Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 29 PageID# 1517
`
`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.,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`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
`RESPONSIVE 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 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 29 PageID# 1518
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Disputed Claim Terms From the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents ...........................................2
`
`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) ...................................................................2
`
`“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) ........................5
`
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent, cl. 1, 41) .................................7
`
`III.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms From the ’753 Patent ....................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“grid point” (cl. 1, 32; ’104 Pat. cl. 2; ’358 Pat. cl. 4,18, 42; ’494 Pat. cl. 4,
`26) ..........................................................................................................................10
`
`“network measurement report” (cl. 1, 7, 32) .........................................................11
`
`IV.
`
`Disputed Claim Term From the ’784 Patent ......................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`Order of “obtaining” and “determining” steps (cl. 1, 12) ......................................13
`
`V.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms From the ’264 Patent ....................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“wireless device” (cl. 1, 11, 13) .............................................................................14
`
`“indication of transmission signal strength of said signal” (cl. 1, 13) ...................16
`
`VI.
`
`Defendants’ Indefiniteness Arguments ..............................................................................17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“evaluating”/“evaluate” terms (’753 Patent, cl. 1, 32) ...........................................18
`
`“determining said most likely street as a first one of said plural geographic
`locations” (’784 Patent, cl. 1, 12) ..........................................................................20
`
`“in proximity” (’784 Patent, cl. 1, 12) ...................................................................22
`
`VII. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 3 of 29 PageID# 1519
`
`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) ..........................................22
`
`Aether Therapeutics, Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB,
`No. CV 20-381, 2021 WL 4243567 (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2021) .................................................17
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................4, 16
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................13
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................5
`
`Canon, Inc. v. TCL Elecs. Holdings Ltd.,
`No. 2:18-CV-546, 2020 WL 2098197 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2020) ........................................9, 19
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chem. Corp. (Canada),
`629 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Del. 2009) .........................................................................................21
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................8
`
`ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`566 F.3d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................2, 11
`
`Hardin v. Samsung,
`No. 2:21-CV-00290, Dkt. 86 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022). .........................................................9
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................2, 3
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................4, 20
`
`Indus. Tech. Rsch. Inst. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 13-2016, 2014 WL 6907449 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) .....................................................17
`
`Inguran, LLC v. ABS Global, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-446, 2019 WL 943515 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 29, 2019) ..............................................20
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 4 of 29 PageID# 1520
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................16
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................7
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (2014) .........................................................................................................22, 23
`
`Kaken Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................3
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................4, 15
`
`Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp.,
`29 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................7
`
`Lone Star Tech. Innovations, LLC v. Asustek Computer Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00059, 2020 WL 6811484 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2020) .......................................19
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`No. 17-6921, 2019 WL 943532 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2019) ..........................................................17
`
`Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp.,
`No. 6:19-CV-06036, 2020 WL 7692767 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2020) .......................................9
`
`Moore U.S.A., Inc. v. Standard Reg. Co.,
`229 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................3
`
`Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC,
`55 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................3
`
`MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu,
`933 F.3d 1336, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2019). ................................................................................9
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................18
`
`Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)..................................................................2, 4, 13, 15
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 5 of 29 PageID# 1521
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................3
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................8
`
`Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1406, 1415-16 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ...................................................................................3
`
`Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`No. 19-1868, 2021 WL 1966406 (D. Del. May 17, 2021) ........................................................6
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Comm’cns AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................4
`
`Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..............................................................................17, 20, 21, 23
`
`St. Jude Med., LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC,
`977 F.3d 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................5, 13
`
`Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`733 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................20
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-CV-01835, 2018 WL 626472 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) ...............................................9
`
`TSI, Inc. v. Azbil BioVigilant, Inc.,
`No. CV12–0083, 2013 WL 1149606 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2013)...............................................10
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)..................................................................................7
`
`Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................2
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 6 of 29 PageID# 1522
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Controlling precedent is clear—terms used in patent claims are afforded their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. While that meaning is informed by the technological art of the invention and
`
`the context of the intrinsic record, it is improper to limit the terms to the exemplary embodiments
`
`of the specification or otherwise read in limitations from the intrinsic record that do not actually
`
`appear in the claims. Canons exist to police this prohibition—e.g., when the patentee uses different
`
`terms they are presumed to have different meanings, independent claims should not be narrowed
`
`to conflate with dependent claims, and claims should not be narrowed to exclude the inventor’s
`
`own examples of those terms. The words the patentee chose control.
