Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Netgear, Inc. et al

Filing 135

Claim construction order. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 12/16/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,

No. C 08-2310 PJH

8
v.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

9
NETGEAR, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Defendant.
_______________________________/

12
13

On August 28, 2013, the parties’ claim construction hearing to construe the disputed

14

terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,193,562 (“the ’562 patent”) and 7,525,486 (“the ’486 patent)

15

(together, the “patents-in-suit”) pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517

16

U.S. 370 (1996), came before this court. Plaintiff Ruckus Wireless, Inc. (“plaintiff” or

17

“Ruckus”) appeared through its counsel, Colby Springer. Defendant Netgear, Inc.

18

(“defendant” or “Netgear”) appeared through its counsel, Nina Wang, Mary Sooter, and

19

Ryan Clough. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments

20

and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby rules as follows.

21
22

BACKGROUND
The ’562 patent is entitled “Circuit Board Having a Peripheral Antenna Apparatus

23

with Selectable Antenna Elements,” and the ’486 patent is entitled “Increased Wireless

24

Coverage Patterns.” The ’486 patent (filed March 5, 2007) is a continuation of the ’562

25

patent (filed December 23, 2004). The two patents appear to share the same specification,

26

other than the “summary of the invention” section, and both relate to technology for sending

27

and receiving radio frequency (RF) signals at a wireless internet access point (or router)

28

used in wireless Internet networks.

1

A wireless access point (or router) has antennas embedded in its circuit board which

2

send data to/from any computer connected to the wireless network. In general, antennas

3

can be either omnidirectional or directional. Omnidirectional antennas transmit radio waves

4

roughly equally in all directions, whereas directional antennas transmit radio waves mostly

5

in one direction. Wireless access points can be prone to interference from other wave-

6

transmitting devices (microwaves, cordless phones, etc.), so it is advantageous for the

7

access point to have multiple, switchable antennas – that way, if one antenna is being

8

interfered with, the access point can switch to a different antenna. In the prior art, wireless

9

access points had multiple omnidirectional antennas. But because omnidirectional
antennas emit waves in a circle-type shape, the wave patterns of the multiple antennas

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

substantially overlapped, so there was little advantage to switching antennas. The claimed

12

invention attempts to solve that problem using multiple directional antennas – that way,

13

when one antenna is prone to interference, the access point switches to a different

14

antenna, so the pattern of emitted radio waves covers a different area, making it easier to

15

avoid any interference. The claimed invention also allows for multiple directional antennas

16

to be used at once, which can have the effect of creating a combined omnidirectional wave

17

pattern. As another way of minimizing interference, the claimed invention uses horizontally

18

polarized waves, rather than vertically polarized waves.

19

Defendant is a company that designs, develops, and markets wireless network

20

products, including wireless access points. Plaintiff alleges that defendant infringes the

21

patents-in-suit by “making, using, importing for sale, selling, and offering for sale” its

22

WPN824v3 wireless router. See Amended Complaint (Dkt. 97), ¶¶ 61, 65.

23

The parties originally sought construction of seven terms (or term groups).

24

However, at the claim construction hearing, the parties indicated that they had reached

25

agreement as to one of the terms (“means for coupling the feed line distribution point to the

26

first means for radiating the RF signal and the second means for radiating the RF signal”),

27

and the parties subsequently submitted a stipulation reflecting that agreement. See Dkt.

28

133. Thus, six terms (or term groups) are construed herein.
2

1
2
3

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard
In construing claims, the court must begin with an examination of the claim language

meaning.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also

6

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The

7

claims define the scope of the right to exclude; the claim construction inquiry, therefore,

8

begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the claim.”). This ordinary and

9

customary meaning “is the meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill

10

in the art in question at the time of the invention...”. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. A patentee

11
For the Northern District of California

itself. The terms used in the claims are generally given their “ordinary and customary

5

United States District Court

4

is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term in the absence of an

12

express intent to the contrary. York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,

13

99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

14

Generally speaking, the words in a claim are to be interpreted “in light of the intrinsic

