Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 363

ORDER re further briefing. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 4/29/2015. (vclc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNWIRED PLANET, LLC,

Case No. 13-cv-04134-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING

9
10

APPLE INC,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

In the '446 patent, the first paragraph of the Summary of the Invention describes "the

13

present invention" as requiring voice input to travel over a voice channel, and, as the Court's claim

14

construction order notes, "[t]he patent consistently maintains the distinction between voice input

15

being sent over a voice channel to the server device, and a data file which is then sent back to the

16

mobile device over a data channel." Therefore, the Court construed "voice input" as "speech

17

provided over a voice channel."

18

The patent is clear that a voice channel is required, but it is not clear about what precisely a

19

voice channel is. The patent states that a voice channel "is generally established and coordinated

20

using the infrastructure and procedures generally known in the art for setting up a phone call."

21

'446 Patent, 6:21-24. So it is undisputed that a cellular phone call is made over a voice channel.

22

But the patent suggests – and the parties seem to agree – that other types of voice transmission can

23

also be sent over a voice channel. For instance, the patent teaches that "palm sized computing

24

devices and personal digital assistants with voice transmission and/or reception capabilities" can

25

send voice input over a voice channel to an outside server. Id. at 5:1-3. These devices do not

26

make cellular telephone calls, which means that a voice channel can be used for other types of

27

voice transmissions as well. But it is not clear to the Court, either from the patent or from the

28

parties' briefs, what types of voice transmissions besides a cellular call take place over a voice

1

channel. Apple suggests that Unwired's infringement theory would render the term "voice

2

channel" meaningless, because it would mean that any time voice input is transmitted, it

3

necessarily travels over a voice channel. Unwired, on the other hand, suggests that Apple's

4

infringement defense relies on an understanding of voice channel as being limited to the type of

5

channel used for telephone calls.

6

The Court invites the parties to submit an additional brief to help the Court better

7

understand what a voice channel is and what types of voice transmissions take place over it. The

8

brief should address the following questions:

9

-

answer depending on whether or not VoIP uses TCP/IP protocols?

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Does VoIP technology send voice input over a voice channel? Is there a different

-

Other than a cellular telephone call, what are other examples of voice input being sent
over a voice channel?

12
13

-

What are examples of voice input being sent over a data channel?

14

-

Are there discernible limits on what constitutes a voice channel, and, if so, what are

15
16

they?
The briefs should not exceed six double-spaced pages. The briefs should reference any

17

evidence in the summary judgment record relevant to these questions, but they should not rely on

18

any evidence not already in the record. They are due on Friday, April 31, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2