a district court in construing claims is not to redefine claim recitations or to read limitations into
`
`the claims to obviate factual questions of infringement and validity but rather to give meaning to
`
`the limitations actually contained in the claims.” Am. Piledriving Equip., 637 F.3d at 1331.
`
`“The specification need not describe every embodiment of the claimed invention and the
`
`claims should not be confined to the disclosed embodiments—even when the specification
`
`discloses only one embodiment.” Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1283
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). “We do not read limitations from the specification
`
`into claims; we do not redefine words.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Only when a patentee clearly
`
`sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or when the patentee disavows the full
`
`scope of a claim term in the specification or during prosecution, should a claim term be construed
`
`to include limitations not otherwise inherent in the claim. Woods, 692 F.3d at 1283; Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365, 1367. “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
`
`the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”
`
`Philips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (emphasis added).
`
`Extrinsic evidence, such as testimony, may be considered, but is “less reliable than the
`
`patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317-18. “Whether an inventor’s testimony is consistent with a broader or narrower claim scope,
`
`that testimony is still limited by the fact that an inventor understands the invention but may not
`
`understand the claims, which are typically drafted by the attorney prosecuting the patent
`
`application.” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346-47
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 12 of 38 PageID# 1386
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit similarly has cautioned courts to “discount any expert
`
`testimony” that is conclusory or that contradicts the intrinsic evidence (see Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1318), explaining that legal error arises where a court relies on extrinsic evidence that contradicts
`
`the intrinsic record. See Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1290
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021). Indeed, “if the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence, there
`
`is no need to resort to extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1287.
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS FROM THE ’104, ’358, AND ’494 PATENTS
`“observed network measurement data” (’104 Patent, cl. 1, 11; ’358 Patent, cl.
`A.
`1, 15, 41, 49; ’494 Patent, cl. 1, 25, 32)
`
`Geoscope’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 term “observed network measurement data” is readily understandable to a POSA and
`
`requires no construction. “Observed network measurement data” is just that—measured data that
`
`is observed from a network. The words themselves do not limit the term to data from “a network
`
`measurement report” nor do they limit it to data from “cellular networks,” as Defendants propose.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the term is clear from its face, and no construction is necessary.
`
`To the extent the Court determines that construction would be appropriate, the term should
`
`be construed as “measurement data representing at least one network characteristic observed by a
`
`mobile device.” This is consistent with the broad usage of the term in the intrinsic evidence,
`
`including the specification (“The network measurement data may include received base station
`
`power and timing advance, as well as other network characteristics observable by a mobile
`
`station.”) and during reexamination before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`(“‘Observed network measurement data’ is discussed in the current specification as representing
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 13 of 38 PageID# 1387
`
`a network characteristic observed (measured) by a mobile station at a particular region.”). Dkt.
`
`No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 10:58-63 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9:44-47, 11:23-25; Ex. 1 at
`
`GEOSCOPE-A-003283 (emphasis added). And it is consistent with the usage of broader terms
`
`like “wireless network” and “mobile station” in the claims—as opposed to, for example, “cellular
`
`network” and “cellular device.” In fact, certain types of “mobile stations” described in the Patents,
`
`such as “laptop computers,” (Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 1:13-17) typically did not use cellular
`
`networks at the time of the invention, further confirming that limiting the claims to “cellular
`
`networks” is improper since it would exclude examples of the invention that the patentee taught.
`
`See Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as
`
`amended (Sept. 20, 2018) (“[T]here is a strong presumption against a claim construction that
`
`excludes a disclosed embodiment.”).
`
`The plain meaning of the term, including the individual words like “network,” is clear on
`
`its face and the intrinsic evidence confirms that no narrowing scope was intended. See Altiris, Inc.
`
`v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that district court “erred in not
`
`considering the meaning of the individual words” in a claim term). It is indisputable that the plain
`
`meaning of “network” encompasses more than a cellular network, else the latter phrase would not
`
`be necessary. Although the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents indicate that the invention is in the context
`
`of a “wireless network,” even that term encompasses more than a cellular network. See, e.g., Dkt.
