Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 39 PageID# 1592
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 2 of 39 PageID# 1593
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INDEFINITENESS IS A MATTER OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION..........................1
`’104, ’358, AND ’494 PATENTS .......................................................................................3
`“calibration data” (’104 Patent, cls. 1-2; ’358 Patent, cls. 1, 4, 15, 18, 41-
`A.
`42; ’494 Patent, cls. 1, 4, 9-10, 25-26) .....................................................................3
`“observed network measurement data” (’104 Patent, cls. 1, 11; ’358 Patent,
`cls. 1, 15, 41, 49; ’494 Patent, cls. 1, 25, 32) ...........................................................6
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent, cls. 1, 41) .............................10
`C.
`’753 PATENT ....................................................................................................................13
`A.
`“network measurement report” (’753 patent, cls. 1 and 32) ..................................13
`“grid point” (’104 patent, cl. 2; ’358 patent, cls. 4, 18, and 42; ’494 patent,
`
`cls. 4, 26; ’753 patent, cls. 1, 32) ...........................................................................16
`“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, cls. 1, 32) ..............................................19
`’784 PATENT ....................................................................................................................22
`Order of “obtaining” and “determining” steps (’784 patent, cls. 2, 10, 11,
`A.
`21, 22) ....................................................................................................................22
`“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, cls.
`2, 10, 11, 21, 22) ....................................................................................................23
`“in proximity” (’784 patent, cls. 2, 10, 11, 21, 22) ................................................23
`C.
`’264 PATENT ....................................................................................................................27
`A.
`“wireless device” (’264 Patent, cls. 1, 13) .............................................................27
`B.
`“indication of transmission signal strength of said signal” (’264 patent, cls.
`1, 13) ......................................................................................................................28
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 3 of 39 PageID# 1594
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abdou v. Alphatec Spine, Inc.,
`2014 WL 6611422 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014) .........................................................................26
`
`Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC,
`329 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D. Mass. 2018) ....................................................................................10, 24
`
`Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc.,
`2013 WL 4828152 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013) .....................................................................25, 26
`
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................30
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................10, 19, 23, 24
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`709 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................20
`
`Ave. Innovations, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc.,
`310 F. Supp. 3d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)......................................................................................21
`
`Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................14
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`No. 1:18-cv-760, 2019 WL 2745735 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2019) (Ellis, J.) ...................................2
`
`Cambria Co. LLC v. Hirsch Glass Corp.,
`2022 WL 4031422 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2022) .................................................................................2
`
`Cap. Bridge Co. v. IVL Techs. Ltd.,
`2006 WL 2585529 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2006) .........................................................................27
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................16
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................21
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................2
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp,
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 4 of 39 PageID# 1595
`
`
`Egenera Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................10, 11, 12
`
`
`
`Faroudja Labs., Inc. v. Dwin Elecs., Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .......................................................................................12
`
`Fin Control Systems Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................16
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................6
`
`Guitar Apprentice, Inc. v. Ubisoft, Inc.,
`97 F. Supp. 3d 965 (W.D. Tenn. 2015)....................................................................................12
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................9
`
`Inguran, LLC v. ABS Glob., Inc.,
`2019 WL 943515 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 26, 2019) ..........................................................................21
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................6
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................9, 10
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................25, 26
`
`Junker v. Med. Components, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4922291 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2017)..............................................................................2
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................20
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................10
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................10
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................10
`
`Media Rights Techs. Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 5 of 39 PageID# 1596
`
`
`Mentor Graphics v. Eve-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`2019 WL 943532 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2019) ..................................................................................2
`
`Netscape Communs. Corp. v. Valueclick, Inc.,
`684 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 2009) ......................................................................................28
`
`Neurografix Patent Litig., 201 F. Supp. 3d 206, 222-23 (D. Mass. 2016) ....................................26
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................13
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................3
`
`Par Pharm. Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1130387 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2020) ..................................................................................2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)....................................................................1, 8, 9, 14
`
`Porto Tech. Co. v. Cellco P’ship,
`2013 WL 6571844 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2013) (Hudson, J.) ........................................................1
`
`In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................11, 12, 27
`
`Pulse Elecs., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. Corp.,
`860 F. App’x 735 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................30
`
`In re Qualcomm Litig.,
`2018 WL 2229344 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) ..........................................................................12
`
`Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................6
`
`Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................13
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................24
`
`Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................21, 22
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 6 of 39 PageID# 1597
`
`
`Techtronic Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`944 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2021 WL 948801, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021) .................................................................27
`
`Tippmann Eng’g, LLC v. Innovative Refrigeration Sys., Inc.,
`2023 WL 18559 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2023) ...................................................................................9
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
`248 F. App’x 170 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................9
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................8
`
`TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`861 F. App’x 453 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................21, 22, 23
`
`Umbanet, Inc. v. Epsilon Data Mgmt.,
`LLC, 2017 WL 3508771 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2017) ...............................................................13
`
`Voice Techs. Grp., Inc. v. VMC Sys., Inc.,
`164 F.3d 605 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................9
`
`Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................23
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 7 of 39 PageID# 1598
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Geoscope’s May 17, 2023 Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Additional Excerpted Deposition Testimony of Selcuk Mazlum
`
`Ex.
