Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`NON-CONFIDENTIAL
`Nos. 2014-1437, 2014-1485
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`_______________________________________________________________
`Wi-LAN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant-Cross Appellant,
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Appeals from the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`in Case Nos. 2:11-CV-68, 2:12-CV-600, Honorable Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
`⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
`OPENING BRIEF FOR
`PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WI-LAN INC.
`⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
`Rosemary Snider
`Robert A. Cote
`R. Darryl Burke
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`Seth Hasenour
`One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`New York, New York 10036
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`(212) 402-9400
`Dallas, TX 78201
`
`(214) 978-4000
`Samuel F. Baxter
`
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`Dirk D. Thomas
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`P.O. Box O
`1999 K Street, Suite 600
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Washington, DC 20006
`(903) 923-9000
`(202) 370-8302
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Wi-LAN INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`August 29, 2014
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Wi-LAN Inc. certifies the following:
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party represented by me is:
`
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`2.
`
`The name of the real party in interest represented by me is:
`
`None.
`
`3.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`
`or more of the stock of the party represented by me is:
`
`None.
`
`4.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
`
`the party represented by me in the trial court or are expected to appear in this
`
`Court are:
`
`McKOOL SMITH P.C.
`
`Sam Baxter
`Robert Cote
`R. Darryl Burke
`Rosemary Snider
`Dirk Thomas
`Brett Cooper
`Laura Handley
`Seth Hasenour
`Kevin Schubert
`Jennifer Truelove
`Jonathan Yim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Robert A. Cote
`Robert A. Cote
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`1 Bryant Park
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 402-9402
`
`Attorney for Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL IS REDATED IN THIS BRIEF AT PAGES 25, 26, 27, 38,
`53, 60 AND 61 CONSISTING OF TRADE SECRET INFORMATION REGARDING
`MICROCHIPS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF INFORMATION REGARDING TRADE SECRETS
`IN DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL AND PROTECTED UNDER THE PROTECTIVE
`ORDERS ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ........................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 1
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE SETTING OUT THE FACTS ...................... 2
`
`A. Wi-LAN Laid the Foundation for High-Speed Wireless Data
`Communications in Mobile Devices. .................................................... 2
`
`B. Wi-LAN Asserts Claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. RE37,802. ........ 9
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction Issues Are Resurrected by Apple at Trial. .......... 14
`
`1.
`
`First Disputed Phrase: “converter for converting the first
`stream of data symbols into plural sets of N data symbols
`each.” ......................................................................................... 15
`
`2.
`
`Second Disputed Phrase:“modulated data symbols.” ............... 19
`
`D. Apple Argued To The Jury That The ’802 Patent Was Limited
`to LANs and Excluded Cellular. ......................................................... 23
`
`E. Wi-LAN Presented Unrebutted Infringement Evidence. ...................... 1
`
`F.
`
`The Court Denied Wi-LAN’s Motion For JMOL on
`Infringement. ......................................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 6
`
`VI. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`McKool 1012984v1
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Standards of Review ............................................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Standard of Review of a JMOL Decision. ................................ 10
`
`Standard of Review for New Trial. ........................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`This Court Should Reverse the Denial of the JMOL and Find as
`a Matter of Law that Apple Infringes Claims 1 and 10 of the
`’802 Patent. .......................................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Determinations of Claim Scope Are Not Jury Issues. .............. 12
`
`Apple Argued Claim Construction Issues to the Jury. ............. 14
`
`No Evidence Supports the Verdict of Non-Infringement
`under the Court’s Construction of a “Converter for
`Converting the First Stream of Data Symbols into Plural
`Sets of N Data Symbols Each.” ................................................ 14
`
`Jury
`the
`a. Wi-LAN Seeks Enforcement of
`Instruction on the “converter for converting . . .”
`Claim Element. ............................................................... 21
`
`b.
`
`The Court Did Not Enforce the Jury Instruction for
`the “converter for converting . . .” Claim Element. ....... 23
`
`4.