15

evidence of record, including the written description, the drawings, and the prosecution

16

history, if in evidence.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324-25

17

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d

18

1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (court looks at “the ordinary meaning in the context of the

19

written description and the prosecution history”). “Such intrinsic evidence is the most

20

significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Vitronics

21

Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

22

With regard to the intrinsic evidence, the court’s examination begins, first, with the

23

claim language. See id. Specifically, “the context in which a claim is used in the asserted

24

claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. As part of that context, the

25

court may also consider the other patent claims, both asserted and unasserted. Id. For

26

example, as claim terms are normally used consistently throughout a patent, the usage of a

27

term in one claim may illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Id. The

28

court may also consider differences between claims to guide in understanding the meaning
3

1
2

of particular claim terms.
Second, the claims “must [also] be read in view of the specification, of which they

3

are a part.” Id. at 1315. When the specification reveals a special definition given to a claim

4

term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, the

5

inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. at 1316. Indeed, the specification is to be viewed as

6

the “best source” for understanding a technical term, informed as needed by the

7

prosecution history. Id. at 1315. As the Federal Circuit stated in Phillips, the specification

8

is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” and “acts as a dictionary when

9

it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” 415
F.3d at 1321.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Limitations from the specification, such as from the preferred embodiment, cannot

12

be read into the claims absent an express intention to do so. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326

13

(“The claims must be read in view of the specification, but limitations from the specification

14

are not to be read into the claims.”) (citations omitted); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick

15

Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“a patentee need not describe in the

16

specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); Altiris v.

17

Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“resort to the rest of the

18

specification to define a claim term is only appropriate in limited circumstances”). To

19

protect against this, the court should not consult the intrinsic evidence until after reviewing

20

the claims in light of the ordinary meaning of the words themselves. Texas Digital

21

Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (to act otherwise

22

“invites a violation of our precedent counseling against importing limitations into the

23

claims”) (citations omitted).

24

Finally, as part of the intrinsic evidence analysis, the court “should also consider the

25

patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The court

26

should take into account, however, that the prosecution history “often lacks the clarity of the

27

specification” and thus is of limited use for claim construction purposes. Id.

28

In most cases, claims can be resolved based on intrinsic evidence. See Vitronics,
4

1

90 F.3d at 1583. Only if an analysis of the intrinsic evidence fails to resolve any ambiguity

2

in the claim language may the court then rely on extrinsic evidence, such as expert and

3

inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583 (“In

4

those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented

5

invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper”). However, the court generally

6

views extrinsic evidence as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in

7

determining how to read claim terms, and its consideration is within the court’s sound

8

discretion. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318-19.

9

B.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Construction of Disputed Terms and Phrases
The parties dispute construction of six terms (or term groups) contained within the

claims of the patents-in-suit, which are addressed in turn below.
1.

“substantially omnidirectional and horizontally polarized radiation coverage
that is substantially in the plane of the circuit board”

The term “substantially omnidirectional and horizontally polarized radiation coverage

15

that is substantially in the plane of the circuit board” is found in claims 1, 18, 27, and 30 of

16

the ’562 patent. Plaintiff proposes that the term should be construed to mean “radiation

17

patterns that are oriented substantially parallel to the earth’s surface and that substantially

18

propagate in the plane of the circuit board in almost all directions.” Defendant proposes

19

that the component parts of the term be construed separately. Specifically, defendant

20

contends that “omnidirectional” should be construed to mean “radiating power equally in all

21

directions in a plane,” that “horizontally polarized” be construed to mean “having electric

22

field vectors that are oriented parallel to the earth’s surface,” that “substantially in the plane

23

of the circuit board” be construed to mean “having substantially more gain in the plane of

24

the circuit board than in other directions,” and that “substantially omnidirectional” be found

25

to be indefinite.