`S
`
`T
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 8 of 39 PageID# 1599
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s approach to claim construction seeks to broaden its patent rights well beyond
`
`what the inventors invented and disclosed. For term after term, Plaintiff seeks to nullify all
`
`meaning from the claims by genericizing and de-contextualizing the claim language. That
`
`approach to claim construction is improper. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.”). Claims must be construed in the context of the patent, not in a vacuum. And while claim
`
`construction and indefiniteness are assessed from the perspective of the POSITA, id. at 1313,
`
`Plaintiff does not bother even to define the POSITA for the Asserted Patents, much less identify
`
`evidence from the POSITA to support its attorney argument.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff’s attempt to punt resolution of several hopelessly indefinite claim terms
`
`to some later point in the case is misguided and contrary to the great weight of authority.
`
`Indefiniteness is a legal issue that can be—and almost always is—resolved as a matter of claim
`
`construction; indeed, doing so in a fast case like this one makes even more sense. Defendants’
`
`proposals—which seek to give meanings to claim terms that are mandated from the patents where
`
`possible, and call out terms when they are indefinite—should be adopted.
`
`I.
`
`INDEFINITENESS IS A MATTER OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Plaintiff seeks to avoid a finding that certain terms are indefinite by asking the Court to
`
`punt on those issues until some later date after the claim construction stage. Indefiniteness,
`
`however, is an issue of law. DefsBr. 2.1 Courts in this District routinely decide issues of
`
`indefiniteness at the Markman stage. See Porto Tech. Co. v. Cellco P’ship, 2013 WL 6571844, at
`
`*6 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2013) (Hudson, J.) (rejecting argument “that claim construction is not the
`
`proper stage to consider the indefiniteness of claims,” and recognizing “claim indefiniteness is a
`
`
`1 For convenience, this brief refers to Dkt. 74 as “DefsBr.” and Dkt. 75 as “PltBr.” Citations to
`Exhibits A-R and 1-11 throughout refer to the Exhibits to Dkt. 74 and Dkt. 75, respectively.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 9 of 39 PageID# 1600
`
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the consumer of patent
`
`
`
`claims” (quoting Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005))); Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys., No. 1:18-cv-760, 2019 WL 2745735,
`
`at *9 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2019) (Ellis, J.) (finding claim indefinite during claim construction).
`
`Plaintiff relies entirely on three out-of-District cases that are simply inapposite. In Merck,
`
`the court deferred on indefiniteness only after making a “threshold” finding that “the claim at issue
`
`is sufficiently definite to survive claim construction.” Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc., 2019 WL 943532, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2019). Courts citing Merck have
`
`noted that “[a]n indefiniteness decision at the claim construction stage, however, may be
`
`unavoidable if the claim has no meaning to a person skilled in the art,” as is true here. See Cambria
`
`Co. LLC v. Hirsch Glass Corp., 2022 WL 4031422, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2022). Similarly, the
`
`court in Junker noted that “[w]hether to decide the issue of invalidity based on indefiniteness at the
`
`claim construction stage depends on the particular circumstances and claims at issue in a given case[.]”
