EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc et al

Filing 965

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting 880 MOTION for Reconsideration re 873 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification filed by EON Corp IP Holdings LLC. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,

Case No. 12-cv-01011-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

9
10

CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 880

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

I.

INTRODUCTION
The Court previously issued an Order Construing and Determining Validity of Claims of

15

United States Patent No. 5,592,491 (“Claim Construction Order”), ECF No. 748, 2013 WL

16

3455631, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95003 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013). The patentholder, EON Corp IP

17

Holdings LLC (“EON”) subsequently moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

18

various aspects of the Claim Construction Order. The Court granted leave for EON to file a

19

motion seeking reconsideration of only the following two issues:

20

1.

Whether the Court (a) erred in concluding that the “switching means” must perform

21

the specific functions of “gathering, determining and selecting,” and, if so, (b)

22

whether, after correcting that error, the Court should necessarily reconsider its

23

ultimate invalidity conclusion.

24

2.

Whether the Court should clarify its construction of the “modem communicatively

25

coupled” term to clarify whether the term “connected” refers to the type of

26

communications protocol utilized, and whether the parties do or do not have an O2

27

Micro dispute over the type of communications protocol encompassed within the

28

scope of the claim.

1

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

2

Reconsideration, ECF No. 873. The matter came for hearing on January 23, 2014. The Court will

3

revise its Claim Construction Order in the following manner and for the following reasons.

4

II.

ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness of Claims 1 and 13: “switching means”

5

A.

6

The parties agree that the term “switching means” in Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘491 Patent is

7

a means-plus-function term, and that the claimed function is “selecting a communication path.”

8

See Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Exhibit B at 5, ECF No. 579-2. In the

9

Claim Construction Order, the Court concluded that Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘491 Patent were
invalid for indefiniteness because the patent failed to identify sufficient structure to perform the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claimed function. 2013 WL 3455631, at *2-6, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95003, 15-27.

12
13

In determining the nature of the claimed function of “selecting a communications path,”
the Court reviewed the intrinsic record and concluded:

14

17

[T]he switching means gathers information about how much rf signal the
subscriber unit is receiving and determines whether the subscriber unit is ‘able’ or
‘unable’ to receive rf signals, on this basis selects the appropriation path, and then
performs the switch. In other words, it makes a determination. No other feature
of the invention performs this function. It must be the “switching means.”

18

Claim Construction Order 6:1-6, 2013 WL 3455631, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95003, 19. In

19

its Motion for Reconsideration, EON has pointed out that other elements of the intrinsic record,

20

particularly U.S. Patent No. 5,388,101 (“the ‘101 Patent”), of which the ‘491 Patent is a

21

continuation-in-part, indicate that other disclosed elements actually perform the functions of

22

“gathering information” about rf signal, and “determining” whether the unit is able to receive rf

23

signals. Notably, a disclosed “frequency control component” is disclosed to monitor transmission

24

frequency, a disclosed “data processor” enables the subscriber unit to make rf signal strength

25

assessments, and disclosed subscriber unit software assesses whether signal strength goes below a

26

threshold value. ‘101 Patent at 9:14-19, 10:15-31, 10:39-43. Therefore, EON argues that a

27

personal of ordinary skill of the art would understand these functions to already be claimed by

28

elements in the ‘101 Patent, which are incorporated within the “subscriber unit” claimed in the

15
16

2

1
2

‘491 Patent. See ‘491 Patent at 1:43–52, 2:3-11.
In their opposition brief, Defendants argue:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

There is no question that the ’491 patent explains that selection of a
communications path requires a determination of which path to use. See, e.g.,
’491 patent, claim 5. The Court’s finding that the “selecting” function includes
making “a determination” and, consequently “gathering, determining, and
selecting,” i.e. “choosing,” is wholly consistent with the specification and the
plain language of the word “selecting.”
Opposition 3:20-25. But they do not directly dispute the fact that the Court erred in concluding
that no other elements of the invention perform the functions of “gathering” and “determining.”
At oral argument, Defendants argued that it would be inappropriate to refer back to
disclosures from the ‘101 Patent in considering a means-plus-function claim in the ‘491 Patent.
Defendants emphasized that “the patent’s specification must provide ‘an adequate disclosure
showing what is meant by that [claim] language.’” Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302,
1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(emphasis added). “[M]aterial incorporated by reference cannot provide the corresponding
structure necessary to satisfy the definiteness requirement for a means-plus-function clause.”
Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (d/b/a The Home Depot), 412
F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
But EON is not asking the Court to look to the ‘101 Patent’s disclosures to find the
identified structure. EON is arguing that the Court should look to the entirety of the intrinsic
record in construing the scope of the claimed function: “selecting a communications path.” “The
construction of a means-plus-function limitation includes two steps . . . [f]irst, we determine the
claimed function,” and “[s]econd, we identify the corresponding structure in the written
description that performs that function.” JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424
F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448
F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In performing this first step, it is appropriate to consider the
relevant sources of claim construction, especially the specification of a prior patent of which the
Patent-in-Suit is a continuation-in-part. “Ordinary principles of claim construction govern

28
3

1

interpretation of the claim language used to describe the function” of a means-plus-function term.

