Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al

Filing 333

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
AND MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, APPLE
COMPUTER INC., ARUBA NETWORKS,
INC., MERU NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS
WIRELESS, INC.,

(Re: Docket Nos.
235, 268)

Defendants.

10
11

No. C 13-159 CW

________________________________/

12
Plaintiff Linex Technologies, Inc. and Defendants Hewlett13
Packard Company, Apple Computer Inc., Aruba Networks, Inc., Meru
14
Networks, Inc., and Ruckus Wireless, Inc. ask the Court to
15
construe a number of disputed claim terms.

Also before the Court

16
are Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on invalidity and
17
non-infringement.

On January 23, 2014, the parties appeared for a

18
hearing.

Having reviewed the papers and arguments of counsel, the

19
Court construes the terms as follows, GRANTS Defendants’ motion on
20
invalidity in part, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion on
21
non-infringement on the remaining valid claims.
22
BACKGROUND
23
The patents-in-suit relate to the field of wireless data
24
transmissions and spread spectrum technology.

Spread spectrum is

25
“a means of transmission in which the signal occupies a bandwidth
26
in excess of the minimum necessary to send the information,” which
27
has the benefit of decreasing the effects of interference during
28

transmission.

2

(Schilling Tutorial)).

3

applying a code to the data to spread said data.

4

detects the code-modified signal, which despreads and recovers the

5

original data stream.

6

spread spectrum technology, including Direct Sequence Spread

7

Spectrum (DSSS), Frequency Hopping (FH), and Time Hopping (TH).

8

Acampora Decl. ¶ 11; Docket No. 235-17.

9

spectrum technology, DSSS, combines a sequence of information

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

“bits” with a “chip-sequence” spreading code, comprised of a

11

stream of binary values called “chips,” creating a signal with a

12

larger bandwidth than the original data stream.

13

¶¶ 14-15.

14

Acampora Decl. ¶ 81 (quoting Docket No. 235-17
Spread spectrum technology operates by

Id.

Id.

A receiver

There are several different types of

One type of spread-

Acampora Decl.

Linex owns the patents-in-suit: RE 42,219 “Multiple-input and

15

multiple-output (MIMO) spread spectrum system and method” (the

16

‘219 patent) and RE 43,812 “Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)

17

spread-spectrum system and method” (the ‘812 patent).

18

descendant patents of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,322 “Space diversity

19

and coding, spread-spectrum antenna and method” (the ‘322 patent),

20

which was originally in the suit but has now been dropped by

21

Linex.

Both are

22
1

23
24
25
26
27
28

On April 17, 2014, Defendants filed a “corrected”
declaration from Dr. Acampora without any explanation for why the
correction was warranted. Docket No. 330-4. In response, Linex
submitted its own additional substantive arguments. Docket No.
332. By now, the parties have long since finished briefing and
arguing the present disputed claim terms and motions for summary
judgment, which are under submission. See Docket No. 289. The
parties improperly submitted these substantive documents after the
matter was submitted, without any justification, and so the Court
will not consider them. Cf. Civ. L.R. 7-11, 7-13.
2

1

Dr. Schilling invented the parent ‘322 patent, holding a

2

priority date of November 24, 1998, as well as the two descendant

3

patents, the ‘219 patent and the ‘812 patent.

4

patents describe and claim a spread-spectrum communication system

5

with multiple antennas at both the transmitter and receiver that

6

improves the quality of the transmission by minimizing shadowing

7

and multipath effects in a fading environment.

8

61.

9

split, the input data stream.

Generally, the

‘322 patent, 1:50-

The system uses processing circuits that “demultiplex,” or
A plurality of transmitting

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

antennas radiate the demultiplexed spread spectrum signals through

11

the wireless channel to be received by a plurality of receiver

12

antennas with matched filters.

13

A RAKE and a space-diversity combiner then combine the detected

14

signals to reconstruct the original transmission.

15

‘219 and ‘812 patents, Abstract.

Id.

Devices may use diversity, or multiple copies of the same

16

data signal, to improve the reliability of signal transmission.

17

See ‘322 patent, 1:26-32.

18

space diversity and time diversity.

19

diversity if it uses several physically-spaced antennas at the

20

receiver which each detect copies of the same signal sent from a

21

transmitter antenna.

22

¶ 175.

23

or selects the strongest signal to create the most reliable

24

version of the signal.

25

related to the effects of multipath, which occurs when a

26

transmitted signal unintentionally reflects off obstructions

27

between the transmitting and receiving end, creating multiple

28

copies that travel along different paths and arrive to the same

There are different types of diversity:
A device practices space

Acampora Decl. ¶¶ 81-83; Prucnal Decl.