`
`Junker v. Med. Components, Inc., 2017 WL 4922291, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2017); id. at *2 n.1
`
`(acknowledging contrary authority). There, the indefiniteness issue involved a design patent, rather
`
`than a utility patent, and concerned arguments “based on alleged inconsistencies in the patent figures,”
`
`rather than indefiniteness of the claim terms. Id. at *3. Finally, in Par Pharm., the parties requested
`
`the Court to defer any indefiniteness rulings until after claim construction. Par Pharm. Inc. v. Sandoz,
`
`Inc., 2020 WL 1130387, at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2020). None of these cases disturb this District’s practice
`
`of ruling on indefiniteness at Markman.
`
`Plaintiff also complains that deciding indefiniteness “at the claim construction stage[] is
`
`contrary to the parties’ agreed-upon discovery plan and would deprive the Court of the testimony of
`
`those skilled in the art[.]” PltBr. 24. First, nothing in the Joint Discovery Plan prevents Defendants
`
`from raising indefiniteness now. Second, the Court has expert testimony from Defendants who
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 10 of 39 PageID# 1601
`
`
`disclosed their intent to argue indefiniteness based on expert testimony consistent with the Joint
`
`
`
`Discovery Plan. Dkt. 50 at 14. Although Plaintiff stated that it may rely on expert testimony, Ex. S at
`
`8, it apparently opted not to. Having made that choice, Plaintiff cannot complain about the state of the
`
`record it is responsible for creating.
`
`II.
`
`’104, ’358, and ’494 PATENTS
`A.
`
`“calibration data” (’104 Patent, cls. 1-2; ’358 Patent, cls. 1, 4, 15, 18, 41-42;
`’494 Patent, cls. 1, 4, 9-10, 25-26)
`
` For “calibration data,” Plaintiff argues that no construction is necessary or, in the
`
`alternative, proposes that it be construed to mean “information based on prior network
`
`measurements.” PltBr. 10-12. Because the parties dispute the term’s plain meaning, construction
`
`is required. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Plaintiff’s proposed construction is fatally flawed in two regards—first, it does not require
`
`that the “calibration data” be “network measurement data,” and second, it fails to account for the
`
`fact that the data must be “associated with a defined geographic location.”
`
`The patents teach a two-step technique for location determination. Initially, “calibration
`
`data,” i.e., network measurement data, is collected at defined, known locations (for example using
`
`a GPS receiver) and recorded in a database for later use. Then, a mobile device at an unknown
`
`location collects its own network measurement data, and that data is compared against the database
`
`to find a matching entry to estimate location. DefsBr. 2-5; see also Ex. B at 1:50-2:34, 9:47-49,
`
`10:52-11:32, Figs. 2, 3, 7-9.
`
`The claims are fully in accord with this disclosure. For example, claim 1 of the ’104 patent
`
`recites five steps for determining the location of a user: (1) “providing a database of previously
`
`gathered calibration data,” (2) “collecting observed network measurement data,” (3-4) analyzing
`
`and modifying the observed network measurement data, and (5) comparing that adjusted network
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 11 of 39 PageID# 1602
`
`
`measurement data against the “database of calibration data to thereby determine the location of the
`
`
`
`mobile station.” Ex. B at 11:65-12:15.
`
`The patent’s technique is premised on two critical points. First, the “calibration data” must
`
`be “network measurement data.” DefsBr. 3-5; see also Ex. B, 9:47-49; 10:55-58. Determining
`
`which calibration data matches the observed network measurement data requires that the
`
`calibration data also be network measurement data; i.e., there must be an apples-to-apples
`
`comparison. See, e.g., Ex. B, 2:32-34; 4:40-47. By analogy, if a fingerprint is being run through
`
`an FBI database to determine a match, the database must be of fingerprints, not of VIN numbers.
`
`Second, calibration data must be associated with known locations. DefsBr. 3-5; see also Ex. B,
`
`10:55-58. That is the very purpose of the calibration data—to inform what location to report when
`
`a match is found. By way of the FBI fingerprint analogy, a database of fingerprints disconnected
`
`to known individuals cannot identify a suspect any more than calibration data disconnected to
`
`known locations can identify a location. For the comparison to provide a location, the calibration
`
`data must be associated with a specified location in the first place. Id. Defendants’ proposal
`
`captures these two critical premises —i.e., what makes it calibration data as opposed to some other
`
`data derived from the network.