26

As an initial matter, the court agrees with defendant that construing the phrase as

27

separate component parts is preferable to construing the phrase as a whole, as an

28

omnibus construction would be more confusing to a jury. However, the court disagrees
5

1

with defendant that “omnidirectional” needs to be construed separately from “substantially

2

omnidirectional.” The term “omnidirectional” does not appear as a standalone term in the

3

claims, and instead appears only as part of the term “substantially omnidirectional.” Thus,

4

the court will construe the terms “substantially omnidirectional,” “horizontally polarized,” and

5

“substantially in the plane of the circuit board.”

6

As stated above, defendant contends that “substantially omnidirectional” should be

7

found to be indefinite. While plaintiff did not originally offer a separate construction of

8

“substantially omnidirectional,” its reply brief states that “substantially omnidirectional”

9

means that the radiation “propagate[s] in almost all directions,” which is consistent with the
relevant portions of its proposed omnibus construction. Compare Dkt. 121 at 4 with Dkt.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Dkt. 115 at 8.

12

While defendant argues that “substantially omnidirectional” should be found to be

13

indefinite, defendant also makes clear that it “is not arguing that the word ‘substantially’ is

14

always or inherently indefinite.” Instead, defendant argues only that “substantially” is

15

indefinite in the context of this term. Defendant goes on to explain that “substantially”

16

generally has two meanings when used in a claim term – it can either be used as a term of

17

magnitude (similar to “significantly”), or as a term of approximation (similar to “essentially”).

18

Defendant argues that “substantially” in the context of this claim term is used as a term of

19

approximation. However, it asks “just how much can a radiation deviate from a perfectly

20

omnidirectional pattern before it no longer meets the claim term?” Defendant explains that

21

indefiniteness is determined by whether a person having ordinary skill in the art can discern

22

the scope of the invention, and argues that the lead inventor himself could not provide any

23

objective criteria for determining what constitutes a “substantially omnidirectional” radiation

24

pattern, thus making it clear that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able

25

to discern the invention’s scope.

26

The court agrees with defendant that “substantially” is used in the patents-in-suit as

27

a term of approximation. However, the court notes that, in a number of the cases cited by

28

defendant, the Federal Circuit approved the use of the term “substantially” when “warranted
6

1

by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be

2

appropriate to secure the invention.” Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams., Inc., 311 F.3d 1116,

3

1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Deering Precision Instruments, LLC v. Vector Distribution

4

Systems, Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Biotec Biologische

5

Naturverpackungen GmbH v. Biocorp., Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The

6

Verve court further held that, “like the term ‘about,’ the term ‘substantially’ is a descriptive

7

tem commonly used in patent claims to ‘avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified

8

parameter.’” Verve, 311 F.3d at 1120 (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Federal Circuit

9

has recognized that, in certain contexts, exact precision need not be required in order to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

describe the invention.
In the context of antenna technology, even defendant admitted (in its presentation at

12

the claim construction hearing) that “real antennas are never perfectly omnidirectional,” as

13

the physical structure of the antenna itself creates some minor interference that prevents a

14

perfectly circular radiation pattern. Thus, the court finds that the word “substantially” is

15

“warranted by the nature of the invention,” and declines to find that the term “substantially

16

omnidirectional” is indefinite. Instead, the court construes the term “substantially

17

omnidirectional” as “radiating power approximately equally in all directions.” This

18

construction reflects the use of the term “substantially” as a term of approximation (rather

19

than as a term of magnitude), and also reflects the inventor’s own definition of an

20

“omnidirectional antenna” as one where “when you walk 360 degrees around it, you would

21

get the exact same signal. It has to be exactly the same.” Dkt. 120, Ex. A at 87:6-9.

22

For the term “horizontally polarized,” plaintiff’s proposed construction would construe

23

that component term as “radiation patterns that are oriented substantially parallel to the

24

earth’s surface,” while defendant contends that the term should be construed as “having

25

electric field vectors that are oriented parallel to the earth’s surface.” The parties appear to

26

agree on the “parallel to the earth’s surface” portion of the construction, thus leaving two

27

areas of disagreement: (1) plaintiff’s inclusion of the word “substantially,” and (2)

28

defendant’s inclusion of the term “electric field vectors” (in contrast to plaintiff’s use of
7

1
2

“radiation patterns”).
As to (1), the court finds that plaintiff has failed to provide support for the inclusion of

3

the word “substantially.” While the claim term itself uses “substantially” to modify

4

“omnidirectional” and “in the plane of the circuit board,” the term “horizontally polarized” is

5

not so modified.