`
`Defendants’ proposed claim constructions violate these canons. They seek to narrow the
`
`patent claims to specific examples with the aim of then distinguishing their own accused conduct,
`
`such as limiting “networks” to “cellular networks,” conflating an “indication of signal strength”
`
`with “signal strength” itself, or restricting “calibration data” to some of the inventors’ examples
`
`while excluding others. This is improper, as discussed in detail below. But more fundamentally, it
`
`confounds the purpose of claim construction, which is not to create or adjudge non-infringement
`
`arguments, but rather to provide guidance to the fact finder when the scope of a term is unclear.
`
`Patent infringement is a question of fact, and if the claims are clear on their face then no
`
`construction is necessary. And even where claim construction can assist the fact finder, it should
`
`be used for that purpose, i.e., to assist the fact finder in understanding technical terms—it cannot
`
`be used to manufacture a non-infringement defense where none otherwise exists, nor to deny the
`
`inventors the full scope of their recited invention. Because Geoscope’s proposed constructions
`
`comport with this purpose and are true to the controlling law, the Court should adopt them. And
`
`Defendants’ proposals, which do neither, should be rejected as improper.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 7 of 29 PageID# 1523
`
`II.
`
`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)
`
`As discussed in Geoscope’s Opening Brief, this claim term is clear on its face, and no
`
`construction is necessary. If any uncertainty exists, Geoscope’s alternative construction clarifies
`
`that “observed” relates to being detected by a mobile device, and “network measurement data”
`
`relates to a characteristic of a network signal. Defendants admit that they want to deny the patent
`
`this plain meaning, and instead restrict the claim to a single form of data (“a known report called
`
`a ‘network measurement report (NMR)’”) and a single kind of network (“used in cellular
`
`networks”). This is not the plain meaning of the term, and therefore should be rejected. Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Defendants’ purported justification to rewrite the claim language is that the patent includes
`
`examples of using network measurement reports from cellular networks. But the mere fact that
`
`“observed network measurement data” may include “measurement data from a network
`
`measurement report” does not limit the former to the latter. See Woods v. DeAngelo Marine
`
`Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[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). While a patentee could
`
`define a term more narrowly than its plain meaning, that is not the case here where the patent
`
`expressly teaches that “[t]he observed [network measurement] data would typically be the same or
`
`similar to the data in a network measurement report,” i.e., that it is not always limited to a network
`
`measurement report. Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 9:40-44.2 The patent expressly uses the term
`
`more broadly than Defendants’ construction, warranting rejection of Defendants’ proposal. ERBE
`
`
`2 All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 8 of 29 PageID# 1524
`
`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 attempt to equate the invention with “network measurement report,” but fail to
`
`cite or quote the type of definitional “the present invention is…” language that underpinned the
`
`cases on which they rely. Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1360-61 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022); Kaken Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also
`
`Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1415-16 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (limiting
`
`“lidar” to “pulsed time-of-flight lidar” where specification “focused exclusively on pulsed time-
`
`of-flight” in describing improvements over prior art). While arguing that “using data from NMRs
`
`is the purported invention”—Defs.’ Br. at 5-73 (emphasis in original)—Defendants fail to point to
`
`such definitional language in the actual record. Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at 1372-73 (refusing to “import
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims” in the absence of intrinsic evidence that “makes
`
`clear that the invention is limited”). That the title of a provisional application includes the term
`
`“Network Measurement Reports” is of no moment—the actual patents at issue do not include the
`
`term in their titles and, in any event, the Federal Circuit has stressed that “the bar on importing
`
`limitations from the written description into the claims applies no less forcefully to a title [of a
`
`patent].” See Moore U.S.A., Inc. v. Standard Reg. Co., 229 F.3d 1091, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f we do
`
`not read limitations into the claims from the specification that are not found in the claims
`
`themselves, then we certainly will not read limitations into the claims from the patent title.”). The
`
`
`3 “Defs. Br.” refers to Google LLC’s Opening Brief filed in 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA (Dkt. No.