`
`No Evidence Supports the Verdict of Non-Infringement
`under the Court’s Construction of “Modulated Data
`Symbols.” .................................................................................. 26
`
`a. Wi-LAN Seeks to Enforce the Jury Instruction on
`the “modulated data symbols” Claim Element. .............. 30
`
`b.
`
`The Court Did Not Enforce the Jury Instruction for
`the “modulated data symbols” Claim Element. .............. 32
`
`c. Wi-LAN Proved Infringement Under the Doctrine
`of Equivalents. ................................................................ 34
`
`C. Alternatively, A New Trial Should Be Granted. ................................. 36
`
`1.
`
`Apple’s Only Non-Infringement Defenses Were Contrary
`to the Court’s Claim Constructions and Jury Instructions. ....... 36
`
`
`
`McKool 1012984v1
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Apple Perniciously Argued That the ’802 Patent Was Not
`a Cellular Patent. ....................................................................... 38
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`McKool 1012984v1
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 7 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Page(s)
`
`Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus.,
`181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Baldwin Graphics Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 57
`
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.,
`138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) .......................................................... 35
`
`Cytologix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 37, 62
`
`Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co.,
`230 F.3d 828 (5th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 35
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 48, 49
`
`Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,
`370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 59
`
`In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien,
`747 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 53
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................... 37, 62
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) ........................................................ 35, 36
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 8 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................passim
`
`Nissho-Iwai Co. v. Occidental Crude Sales, Inc.,
`729 F.2d 1530 (5th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 36
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Oak Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`248 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc., v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 64
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.,
`593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Seachange Int’l Inc. v. C-COR Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc.,
`671 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................. 61
`
`Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co.,
`773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 36
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 37, 62
`
`Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc.,
`163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ 36, 63
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) .................................................................................. 1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 9 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................. 52
`
`RULES
`
`FED. CIR. R. 47.5 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 4(a) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 59 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 36
`
`
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 10 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to FED. CIR. R. 47.5, Plaintiff-Appellant Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”)
`
`states that there have been no previous appeals in this case. Counsel for Wi-LAN
`
`are unaware of other pending cases in this Court that will be directly affected by,
`
`or that will directly affect, this Court’s decision on the pending appeals, Nos. 2014-
`
`1437, 2014-1485.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“court”) had jurisdiction
`
`over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The Court of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Wi-
`
`LAN timely filed its notice of appeal on April 18, 2014, under FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)
`
`and 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). A252.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1. Whether the court erroneously denied Wi-LAN’s JMOL motion for
`
`infringement under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b) based on the “converter for converting
`
`. . .” claim element of asserted claims 1 and 10.
`
`2. Whether the court erroneously denied Wi-LAN’s JMOL motion for
`
`infringement under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b) based on the “modulated data symbols”
`
`claim element of claims 1 and 10.
`
`3. Whether the court erroneously denied Wi-LAN’s alternative motion
`
`for a new trial under FED. R. CIV. P. 59 on the issue of infringement where Apple’s
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 11 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`non-infringement defenses for claims 1 and 10 were based on adding limitations to
`
`the claim constructions for these two claim elements and for a third claim term
`
`“transceiver,” which limitations were not included in the jury instructions, were
`
`rejected or omitted during Markman, and serve to limit the claims of Wi-LAN’s
`
`pioneering wireless multiplexing technologies to a preferred embodiment.1
`
`Raising such claim construction issues at trial for resolution by the jury
`
`undermines the patent system and the rule of law upon which the country is
`
`founded.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE SETTING OUT THE FACTS
`
`A. Wi-LAN Laid the Foundation for High-Speed Wireless
`Data Communications in Mobile Devices.
`Beginning in the early 1990s, Wi-LAN founders, Dr. Michel Fattouche2 and
`
`Dr. Hatim Zaghloul,3 developed and commercialized the fundamental technologies
`
`that enable high-speed wireless data communications in mobile devices. These
`
`
`1 Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., 181 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(“Pioneers enjoy the benefits of their contribution to the art in the form of broader
`claims.”).
`2 Dr. Fattouche is on the Board of Directors of Wi-LAN. He is Professor of
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Calgary, and served 27
`years as a professor. A788-A789. He holds bachelor degrees in electrical
`engineering and applied mathematics, and a master’s and Ph.D. in electrical and
`computer engineering from the University of Toronto. A789.