6

As to (2), the court finds that both parties’ proposed constructions attempt to include

themselves already include a noun. Specifically, claims 1, 27, and 30 recite “horizontally

9

polarized radiation coverage,” and claim 18 recites a “horizontally polarized radiation

10

pattern.” Defendant offers only a very brief argument in support of its substitution of

11
For the Northern District of California

new nouns that are modified by the term “horizontally polarized,” when the claims

8

United States District Court

7

“radiation coverage/pattern” with “electric field vectors,” asserting that “the uniformly

12

adopted definition of polarization relates to the orientation of the electric field vector

13

associated with a radio wave, not the radiation pattern, which depicts the power of the

14

radiation.” Defendant further argues that these are “fundamental engineering concepts

15

which would be known to any person of ordinary skill in the art.” However, the patentee

16

chose to use the term “horizontally polarized” to refer to the “radiation coverage” or

17

“radiation pattern,” and the court finds no reason to rewrite the claim language. Defendant

18

may be right that the claim language is “technically incorrect,” but the court does not reach

19

that issue here, and instead decides only that the term “horizontally polarized” shall be

20

construed as “oriented parallel to the earth’s surface.”

21

Finally, for the term “substantially in the plane of the circuit board,” plaintiff’s

22

proposed construction repeats the claim language, while defendant argues that the term

23

should be construed as “having substantially more gain in the plane of the circuit board

24

than in other directions.” The court notes that neither party’s briefs meaningfully address

25

the introduction of the term “gain,” and for that reason, the court declines to construe the

26

term “substantially in the plane of the circuit board,” and instead lets plain and ordinary

27

meaning govern.

28
8

1

2.

2

The term “directional radiation pattern” is found in claims 1, 18, and 27 of the ’562

“directional radiation pattern”

3

patent, and in claims 1, 12, and 15 of the ’486 patent. Plaintiff argues that this term should

4

be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and in the alternative, argues that it should be

5

construed as “a radiation pattern emitted from an antenna element that is directional rather

6

than omnidirectional.” Defendant argues that the term should be construed as “radiating

7

significantly better in a given direction than in all other directions.”

8
9

Plaintiff argues that the claim language “speaks for itself,” and further argues that
defendant’s proposed construction “introduces limiting concepts not found in the claim
language such as ‘radiating significantly better’ and the requirement of ‘a given direction.’”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

However, if the court does construe the claim, plaintiff argues that the claim term “merely

12

calls for a directional radiation pattern,” which is “a pattern that is not omnidirectional.”

13

Defendant points to an “Antenna Essentials White Paper” published by plaintiff,

14

which defines a “directional” signal as one that “sends more (most) energy in one direction

15

rather than another,” and which explains that “[d]irectional antennas are used when signal

16

is desired in a certain or specific direction.” See Dkt. 120, Ex. D. While this white paper is

17

extrinsic evidence, and thus carries less weight than intrinsic evidence, the court disagrees

18

with plaintiff that it is “irrelevant.” The intrinsic record, like plaintiff’s proposed construction,

19

defines “directional” only in opposition to “omnidirectional,” so the court will consider this

20

extrinsic evidence, especially since the extrinsic evidence comes from plaintiff itself.

21

Defendant also identifies a disclosure in the specification stating that “[e]ach of the

22

antenna elements 240 produces a directional radiation pattern with gain (as compared to

23

an omnidirectional antenna).” See ’562 patent, 5:3-7; ’486 patent, 5:6-10. Given that the

24

patentee himself used the concept of gain to distinguish a directional antenna from an

25

omnidirectional antenna, the court finds it appropriate to include that concept in the

26

construction of the term “directional antenna,” and further finds that it would be more useful

27

to the factfinder than simply defining “directional” as “not omnidirectional.” Thus, the court

28

construes “directional radiation pattern” as “radiating more gain in a given direction
9

1

than in all other directions.”