`
`By proposing a construction of “information based on prior network measurements,” in
`
`contrast, Plaintiff ignores both these points: that the “calibration data” must be “network
`
`measurement data,” and it must be associated with a defined geographic location. To the latter
`
`point, Plaintiff provides no argument for its omission. To the former, none of Plaintiff’s arguments
`
`have merit.
`
`For example, Plaintiff quotes the ’104 patent stating: “[t]he calibration database may be a
`
`collection of data from uniform or non-uniform grids that contain network measurements with
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 12 of 39 PageID# 1603
`
`
`associated location estimates.” PltBr. 10 (emphasis removed). This passage supports Defendants’
`
`
`
`position: that the calibration data is network measurement data associated with specified locations,
`
`whether precisely defined or estimated.
`
`Plaintiff also notes that the calibration data “may include measurement data that has been
`
`altered, modified, or otherwise processed.” PltBr. 10. Again, this supports Defendants’ position—
`
`expressly recognizing that calibration data includes “measurement data that has been altered [or]
`
`modified.” Modified measurement data is still measurement data. This is expressly clear from
`
`the claim language itself. For example, in claim 1 of the ’104 patent, step 4 requires “modifying
`
`said observed network measurement data,” and step 5 requires “comparing said modified network
`
`measurement data with said database of calibration data.” Ex. B, 12:11-15.2 That is, modifying
`
`observed networked measurement data still results in network measurement data—specifically,
`
`“modified network measurement data.” Id.
`
`Plaintiff also argues that a statement the applicants made during prosecution confirms that
`
`“calibration data” and “network measurement data” are not the same thing. PltBr. 11. The cited
`
`passage again does not support Plaintiff’s position. In that passage, the applicant was
`
`distinguishing “observed network measurement data” from “calibration data.” Id. And that is
`
`true—observed networked measurement data, i.e., network measurement data observed by a
`
`mobile device at an unknown location, is not the same as “calibration data.” That is why the claims
`
`separately recite “observed network measurement data” and “calibration data.” But as discussed
`
`above, whether “observed” or “modified,” it is all “network measurement data.” Ex. B at 12:11-
`
`15.
`
`
`2 All emphasis added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 13 of 39 PageID# 1604
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Plaintiff accuses Defendants of construing the claims in a manner that would “omit
`
`disclosed embodiments.” PltBr. 11. Yet none of Plaintiff’s cited examples are inconsistent in any
`
`way with Defendants’ proposed construction; rather, the uniform disclosures in the specifications
`
`support Defendants’ construction, as discussed in the Defendants’ opening briefs.
`
`B.
`
`“observed network measurement data” (’104 Patent, cls. 1, 11; ’358 Patent,
`cls. 1, 15, 41, 49; ’494 Patent, cls. 1, 25, 32)
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction for this term ignores the fundamental purpose of the ’104
`
`patent family—estimating the location of a mobile device using data obtained from network
`
`measurement reports—and attempts to redraft the claims in a way not contemplated by the patent.
`
`Its proposal violates the Federal Circuit’s instruction that, “when a patent ‘repeatedly and
`
`consistently’ characterizes a claim term in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim term
`
`in accordance with that characterization.” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016); see also Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1414-15 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022). Here, the provisional application, which is incorporated by reference and thus part of
`
`the specification, unequivocally states “[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 . . . .” Ex. H, 1. Rather than address this significant evidence, Plaintiff
`
`ignores the provisional application entirely, which is improper.
`
`Plaintiff instead argues that “network,” read in isolation, could mean a variety of different
`
`wireless networks. PltBr. 7. But the Federal Circuit has cautioned against “break[ing] down a
`
`phrase and giv[ing] it an interpretation that is merely the sum of its parts.” Intel Corp. v.
`
`Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 791 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The POSITA would not interpret “network”
`
`in isolation here as any type of network. Id. The specification makes clear that “observed network
`
`measurement data” specifically refers to data obtained from a network measurement report. E.g.,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 14 of 39 PageID# 1605
`
`
`Ex. H at 2-3 (“This invention also describes the method used to identify and eliminate outlier signal
`
`
`
`level measurements and timing advance values (or in general, any parameter within the NMR)”);
`
`id. at 10 (“Observe transitions in any of the parameters within the set of NMRs”); id. 21 (“This
`
`invention proposes several methods of adjusting the NMRs . . . to improve the accuracy of indoor
`
`location estimation of a wireless device[.]”).