`3 Dr. Zaghloul served as President and CEO of Wi-LAN until 2003 and was
`Chairman of the Board of Directors from 2003-2008. A810. He has a bachelor
`degree in engineering and a master’s and Ph.D. in physics from the University of
`Calgary. A810, A3024.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 12 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`technologies provide the desktop-like speeds necessary for mobile internet
`
`applications, such as sending email, streaming movies/videos/music, and sharing
`
`pictures to work from a smartphone or tablet computer. A789, A811-A813. The
`
`founders referred to these wireless capabilities at the time as “Network Living.”
`
`A810-A813, A2984-A2987, A2959-A2962.
`
`Early marketing materials illustrated Wi-LAN’s Network Living vision and
`
`foreshadowed today’s mobile devices:
`
`A2985.
`
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 13 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`
`
`A2987.
`
`Drs. Fattouche and Zaghloul invented a way to multiplex (i.e., spread or
`
`modulate) data across multiple orthogonal4 frequencies/codes for transmission over
`
`a wireless channel. A818, A3540. Their inventions are what turn a proverbial
`
`“slow,” single-lane wireless channel into a “high-speed,” multi-lane super
`
`highway, allowing for the mobile capabilities and applications we have today in
`
`smartphones and tablet computers.
`
`
`4 “Orthogonal” is a mathematical term used to describe frequencies/codes that do
`not influence each other. A3547; see also A732 (“[O]rthogonal is an engineer's
`way of saying that each of these sounds are so different from one another that they
`would never be confused.”).
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 14 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`Immigrants of modest means, Drs. Fattouche and Zaghloul built Wi-LAN
`
`into a major industry player. A789, A810, A817-A818. With their products and
`
`through industry organizations they led,5 Wi-LAN’s founders and engineers taught
`
`the world how to “cut the cord” to desktop computers and bring high-speed
`
`wireless data communications to mobile devices for use in local area networks
`
`(“LAN”) (e.g., WiFi networks) and cellular networks. A796, A3541-A3544,
`
`A819-820. In October 1993, at the NetWorld trade show in Dallas, Wi-LAN
`
`introduced its first of many wireless products⎯the Model 902-20. A796, A3541-
`
`A3544, A2931, A2932, A2940-A2957. Wi-LAN demonstrated transmission speeds
`
`far beyond those then available, much faster than even the wired data speeds of
`
`desktop computers, and led the way to modern mobile devices. A796-A797,
`
`A811-A813, A3542.
`
`As a result, Wi-LAN received enormous praise from the telecommunications
`
`industry and the press for its wireless multiplexing technologies and products.
`
`Many industry experts had previously believed that high-speed wireless data
`
`communication was not possible in a mobile environment. A796. This belief was
`
`prevalent due to the instability of wireless channels and certain seemingly
`
`insurmountable problems. A2161, A3549-3550. Consequently, the industry press
`
`
`5 Wi-LAN founded and led the OFDM Forum in 1999 and led the Wi-MAX Forum
`from 2000-2004. A816, A863, A866, A2963-A2966, A3550-A3551. These
`organizations included nearly all major telecommunications corporations.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 15 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`described Wi-LAN’s first product as a “bombshell,” A2970, and hailed it as
`
`remarkable in numerous industry publications: Communications Week, Computer
`
`Industry/Computer World, Technology in Government, InfoWorld, Digital News &
`
`Review, Electronic Engineering Times, PCWeek, and ComputerWorld. A2968-
`
`2971, A2943-A2948. Industry groups named Wi-LAN’s first product the “Best
`
`New Technology of the Year.” A796-A797, A2967. Business in Calgary, a
`
`leading Canadian business publication, called Drs. Fattouche and Zaghloul “New
`
`Economy Pioneers” and named them “Calgarians of the Year.” A819, A2929.
`
`News articles described Wi-LAN’s technologies as “key to high-speed data
`
`products.” A2996.