2

3.

3

The term “substantially 360-degree coverage pattern” is found in claims 1, 15, and

“substantially 360-degree coverage pattern”

4

16 of the ’486 patent. Plaintiff contends that the term should be construed to mean

5

“radiation patterns that collectively include electromagnetic waves extending in almost all

6

directions with respect to the center.” Defendant contends that the term should be

7

construed as two separate terms: “360-degree coverage pattern” and “substantially 360-

8

degree coverage pattern.” Defendant argues that “360-degree coverage pattern” should be

9

construed as “radiating power equally in all directions in the plane of the circuit board,” and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

that “substantially 360-degree coverage pattern” should be found to be indefinite.
The court finds that defendant’s argument for construing the terms separately is the

12

same as its argument for construing “omnidirectional” separately from “substantially

13

omnidirectional,” and rejects it for the same reason. The term “360-degree coverage

14

pattern” does not appear as a standalone term in the claims, and instead appears only as

15

part of the phrase “substantially 360-degree coverage pattern.” Thus, the court will

16

construe only the term “substantially 360-degree coverage pattern.”

17

Defendant’s indefiniteness argument is also the same as its indefiniteness argument

18

with respect to the term “substantially omnidirectional,” and the court also rejects that

19

argument for the same reason. The term “substantially” is used as a term of

20

approximation, and the court finds it warranted by the nature of antenna technology.

21

The court further notes that the term “substantially 360-degree coverage pattern” is

22

used in the ’486 patent to mean the same thing as the term “substantially omnidirectional”

23

was used to mean in the ’562 patent. The court also notes that, during prosecution of the

24

’486 patent, the examiner found that the term “360-degree coverage pattern” lacked

25

support in the written description of the patent, and the patentee responded by pointing to

26

the disclosure of “an omnidirectional radiation pattern” that is formed when multiple

27

directional antennas are switched on. See Dkt. 120, Ex. C at 9, 11.

28
10

1

Plaintiff now resists any likening of “substantially 360-degree coverage pattern” to

2

“substantially omnidirectional,” arguing that the same construction would only apply if

3

“dealing with the same invention between two common specifications,” which “is not the

4

case with respect to the ’562 and ’486 patents.” Dkt. 121 at 10. To support its point,

5

plaintiff includes a chart comparing claim 1 of the ’562 patent with claim 1 of the ’486

6

patent. Id. However, the relevant comparison is not between the claims of the two patents,

7

it is, as plaintiff admits, between the specifications of the two patents. See St. Clair

8

Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc., 412 Fed. Appx. 270, 275 (Fed. Cir.

9

2011). And a comparison of the two patents’ specifications shows that the “detailed
description” of the invention in both patents is the same, which is consistent with the ’486

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

patent having been filed as a continuation of the ’562 patent. Thus, the court finds that

12

“substantially 360-degree coverage pattern” should be construed the same way as

13

“substantially omnidirectional,” and thus construes “substantially 360-degree coverage

14

pattern” as “radiating power approximately equally in all directions.”

15

4.

16

The term “substantially surround” or “substantially surrounding” is found in claims 1,

“substantially surround” and “substantially surrounding”

17

8, 27, and 30 of the ’562 patent. Plaintiff argues that the term should be construed to

18

mean “spaced apart and located on two or more sides of.” Defendant argues that it should

19

be construed to mean “substantially enclose/enclosing on all sides.”

20

The court first notes that the term “substantially surround” (or “substantially

21

surrounding”) is used to describe antenna elements (or “means for radiating the RF signal,”

22

as used in claim 27) which “substantially surround the communication circuitry.” The

23

dispute between the parties thus boils down to whether the antenna elements (or means for

24

radiating the RF signal) must “substantially enclose” the communication circuitry “on all

25

sides” (as advocated by defendant), or whether they must simply be “located on two or

26

more sides of” the communication circuitry (as advocated by plaintiff).