`
`No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at claim 1 (referring to a “wireless network”). It was well-understood as of
`
`the time of the invention (late-2006 to early-2007) that there are wireless networks other than
`
`cellular networks—e.g., WiFi networks. Ex. 2 at 553; Ex. 3 at 98-99; Ex. 4 at 572. Intrinsic
`
`evidence such as prior art cited and overcome by the patentee during prosecution of the ’104, ’358,
`
`and ’494 Patents further confirms this. Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 41-42 (referring to other “wireless
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 14 of 38 PageID# 1388
`
`telecommunications systems” including “IEEE 802.11 WiFi, 802.16 WiMax, Bluetooth,” which
`
`are not cellular networks).
`
`Importantly, the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents make clear that “observed network
`
`measurement data” need not come exclusively from a “network measurement report,” refuting
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction. In describing Figure 2, the Patents state that “[t]he observed
`
`[network measurement] data would typically be the same or similar to the data in a network
`
`measurement report,” indicating that the observed network measurement data is not limited to data
`
`from a network measurement report, and drawing a divide between the two. Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104
`
`Patent) at 9:40-44 (emphasis added). Thus, Defendants’ proposal must be rejected as it improperly
`
`contradicts the intrinsic evidence. ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d
`
`1028, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We generally do not construe claim language to be inconsistent with
`
`the clear language of the specification.”).
`
`Defendants’ proposal to narrow this term has two fatal flaws—(1) limiting the term
`
`“measurement data” to a “network measurement report” and (2) limiting the term “network” to
`
`“cellular networks”—both of which are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. To justify
`
`their drastic departure from the claim’s full plain and ordinary meaning, Defendants must satisfy
`
`an “exacting” standard to demonstrate that the patentee expressly disavowed the full scope of the
`
`term. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-67; see also Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353,
`
`1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Thorner). Defendants cannot do so.
`
`As to limiting the term to data from “network measurement reports,” Defendants cannot
`
`demonstrate that the patentee disclaimed all “data” outside of those reports, as explained above.
`
`See supra (citing Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 9:40-44). At best, Defendants may contend that the
`
`discussion of “network measurement reports” in the specification somehow imposes a limitation
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 15 of 38 PageID# 1389
`
`on the separate term “observed network measurement data.” Or Defendants may point to extrinsic
`
`evidence such as inventor testimony and inventor documents—which has little probative weight
`
`during claim construction—regarding “network measurement reports” to narrow a different term.
`
`Howmedica, 540 F.3d at 1346-47; InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d
`
`1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (refusing to narrow a claim term based on “the inventors’ ‘conception
`
`documents’”). But disavowal requires more. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-66 (explaining that the
`
`fact that “the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation” does
`
`not amount to disavowal). In any event, the patentee used “data” to refer to data beyond just the
`
`subset of data in “network measurement reports,” confirming that it would be improper to restrict
`
`the former to the latter.
`
`As to limiting the term “network” to “cellular networks,” Defendants’ proposal fails for
`
`the same reasons. They cannot demonstrate disavowal that justifies excluding networks other than
`
`cellular networks from the plain meaning of “observed network measurement data.” That
`
`exemplary embodiments in the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents relate to cellular networks is
`
`insufficient to narrow the term. Woods, 692 F.3d at 1283 (“[T]he claims should not be confined to
`
`the disclosed embodiments—even when the specification discloses only one embodiment.”); Hill-
`
`Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (refusing to “import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims” in the absence of intrinsic evidence that “makes
`
`clear that the invention is limited”). And extrinsic evidence such as inventor testimony and
`
`inventor documents cannot narrow a term that the intrinsic evidence demonstrates is used broadly.
`
`Seabed Geosolutions, 8 F.4th at 1287-90 (“Given the clarity of the intrinsic evidence, resort to
`
`extrinsic evidence is unnecessary.”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 75 Filed 05/26/23 Page 16 of 38 PageID# 1390
`
`Had the patentee intended to limit the term “observed network measurement data” to data
`
`from “network measurement reports” or data from “cellular networks,” it could have done so
`
`explicitly. Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The
`
`patentee did not do that and there is no justification for Defendants’ proposed post hoc narrowing
`
`of the term. Accordingly, the Court should reject Defendants’ proposal and decline to construe this
`
`term or adopt Geoscope’s proposed construction.
`
`B.
`
`“calibration data”(’104 Patent, cl. 1-2; ’358 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 15, 18, 41, 42;
`’494 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 9-10, 25-26; and ’753 Patent, cl. 1, 7, 32, 38)
`
`Ge