2

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal

3

citation omitted).

4

As a secondary matter, Defendants also object that the ‘101 Patent did not involve two

5

distinct communications paths. The capacity to switch between Path A and Path B is introduced

6

in the ‘491 Patent. Therefore, Defendants argue that even if elements disclosed in the ‘101 Patent

7

perform a “monitoring” and “assessing” function, those elements cannot perform the function of

8

selecting between communications Path A and Path B. But as the Court construes the intrinsic

9

record, once the invention has monitored transmission frequency, made an rf signal strength
assessment, and assessed whether signal strength has fallen below a threshold value, there is no

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

more determining left to be performed as part of the claimed “selecting” process. At that point, it

12

is plausible to conclude that the selection is merely to automatically assumes a position dictated by

13

the determinations made by the frequency control component, data processor, and subscriber unit

14

software within the subscriber unit.

15

The Court agrees that the term “selecting,” as understood by a layperson outside of the

16

context of the patent, connotes an intelligent determination rather than merely “assuming a

17

position.” But the Court must construe the term based primarily on the intrinsic record, as it

18

would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. And here, other elements of the

19

patented invention perform the functions that the Court had previously concluded must be

20

performed by “electronic switch 13.” The subscriber unit’s capability to monitor and assess rf

21

signal was fully disclosed in the parent ’101 Patent, and it would be redundant to construe the

22

“selecting” function claimed in the ‘491 Patent to also include those functions. In light of this, a

23

person of ordinary skill of the art could conclude that “selecting a communications path,” within

24

the context of these patents, is a fairly narrow function akin to “toggling,” or “assuming a

25

position.”

26

At the very least, the patent is amenable to such a construction. See Exxon Res. & Eng’g

27

Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If the meaning of the claim is

28

discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which
4

reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on

2

indefiniteness grounds”); see also Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

3

(claims are to be construed to preserve validity, if possible); see also Biosig Instruments, Inc. v.

4

Nautilus, Inc., 715 F.3d 891, 898 (Fed. Cir. 2013) cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 896 (U.S.

5

2014) (citing Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“[a]

6

claim is indefinite only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’).1 The

7

plausibility of this construction is reinforced by the fact that the Eastern District of Texas reached

8

the same conclusion. EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 6:10-CV-

9

0379 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 3073432, at *3-5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2012) report and recommendation

10

adopted sub nom. EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Skyguard, LLC, Case No. 6:11-CV-15-LED-

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

JDL, 2012 WL 3073907 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2012) (“[t]he recited function of ‘selecting the path of

12

communication’ refers to selecting a communication path, not deciding which path to use”).

13

Defendants have not submitted clear and convincing evidence that the disclosed

14

“electronic switch 13” is insufficient to perform this more narrowly understood claim function.

15

The Court has reconsidered, and hereby reverses, its determination that Claims 1 and 13 are

16

invalid for indefiniteness.
“Modem Communicatively Coupled”

17

B.

18

In their initial claim construction brief, Defendants persuasively argued that this term

19

implied a connection rather than merely the possibility of one, but they did not argue that the

20

claim encompassed only a connection occurring through a circuit-switched network. Defendants’

21

Responsive Claims Construction Brief 11:7-14:7, ECF No. 645. EON objected at that time, and

22

objects again now, that using the term “connected” might imply to one skilled in the art that the

23

coupling must be one that occurs on a circuit-switched, rather than packet-switched, network.

24

EON’s Claim Construction 21:2-5.
In this briefing, Defendants did not respond to the Court’s request that it explain whether

25
26
27
28

1

As of this writing, these standards remaining the governing law of the Federal Circuit regarding
indefiniteness, although the Court is aware that the question is currently being reviewed by the
Supreme Court. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 896 (2014)
5

1

or not the parties have an O2 Micro dispute that the Court must resolve over the type of

2

communications protocol utilized in the claimed network. Nor did they explain why it would be

3

inappropriate for the Court to now clarify that its construction was not intended to rule packet-

4

switched networks inside or outside the scope of the claim. At oral argument, counsel

5

acknowledged that Defendants have never made an issue of the communications protocol

6

encompassed by the term.
The Court will revise its claim construction order to add the following caveat: “the Court’s

7
8

construction does not imply that the connection must occur in a circuit-switched rather than

9

packet-switched network.”

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

III.

CONCLUSION
The Court will issue a revised claim construction order, concluding that claims 1 and 13 of

12

the ‘491 Patent are not invalid, and clarifying that the Court’s construction of the “modem

13

communicatively coupled” term was not intended to imply that a connection must occur in a

14

circuit-switched rather than packet-switched network.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2014

17
18
19

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6