The receiver then adds the plurality of signals together

Id.

Time diversity, on the other hand, is

3

1

point at different times.

2

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 104, 115.

3

that practices time diversity to reduce the effects of multipath:

4

it separately detects and stores the multiple time-offset copies

5

of the same signal, then either selects the strongest multipath

6

copy of the signal or combines the multiple stored multipath

7

copies to create the most reliable version of the signal.

8

Acampora Decl. ¶ 95.

Id. ¶¶ 22, 95; Prucnal Decl. ¶ 19;
A RAKE is a type of receiver

At the time of claim construction, the asserted claims were:

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

claims 9-10 of the ‘322 patent; claims 97, 107-109, 119-121, 131-

11

133, and 144-145 of the ‘219 patent; and claim 97-98, 101-102, and

12

106 of the ‘812 patent.

13

construction and summary judgment hearing, a number of the

14

asserted claims have been dismissed with prejudice: claims 9-10 of

15

the ‘322 patent; claims 107, 119-120, 133, and 144-145 of the ‘219

16

patent; and claim 106 of the ‘812 patent.

17

the remaining claims are: claims 107-109, 121, and 131-132 of the

18

‘219 patent; and claims 97-98 and 101-102 of the ‘812 patent.

19

See id.

20
21
22

See Docket No. 327.

Since the claim

See id.

As a result,

DISCUSSION
I.

Claim Construction
“To construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the

23

meaning of any disputed words from the perspective of one of

24

ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing.”

25

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed.

26

Cir. 2008).

27

record, which includes the claim terms, written description, and

28

prosecution history of the patent.

This requires a careful review of the intrinsic

4

Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

1

415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations

2

omitted).

3

and customary meaning,” the rest of the claim language and the

4

context in which the terms appear “provide substantial guidance as

5

to the meaning of particular claim terms.”

6

1312-15.

7

which they are a part.”

8

F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370

9

(1996).

While claim terms “are generally given their ordinary

Phillips, 415 F.3d at

Claims “must be read in view of the specification, of
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52

Although the patent’s prosecution history “lacks the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim

11

construction purposes,” it “can often inform the meaning of the

12

claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the

13

invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the

14

course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it

15

would otherwise be.”

16

quotation marks omitted).

17

evidence, including dictionaries, scientific treatises, and

18

testimony from experts and inventors.

19

“less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the

20

legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. (internal

21

quotation marks omitted).

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal
The court may also consider extrinsic

Such evidence, however, is

22

The parties present four general categories of disputed claim

23

terms to be construed: (A) “spread spectrum signals,” (B) “codes,”

24

(C) “combining” and “combiner/combining” “circuit/circuitry”

25

terms, and (D) “separating” terms.

26
27
28
5

1

A.

2

Term to be construed
“Spread spectrum
signals”

3

Spread Spectrum Signals

4
5
6
7

‘219 patent, claims
121, 131-132

Court’s construction
“Signals corresponding to
data which has been
processed with one or more
codes that distribute and
increase the bandwidth of
the data across the
available bandwidth”

‘812 patent, claim
101-102

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

This term appears in the following context in claim 121 of
the ‘219 patent:
121. A receiver system for recovering data in spread spectrum
signals, the data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of
different signals transmitted on separate carrier waves from
a single source over a wireless channel, said signals being
differentiated by different codes conveyed along with said
signals . . .

15

The parties’ main disputes regarding this term are (1) whether

16

spread spectrum signals correspond to data, and (2) whether the

17

data is processed by codes or coding.

18

The Texas court in Linex Technologies v. Belkin

19

International, Inc. et al., considering the same ‘322 patent

20

asserted in this case, construed a similar term of “spread

21

spectrum subchannel signals” to indicate “signals, corresponding

22

to each of the subchannels of data, which have been processed with

23

one or more codes that distributes each signal across the

24

available bandwidth.”

25

propose that this Court adopt a similar construction for the term

26

“spread spectrum signals,” deleting the reference to the term

27

“subchannels.”

Docket No. 235-16 at 20.

Defendants

While the Texas court’s construction regarding a

28
6

1

term of the ‘322 patent is not binding, the Court finds the

2

underlying reasoning to be persuasive and supported by both the

3

intrinsic and extrinsic evidence here.

4

The intrinsic evidence supports the contention that the

5

spread spectrum signals correspond to data.

6

spread spectrum signals are generated, the ‘322 patent refers to a

7

“system for receiving data having symbols, with the data having

8

symbols demultiplexed into a plurality of subchannels of data,

9

with the plurality of subchannels of data spread-spectrum

In describing how

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

processed as a plurality of spread-spectrum-subchannel signals

11

. . .” ‘322 patent, 15:40-44 (emphasis added).