27
28

The court notes claim 1 originally recited “a first antenna element located near a first
periphery of the circuit board” and “a second antenna element located near a second
11

1

periphery of the circuit board,” but did not require the antenna elements to “substantially

2

surround” the circuit board. Dkt. 120, Ex. S at 3. But after an initial rejection, the patentee

3

added the “substantially surround” limitation. Dkt. 120, Ex. T at 3. The court notes that the

4

relevant amendment actually added a number of new limitations to overcome the prior art,

5

so it is unclear whether “substantially surrounds” was the validity-dispositive addition.

6

However, the court finds that plaintiff’s proposed construction bears little difference to claim

7

1 as originally drafted, as it merely requires the antenna elements to be on two different

8

sides of the circuit board.

9

While plaintiff’s proposed construction sweeps too broadly, the court finds that
defendant’s construction is too narrow. The claim recites only two antenna elements, and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

two antenna elements cannot literally surround a circuit board on all sides. To account for

12

that scenario, the court includes a reference to the number of required antenna elements in

13

its construction, and construes “substantially surround” and “substantially surrounding”

14

as “substantially enclose/enclosing on all sides, with two or more antenna elements.”

15

5.

“configured to form a radiation pattern”

16

The term “configured to form a radiation pattern” is found in claim 18 of the ’486

17

patent. Plaintiff argues that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and

18

in the alternative, argues that it should be construed to mean “having functional

19

components arranged in such a way that a pattern of electromagnetic waves is emitted.”

20

Defendant argues that it should be construed to mean “designed to form a directional

21

radiation pattern (as ‘directional’ is defined above).”

22

Essentially, the dispute here is whether the term “directional” should be read into the

23

claims. Plaintiff argues that the adoption of defendant’s proposal “would be in error

24

because the phrase ‘directional’ is not found in the claim,” and that the “present claim

25

language is agnostic as to whether the pattern is directional, omnidirectional, or otherwise.”

26

Defendant admits that “the term ‘directional’ does not appear in the language of the

27

claims,” but argues that “it must be inferred by the inventors’ description of the prior art and

28

the distinguishing characteristics of the invention.” Defendant argues that the specifications
12

1

of the patents-in-suit explain the drawbacks of omnidirectional antennas in detail, and do

2

not discuss the use of any radiation pattern other than a directional pattern.

3

The court agrees with defendant that, in the context of the written descriptions of the

4

patents-in-suit, the radiation pattern emitted by each individual antenna must be a

5

directional one. The “background” section of the ’486 patent points out multiple limitations

6

of omnidirectional antennas, and the “detailed description” of the invention states that

7

“[e]ach of the antenna elements provides a directional radiation pattern,” which “may form

8

an omnidirectional radiation pattern” if multiple antenna elements are switched on. ’486

9

Patent, 1:54-2:12, 3:41-46. As defendant points out, “[n]othing in the specification
discusses any radiation pattern for the individual antenna elements other than a directional

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pattern,” and while defendant does not expressly raise an invalidity argument based on lack

12

of support in the written description, the court does note that claim terms are to be

13

construed in a way to preserve their validity. Wang Labs., Inc. v. America Online, 197 F.3d

14

1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Any construction which allowed a single antenna to emit an

15

omnidirectional radiation pattern would appear to go beyond the scope of the disclosed

16

invention, and would leave claim 18 open to an invalidity challenge. While the antennas

17

may be combined with each other to emit a collective omnidirectional signal, the language

18

of claim 18 refers to “each of the one or more of the plurality of antenna elements

19

configured to form a radiation pattern,” and thus refers to the pattern emitted by individual

20

antennas. Thus, the court construes the term “configured to form a radiation pattern” as

21

“designed to form a directional radiation pattern.”

22
23
24

6.

“means for radiating the RF signal in a first [second] directional radiation
pattern”

The term “means for radiating the RF signal in a first [second] directional radiation

25

pattern” is found in claim 27 of the ’562 patent. The parties agree that this is a means-plus-

26

function term, and is thus governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The parties also agree that the

27

relevant function is “radiating an RF signal in a directional radiation pattern.” However, the

28

parties disagree as to the relevant structure. Plaintiff argues that it should be construed as
13

1

“an antenna element,” while defendant argues that it should be construed as “a modified

2

dipole with a reflective element, both on a printed circuit board.”