`74) and the substantively identical brief filed by Apple 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA (Dkt. No. 72).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 9 of 29 PageID# 1525
`
`intrinsic record as a whole confirms that the patent is broader than network measurement reports.
`
`Op. Br.4 at 6-8.
`
`The patentee used the term “network measurement report” in the specification and related
`
`patents, but not in these claims. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 2:35-40; 4:6-9; Dkt. No. 1-
`
`4 (’753 Patent) at claim 1. That the patentee chose to use “observed network measurement data”
`
`rather than “network measurement report” in the claims implies an intentional distinction between
`
`the terms. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Comm’cns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (rejecting construction equating “data feeds” with “data channel” where the former term
`
`appeared elsewhere in the patent); Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330-31
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that had a patentee intended to require a limitation in a claim, “it could
`
`have included such a limitation in the claim but notably did not”). That intentional distinction
`
`should not erased after-the-fact.
`
`Defendants largely ignore the claims in construing this claim term despite the claim
`
`language being of “primary” importance. Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). Indeed, Defendants not address the use of broad terms like “mobile station” and
`
`“wireless network”—which are not limited to cellular devices or cellular networks—in the claims,
`
`which provide context for the term “observed network measurement data,” and demonstrate that
`
`it is not used as narrowly as Defendants propose. Op. Br. at 7.
`
`Extrinsic evidence—including post hoc inventor testimony—cannot be used to contradict
`
`this intrinsic record. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318-19; Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright
`
`Med. Tech. Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But to the extent extrinsic evidence is
`
`considered despite the intrinsic evidence being clear, the extrinsic evidence also confirms that
`
`
`4 “Op. Br.” refers to Geoscope’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 10 of 29 PageID# 1526
`
`Defendants’ construction is incorrect. See Op. Br. at 7-8 (citing technical dictionaries). Defendants
`
`fail to meet the “exacting” standard necessary to show that the patentee expressly disavowed the
`
`full scope of “observed network measurement data,” which is necessary to narrow the term.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Op.
`
`Br. at 8-9. Should any construction be necessary—which it is not—Geoscope’s proposal should
`
`be adopted as consistent with the broad usage of “observed network measurement data” in the
`
`intrinsic evidence and the use of terms like “wireless network” and “mobile station” in the claims.
`
`Op. Br. at 6-8; see also infra § III.B.
`
`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)
`
`“Calibration data” is also a straightforward term needing no construction or, if one is
`
`supplied, it should be afforded its regular meaning of “information based on prior network
`
`measurements.” Similar to the term above, Defendants seek to deny the patent its full scope by
`
`limiting this term to embodiments from the specification, i.e., direct “network measurement data.”
`
`Although calibration data may include direct “network measurement data,” the patent teaches that
`
`it also includes data that may be based on measurement data without itself being measurement
`
`data. Thus, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly excludes disclosed embodiments which
`
`the Federal Circuit has explained is “rarely, if ever, correct.” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`
`732 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d
`
`1365, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`The broader meaning of calibration data is reflected in the specification of the ’104, ’358,
`
`and ’494 Patents, which describe several examples of calibration data, including examples where
`
`the calibration data is not network measurement data itself. Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 10:52-58.