`
`In April 2000, Time magazine featured Dr. Zaghloul and Wi-LAN’s
`
`achievements. A2930. Maclean’s, the leading Canadian news magazine, included
`
`Dr. Zaghloul among a list of Canada’s “Great Canadians” in an article titled
`
`“Riding the Wave of Invention.” A3003, A3023 (“Wi-LAN is one of those next
`
`generation companies. Its technology may well become the base for what some
`
`call the coming wireless revolution: the ability to e-mail, surf the Net, adjust the
`
`lights in your home and order theatre tickets from a cellphone or hand-held
`
`computer.”).
`
`In October 2000, Scientific American described Wi-LAN’s patented
`
`multiplexing technologies as the future of high-speed wireless data communication
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 16 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`in cellular networks. “To date, wireless multiplexing hasn’t been exploited for
`
`cellular systems . . . . That may change soon . . . . Wi-LAN holds a number of key
`
`patents for a multiplexing technology known as wideband orthogonal frequency
`
`division multiplexing, or W-OFDM.” A3540. The article included the graphic
`
`representation of differences in the standard and multiplexing technologies shown
`
`below:
`
`A3540.
`
`
`
`Over the past two decades, many wireless standards organizations adopted
`
`Wi-LAN’s patented multiplexing technologies, starting in 1999 for WiFi standards
`
`(IEEE 802.11(a/g/n)), then for 3G cellular standards (CDMA2000, EVDO Rev. A,
`
`and HSUPA standards), and more recently for 4G cellular standards. A814-A816,
`
`A820.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 17 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`In addition, Wi-LAN built and sold numerous high-speed wireless products
`
`embodying its patented multiplexing technologies: the iWill, BWS, and Libra
`
`product families. A819-820, A860-A861. Wi-LAN also initiated and led the effort
`
`to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to permit the use of Wi-
`
`LAN’s wireless multiplexing technologies in the United States airways. A816-
`
`A818.
`
`These efforts resulted in Wi-LAN’s becoming one of Canada’s fastest
`
`growing companies, selling wireless products in more than 50 countries. A3001,
`
`A2995, A3024. In 2005, however, Wi-LAN was forced to exit the market by
`
`larger companies who entered the market using Wi-LAN’s wireless technologies
`
`without a license. A821, A864-A866. In 2006, Wi-LAN transitioned to a
`
`licensing company, but through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Wi-LAN Labs, Inc.,
`
`formerly Cygnus Broadband, Inc., Wi-LAN continues its tradition of research and
`
`development of new wireless technologies and products, in particular for 4G
`
`cellular networks. A788-A789. After efforts to negotiate a license failed, Wi-
`
`LAN brought this action asserting infringement by Apple’s iPhones and iPads that
`
`comply with various 3G industry standards with infringement. A412, A413, A417.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 18 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`With the exception of Apple, all major market participants in the mobile
`
`communications
`
`industry have
`
`licensed Wi-LAN’s patented multiplexing
`
`technologies.6
`
`B. Wi-LAN Asserts Claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. RE37,802.
`
`This appeal involves Wi-LAN’s U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 (“the ’802
`
`patent”), A75-A103, filed by Drs. Fattouche and Zaghloul on January 31, 1994,
`
`which claims priority as a continuation-in-part to another Wi-LAN patent, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,282,222 (“the ’222 patent”), filed March 31, 1992. A2134-A2168.
`
`The ’222 patent is Wi-LAN’s first patent describing its Wideband Orthogonal
`
`Frequency Division Multiplexing (“W-OFDM”) technology for use in LANs and
`
`cellular networks. A789, A2161. W-OFDM multiplexes data over multiple
`
`orthogonal frequencies using Fourier orthogonal spreading codes. A3545-A3551.
`
`Drs. Fattouche and Zaghloul conceived Wi-LAN’s second patent, the ’802
`
`patent, to adapt their W-OFDM invention for use in Code Division Multiple
`
`Access (“CDMA”) networks, a type of cellular network. A98, A795, A805-A806,
`
`A2575 (March 20, 1993 inventor notebook entry describing the ’802 conception
`
`for existing CDMA networks and noting “I need to file for [a] patent for a CDMA
`
`
`6 Wi-LAN has more than 130 licensees for the ’802 and ’222 patents, as defined
`herein. A798, A825. These companies include all of Apple’s major competitors
`over the past decade: Samsung, Motorola, LG, Huawei, RIM/Blackberry, Nokia,
`Sharp, Philips, and ZTE. A3518-A3521, A825.