3

As the parties point out, construction of a means-plus-function claim involves two

4

steps: (1) defining the particular function of the claim limitation, and (2) identifying the

5

corresponding structure for that function. See, e.g., In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296-97

6

(Fed. Cir. 2011). Because the parties agree as to the function, the court need only perform

7

step (2). Under that second step, “structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding

8

structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that

9

structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. at 1297.
Plaintiff argues that the abstract of the ’562 patent makes eight references to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“antenna elements” that emit radiation patterns, but zero references to the “modified dipole”

12

structure that appears in defendant’s proposed construction. Plaintiff further argues that

13

the term “modified dipole” appears only in the context of alternative embodiments of the

14

invention, and thus should not be read into the claim language.

15

Defendant points to numerous instances where the term “modified dipole” is used.

16

See ’562 patent, 3:1-3, 5:40-42 (describing Fig. 3A); 3:4-6 (describing Fig. 3B); 3:7-9

17

(describing Fig. 3C); 3:10-13, 6:48-50 (describing Fig. 3D). However, a number of

18

defendant’s citations mention only a “dipole” antenna, rather than a “modified dipole” See,

19

e.g., ’562 patent, 5:54-55 (“the dipole component 310 and/or the dipole component 311”);

20

6:24-26 (“a first dipole component 315 incorporating a meander, a second dipole

21

component 316 incorporating a corresponding meander”). Further, plaintiff is correct that

22

the term “modified dipole” is used only in the context of certain embodiments, and is not

23

used to refer to the invention as a whole.

24

However, plaintiff does not identify any type of structure disclosed in the ’562 patent

25

other than a dipole antenna. In that sense, defendant is correct when it argues that plaintiff

26

“could have drafted claim 27 to simply require a generic antenna element,” but “[i]t did not.”

27

Plaintiff chose to draft claim 27 as a means-plus-function claim, and is thus limited to the

28
14

1

structures disclosed in the specification, all of which refer to a dipole antenna (whether

2

modified or not).

3

The court further finds that defendant has not provided adequate support for its

4

remaining two structural limitations (a “reflective element,” and the requirement that the

5

antenna and reflective element both be “on a printed circuit board”). In fact, the patent

6

specifically states that the “antenna element 240A may optionally include one or more

7

reflectors.” ’562 patent, 5:63-64. Defendant does not provide any support for its “on a

8

printed circuit board” limitation. Thus, the court construes the structure of a “means for

9

radiating the RF signal in a first [second] directional radiation pattern” as “a dipole or
modified dipole antenna.”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

C.

12
13
14

Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, and for the reasons discussed above, the court

construes the parties’ disputed terms as follows:
1.

“substantially omnidirectional” means “radiating power approximately equally

15

in all directions,” “horizontally polarized” means “oriented parallel to the

16

earth’s surface,” and “substantially in the plane of the circuit board” is given its

17

plain and ordinary meaning.

18

2.

19
20

than in all other directions.”
3.

4.

5.

27

“configured to form a radiation pattern” means “designed to form a directional
radiation pattern.”

25
26

“substantially surround” and “substantially surrounding” mean “substantially
enclose/enclosing on all sides, with two or more antenna elements.”

23
24

“substantially 360-degree coverage pattern” means “radiating power
approximately equally in all directions.”

21
22

“directional radiation pattern” means “radiating more gain in a given direction

6.

for the term “means for radiating the RF signal in a first [second] directional
radiation pattern,” the function is construed as “radiating an RF signal in a

28
15

1

directional radiation pattern,” and the structure is construed as “a dipole or

2

modified dipole antenna.”

3

The parties shall meet and confer and submit a stipulation, after consulting the

4

court’s calendar, as to a date for a case management conference. The stipulation shall be

5

filed by December 30, 2013.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated: December 16, 2013
8

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16