`
`In fact, the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents expressly teach that calibration data may include
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 11 of 29 PageID# 1527
`
`measurement data that has been “altered,” “modified,” or otherwise processed, in furtherance of
`
`the goal of the claimed inventions of improving the accuracy of geolocation by mitigating the
`
`negative effects of varying conditions that may affect signal propagation. See id. at 1:41-45
`
`(“Calibration data collected in areas located adjacent to indoor facilities may be altered to increase
`
`the accuracy of location estimates of a mobile station located indoors.”), 3:46-47 (“Calibration
`
`data obtained outdoors may be modified and substituted for indoor calibration data.”). The related
`
`’784 Patent similarly confirms that calibration data may include measurement data that has been
`
`altered or modified, teaching that “[t]o ensure the integrity of the collected calibration data, a data
`
`modification and/or data replacement algorithm may be implemented to enhance the accuracy of
`
`the collected data.” Dkt. No. 1-5 (’784 Patent) at Abstract. To the extent the Court determines that
`
`the term needs to be construed, Geoscope’s construction retains these embodiments, whereas
`
`Defendants’ would improperly strip them from the claims in violation of the canons of claim
`
`construction.
`
`Defendants sole criticism of Geoscope’s construction focuses on the purported absence of
`
`language specifying that calibration data be “associated with a location” in its construction. But
`
`this ignores that claim construction seeks to resolve fundamental disputes regarding the proper
`
`scope of the claim, not to eliminate all possible ambiguities. See Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress
`
`Semiconductor Corp., No. 19-1868, 2021 WL 1966406, *1-2 n.2 (D. Del. May 17, 2021)
`
`(declining to further construe the term “instrument controller” after finding it non-limiting in the
`
`preamble). By focusing on the “associat[ion] with a defined geographic location,” Defendants’
`
`construction introduces ambiguities that may cause confusion to the fact finder. For example,
`
`although calibration data need not be associated with a specific location the instant it is measured,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 12 of 29 PageID# 1528
`
`Defendants’ construction may raise questions on the timing of the association—an issue irrelevant
`
`to the infringement inquiry.
`
`Defendants’ construction is also flawed because it incorporates into “calibration data” their
`
`construction of “observed network measurement data,” which incorporates their construction of
`
`“network measurement report.” Thus, Defendants effectively contend that “calibration data” is
`
`limited to data from a network measurement report. But narrowing the term in this manner violates
`
`the doctrine of claim differentiation by reading a limitation from a dependent claim into the claim
`
`from which it depends. InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d 1318, 1324-
`
`25 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (under the doctrine of claim differentiation, refusing to narrow the term “code”
`
`to “spreading code” because a dependent claim recited “wherein same code is a spreading code”).
`
`Dependent claim 7 of the ’753 Patent recites the method of claim 1 “wherein said calibration data
`
`comprises information from a network measurement report.”5 Dkt. No. 1-4 (’753 Patent) at claim
`
`1. If calibration data must be network measurement data which, according to Defendants, must be
`
`from a network measurement report, dependent claim 7 (and the similar claim 38) of the ’753
`
`Patent would be entirely superfluous. This violates yet another canon of claim construction, and
`
`further confirms that Defendants’ proposal should be rejected. See InterDigital Commc’ns, 690
`
`F.3d at 1324-25; Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`(rejecting construction that rendered dependent claims superfluous).
`
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent, cl. 1, 41)
`
`C.
`As Defendants recognize, where a claim term lacks the word “means,” there is a
`
`presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348
`
`
`5 Defendants omitted from their brief that the term “calibration data” is also found in the asserted
`claims of the ’753 Patent. See Defs.’ Br. at 3.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 13 of 29 PageID# 1529
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). To overcome this presumption, a challenging party must demonstrate
`
`with evidentiary support that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else
`
`recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Zeroclick, LLC
`
`v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2018). If, and only if, the challenging party
`
`demonstrates that a POSA would not have understood that the term recites a sufficiently definite
`
`structure should the analysis proceed to the second question of “[w]hat, if any, is the structure
`
`corresponding to the claimed function.” Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1366-67 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022). As Defendants have not met their burden of overcoming the threshold presumption that
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6 does not apply, the Court need not reach the second question here, and Geoscope’s
`
`proposed construction should be adopted.