`
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 19 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`system”). They titled the ’802 patent as “Multi Code Direct Sequence Spread
`
`Spectrum” (MC-DSSS). A75. MC-DSSS uses multiple orthogonal spreading
`
`codes suitable for existing cellular networks, such as Walsh orthogonal spreading
`
`codes in one embodiment. A733, A99-A100. The ’802 patent also discloses the
`
`W-OFDM invention of the ’222 patent, which uses Fourier orthogonal spreading
`
`codes, as another embodiment of MC-DSSS. A100.
`
`The ’802 patent claims, including asserted claims 1 and 10, broadly cover
`
`MC-DSSS (implemented using Wash codes, Fourier codes, or other orthogonal
`
`spreading codes). In addition, the asserted claims include a complex randomizer as
`
`an additional structure within the scope of the means-plus-function terms used.
`
`The complex randomizer solves the “peak-to-average” power problem that occurs
`
`when combining multiplexed data for transmission over a wireless channel. A735-
`
`737, A790, A794-A795, A810, A812, A2570, A2801, A3548, A3550. One
`
`solution to the “peak-to-average” power problem (the high dynamic range that
`
`occurs when modulated/multiplexed data is combined for transmission) is to use
`
`linear power amplifiers that operate over a high dynamic range. Such amplifiers,
`
`however, are expensive, complex, bulky, and power hungry and, therefore, not
`
`suitable for use in mobile devices. A735, A790-A791, A795, A812.
`
`The ’802 file history highlighted the benefits of randomization to address the
`
`peak-to-average power problem:
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 20 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`The key here is the randomization of the [spreading]
`transformation. It is known in the art to spread symbols
`and spread spectrum applications, including by using
`Walsh codes as shown in Albrieux et al. (’952).
`However, depending upon the data, the effect might be to
`de-spread the symbols, generating an unwanted pulse.
`With randomized spreading, it is less likely that a pulse
`will be generated. Hence, in general, the operation of the
`invention tends to reduce the peak to average intensity
`ratio of the spread signal being transmitted.
`
`
`A2342-A2343 (emphasis added). The complex randomizer taught in the ’802
`
`patent greatly reduces the dynamic range of the combined modulated data symbols,
`
`so that a simple, lightweight, low-cost, linear power amplifier can be used for
`
`mobile devices, as shown below. A735-737, A790, A794-A795, A810, A812,
`
`A2570, A2801, A3548, A3550.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 21 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`A735-737.
`
`Incoming from the left, as shown above, modulated data symbols that have
`
`been combined into a single complex waveform suffer from the high dynamic
`
`range or “peak-to-average” problem. A736-A738, A790-A791, A794-A795. To
`
`address this problem, the complex waveform is input into a complex multiplier
`
`circuit and multiplied by a known, random signal (represented mathematically as a
`
`complex number). Id. This complex randomization embeds the waveform within
`
`an envelope of a random noise signal to mask the high dynamic range properties of
`
`the combined modulated data symbols. Id.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’802 patent, the only asserted independent claim, covers the
`
`transmit side of a MC-DSSS transceiver and has three elements generally
`
`summarized in the context of Figure 4 as follows: (1) a converter that separates an
`
`incoming data stream to be transmitted into groups of data symbols (which is not a
`
`means-plus-function term); (2) a “first computing means” for modulating each
`
`group of data symbols with orthogonal spreading codes (using the transformer
`
`structure 20 shown in Figure 4 of the patent) to produce “modulated data
`
`symbols,” and a complex randomizer shown in Figure 8 for randomizing the
`
`modulated data symbols; and (3) “means to combine” the modulated data symbols
`
`using the combiner 14 shown in Figure 4. A75, A81, A100. Asserted dependent
`
`claim 10 covers the receiver side of the transceiver. A101.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 22 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’802 patent, shown below, illustrates one preferred
`
`embodiment of the claimed invention:7
`
`
`
`A81. In Figure 4, an incoming serial stream of data symbols (Sym(k)) is converted
`
`(separated) by a serial-to-parallel converter 10 into groups of data symbols, and
`
`each group is then output together as a group across two or more parallel outputs.