`
`Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, PltBr. 6, the specification does not demonstrate a “broad
`
`usage” of “observed network measurement data.” To support its position, Plaintiff points to
`
`several statements from the specification—none of which support Plaintiff’s construction:
`
`Plaintiff first cites to the statement that “[t]he network measurement data may include
`
`received base station power and timing advance, as well as other network characteristics
`
`observable by a mobile station.” Id. 6-7 (quoting Ex. B, 10:58-63). This description of network
`
`measurement data is entirely consistent with Defendants’ construction. Both “received base
`
`station power” and “timing advance” are part of the network measurement report, which can also
`
`include “other network characteristics” such as Cell ID and channel number. Ex. A, ¶¶ 67-69.
`
`Next, Plaintiff relies on the statement that “observed [network measurement] data would
`
`typically be the same or similar to the data in a network measurement report.” PltBr. 8 (quoting
`
`Ex. B, 9:40-44). Nothing in this sentence states that observed network data is derived from a
`
`source other than a network measurement report. Nor are there any such examples in the
`
`specification. Ex. A, ¶ 46. To the contrary, the specification equates “[o]btaining NM data” with
`
`obtaining an NMR, Ex. B, Fig. 6, 10:25-30.
`
`Plaintiff contends that observed network measurement data includes Wi-Fi because the
`
`specification mentions “laptop computers” within a list of wireless devices that are “prevalent in
`
`today’s society.” PltBr. 7 (quoting Ex. B 1:13-17). This slender reed cannot support a wholesale
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 15 of 39 PageID# 1606
`
`
`reinterpretation of the ’104 Patent Family, which exclusively describes data acquired from cellular
`
`
`
`networks. Ex. A, ¶ 46; see also In re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (claim term given narrow construction where every embodiment shows a given feature).
`
`Moreover, the reference to “laptop computers” is entirely consistent with Defendants’
`
`construction. For example, laptop computers are used to measure and record the strength of
`
`cellular signals at known locations to build the calibration network. Ex. P at 74:17-75:7 (building
`
`database of cell signals using laptop); Ex. T at 202:7-203:5 (laptop used to collect cellular signal
`
`strength). Thus, the patent’s reference to a laptop computer does not mean the claims somehow
`
`encompass Wi-Fi.
`
`Attempting to escape the clear import of the intrinsic evidence, Plaintiff contends that
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction requires an express definition or disavowal. But the Federal
`
`Circuit has expressly rejected this exact proposition. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New
`
`York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Our case law does not require
`
`explicit redefinition or disavowal.”). As Phillips held, “the specification is always highly relevant
`
`to the claim construction analysis” and is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
`
`415 F.3d at 1315. Thus, “the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the
`
`meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents,” even where there
`
`is no express definition or disavowal. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1363-64.
`
`But even if Defendants were required to show disavowal, the ’104 Patent easily meets this
`
`standard. “A disavowal must be clear, but it need not be explicit.” Techtronic Indus. Co. v. Int’l
`
`Trade Comm’n, 944 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, where “the entire specification focuses”
`
`on a particular solution to a technical problem, the Court should find disavowal of other
`
`undisclosed solutions. Id. at 909. The ’104 patent family repeatedly emphasizes that collecting
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 84 Filed 06/09/23 Page 16 of 39 PageID# 1607
`
`
`data from a network measurement report is fundamental to the claimed invention. Plaintiff
`
`
`
`attempts to recast the specification as merely “exemplary embodiments in the . . . relat[ing] to
`
`cellular networks.” PltBr. 9. But repeated and consistent descriptions of the claimed invention
`
`should not be treated as “mere example[s] of the invention.” Tippmann Eng’g, LLC v. Innovative
`
`Refrigeration Sys., Inc., 2023 WL 18559, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2023). Here, the specification
`
`does not describe geolocating a mobile device using network measurement reports (which are
`
`specific to cellular networks) as merely an example—it makes clear that is the purported invention.
`
`Finally, Plaintiff asks this Court to turn a blind eye to the inventor’s testimony that
`
`observed network measurement data is data obtained from a network measurement re