`
`The Federal Circuit has recognized that there are multiple ways to connote sufficient
`
`structure, including by describing “the claim limitation’s operation and how the function is
`
`achieved in the context of the invention.” See id. at 1366; Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Court has further
`
`recognized such descriptions of a claim limitation’s operation (e.g., its input, output, or
`
`connections)
`
`to hold particular
`
`relevance
`
`in providing
`
`structural meaning
`
`in
`
`computer-implemented inventions and the electrical arts. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368-69. Here,
`
`the ’358 Patent specification does precisely this by describing in detail how positioning
`
`determining equipment receives as an input modified network measurement data and compares it
`
`with a database of calibration data to determine the location of a mobile device. See, e.g., Dkt. No.
`
`1-2 (’358 Patent) at 2:12-14, 2:24-28, 2:38-40, 2:63-67, 3:2-13; 4:41-61, 9:58-64, 10:3-8, 11:13-
`
`17, 11:29-31, 11:40-44 and 11:50-61; Figs. 2-3, 7-10. From this disclosure, a POSA would
`
`understand the term to designate sufficiently definite structure. See Power Integrations, 711 F.3d
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 14 of 29 PageID# 1530
`
`at 1364-65.
`
`Defendants’ cases are inapposite. Defs.’ Br. at 10. For example, in Hardin v. Samsung—
`
`an unpublished decision from the Eastern District of Texas—the court found the term “location-
`
`determination component” subject to § 112 ¶ 6 where the plaintiff did no more than point to the
`
`“component” being part of the claimed mobile device for structure. See No. 2:21-CV-00290, Dkt.
`
`86 at 7-8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022). The other non-binding decisions cited by Defendants similarly
`
`involved situations where the plaintiff could not point to corresponding structure and/or where the
`
`specification did not even mention the term. Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp.,
`
`No. 6:19-CV-06036, 2020 WL 7692767, at *23–24 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2020) (plaintiff’s
`
`examples of structure failed to perform claimed function); Canon, Inc. v. TCL Elecs. Holdings
`
`Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-546, 2020 WL 2098197, at *46–47 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2020) (plaintiff pointed
`
`to disclosure of “execution unit” as support for “determination unit,” a term not mentioned in
`
`specification); TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01835, 2018 WL 626472, at *10 (D.
`
`Del. Jan. 30, 2018) (similar). Likewise, in MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit rejected
`
`plaintiff’s attempt to rely on the specification’s description of a “ZTR control assembly” to
`
`conclude that the claim term “mechanical control assembly” had an established meaning,
`
`emphasizing how “the specification d[id] not even refer to a ‘mechanical control assembly.’” 933
`
`F.3d 1336, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Such circumstances are not present here.
`
`Even if “positioning determining equipment” were subject to § 112 ¶ 6, Defendants’
`
`indefiniteness argument fails for ignoring the ’358 Patent’s disclosure of corresponding structures
`
`for performing the recited function. For example, the specification describes that the comparison
`
`of modified network measurement data with the calibration database to determine the location of
`
`the mobile station “may be performed by a processor, microprocessor or ASICS” and the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 83 Filed 06/09/23 Page 15 of 29 PageID# 1531
`
`algorithms implemented by these structures. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-2 (’358 Patent) at 11:13-16,
`
`Figures 2-3, 7-10. Defendants’ assertion that “[t]he ’358 Patent has no disclosure of structures or
`
`algorithms” ignores these teachings and suggests Defendants demand such disclosure take on a
`
`particular form. Defs.’ Br. at 11-12. But the Federal Circuit has made clear that algorithms can be
`
`expressed “in any understandable terms including a mathematical formula, prose, a flow chart, or
`
`in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`
`659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011). From the teachings of the ’358 Patent, a POSA would be
`
`able to perform and carry out the process for accomplishing the function of “comparing said
`
`modified network measurement data with said database of calibration data to thereby determine
`
`