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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?