`
`A81, A99. In distributing the data symbols, more than one symbol for the group
`
`can be placed on an output. A791, A749. The data symbols are then modulated
`
`(multiplexed) by spreading the data symbols on each parallel output with a
`
`different orthogonal spreading code in transformer structure 20. Id. Each group of
`
`data symbols modulated by the orthogonal codes is combined by combiner 14 in
`
`Figure 4 into a single complex waveform for transmission. To avoid the “peak-to-
`
`average” power problem discussed above, the ’802 patent teaches that the
`
`
`7 Figure 1 in the ’802 patent illustrates an alternative embodiment. A78.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 23 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`modulated data symbols can also be randomized using the complex multiplier
`
`structure shown below in Figure 8. A81, A85, A99, A792.
`
`
`
`A85. The order in which the modulated data symbols are combined by combiner
`
`14 in Figure 4 and randomized by the complex multiplier of Figure 8 is
`
`interchangeable. These are linear operations ((A + B) x C = (A x C) + (B x C))
`
`that produce the exact same output (the identical complex waveform for
`
`transmission) regardless of their order of operations. A759-A761, A793, A3552,
`
`A3564, A1034.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction Issues Are Resurrected by Apple at Trial.
`
`After a hearing, the court construed two disputed terms/phrases in claims 1
`
`and 10 at issue in this appeal (“converter for converting . . .” and “modulated data
`
`symbols”) and adopted an agreed-upon construction for a third term (“transceiver”)
`
`that is also relevant here. A18, A25, A44-A49, A59-A62.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 24 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`1.
`
`First Disputed Phrase: “converter for converting the first
`stream of data symbols into plural sets of N data symbols
`each.”
`
`The “converter” claim element is highlighted below:
`
`1. A transceiver for transmitting a first stream of
`data symbols, the transceiver comprising:
`
`
`a converter for converting the first stream of
`data symbols into plural sets of N data
`symbols each;
`
`
`first computing means for operating on the plural
`sets of N data symbols to produce modulated
`data symbols corresponding to an invertible
`randomized spreading of the first stream of
`data symbols; and
`
`
`means to combine the modulated data symbols for
`transmission.
`
`
`A100 (emphasis added).
`
`During Markman, Wi-LAN and Apple proposed constructions for both the
`
`term “converter” and the functional phrase “converting the first stream of data
`
`symbols into plural sets of N data symbols each.” The court issued the claim
`
`constructions shown below.
`
`
`McKool 1012986v1
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1437 Document: 32 Page: 25 Filed: 08/29/2014
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM: “converter.”
`Apple’s Proposed
`Construction
`“a serial-to-parallel
`device”
`
`Wi-LAN’s Proposed
`Construction
`“a device that accepts data
`symbols in one form or mode
`and changes the data symbols
`to another form or mode”
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`that
`“a
`device
`accepts data symbols
`in one form or mode
`and
`changes
`the
`data
`symbols
`to
`another
`form
`or
`mode”
`
`
`A44-A46 (emphasis added, with italics showing similar language, bolding
`
`showing rejected language and underlining showing language of interest in the
`
`chart). The court rejected Apple’s proposed construction limiting “converter” to
`
`the specific embodiment, that is, “a serial-to-parallel device,” i.e., converter 10 as
`
`shown in Figure 4. The Court found that “converter” is a structure that “accepts
`
`data symbols in one form or mode and changes the data symbols to another form or
`
`mode.” A46.
`
`The court next rejected Apple’s proposed construction limiting the
`
`functional phrase “converting the first stream of data symbols into plural sets of N
`
`data symbols each” so that each group of data symbols, once converted into a
`
`group from the first stream of data