12

are a part of the specification all show data being processed.

13

See ‘322 patent, Figs. 1-5.

14

that the spread spectrum signals are comprised of processed data.

15

The claims of the descendant patents, which were not considered by

16

the Texas court, contain substantially similar language,

17

describing the claimed invention as a system for “recovering data

18

in spread spectrum signals.”

19

claim 121 (emphasis added).

20

describes “the present invention” as a system “for transmitting

21

data having symbols.”

22

describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this

23

description limits the scope of the invention.”

24

Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir.

25

2007).

26

signals described in the patent.

27
28

The drawings that

The Texas court accordingly ruled

‘812 patent, claim 101; ‘219 patent,
The specification is consistent and

‘219 patent, 2:1-4.

“When a patent thus

Verizon Servs.

Data is therefore a component of the spread spectrum

The parties debate whether the term “data” further denotes
“user data,” or must be “unknown” to the recipient.
7

See Docket

No. 283-3 at 3.

2

term “data” to be unnecessary and potentially confusing.

3

will be able to understand “data” according to its ordinary

4

meaning in the art, which is the information that is intended to

5

be conveyed to the receiver and is thus unknown to said receiver.

6

The purpose of the invention is to “transmit[] data having

7

symbols,” or in other words, to communicate some information to

8

the receiver.

9

col. 1, ll. 40-41 (describing the process of sending “data” from

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

“terminal to base, or vice versa,” and encountering the problems

11

of shadowing “by buildings, foliage, vehicles, people, motion of

12

the terminal, etc.”).

13

to recover.”

14

¶¶ 101-02 (discussing “payload data” as the information intended

15

to be communicated to the receiver).

16

suggestion, the definition of “data” is not broad enough to

17

encompass any “numerical or other information represented in a

18

form suitable for processing by computer.”

19

Dictionary 353 (3d ed. 2000).

20

meaningless in the context of the patent and would engulf the

21

meaning of codes.

22

processing of codes with data, the patentee intended the two to

23

carry a distinct meaning.

24

the invention, data is unknown and is the information intended to

25

be conveyed to the receiver.

26

“predetermined” keys that are known by the receiver and aid in

27

communicating the data.

The Court finds additional construction of the

See ‘219 patent, 2:8-12.

The jury

See also ‘812 patent,

“Data is what the receiver ultimately hopes

Acampora Decl. ¶ 216; see also Prucnal Supp. Decl.

Contrary to Linex’s

Am. Heritage

Such a definition would be

Because the patent discusses repeatedly the

In the context of the stated goals of

By contrast, codes are

28
8

1

The spread spectrum signals of the invention also require the

2

use of codes to process the data.

3

embodiment described in the specification.

4

14-17.

5

sequence signals as the codes used to process the data and

6

generate the spread spectrum signals.

7

¶¶ 14, 71 (chip-sequence signals are codes).

8

excerpt from the specification illustrates this process:

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

This is true of every
See ‘322 patent, 2:

The preferred embodiments describe the use of chip-

See id.; Acampora Decl.
The following

The spread-spectrum means spread-spectrum processes the
plurality of subchannels of data with a plurality of chipsequence signals, respectively. Each chip-sequence signal is
different from other chip-sequence signals in the plurality
of chip-sequence signals. The spread-spectrum means thereby
generates a plurality of spread-spectrum subchannel signals,
respectively. Each spread-spectrum sub-channel signal is
defined by the code represented by a respective chip-sequence
signal.

15

‘219 patent, col. 5, ll. 23-31.

16

state that “spread-spectrum processing typically includes

17

multiplying the plurality of subchannels of data by the plurality

18

of chip-sequence signals.”

19

chip-sequence signal is to spread the bandwidth of the data to be

20

transmitted.

21

demonstrates that spread spectrum signals result from the

22

spreading of data with codes.

23

The specification goes on to

Id., 7:45-47.

The function of the

Accordingly, the specification of all three patents

Linex proposes that the construction should use the word

24

“coding” instead of “codes.”

25

refers to other “coding” techniques in at least four places.

26

‘219 patent, 1: 31; 2:3; 4:47-48; 12:16-28.

27

persuaded.

Linex argues that the specification

The Court is not

The specification excerpts cited by Linex use the

28
9

See

1

terms interchangeably, suggesting that, despite the fact that the

2

two terms vary in choice of suffix, they actually carry the same

3

meaning.

4

encompass “coding algorithm,” but provides no explanation for this

5

conclusion.

6

of a coding algorithm at all, nor do they discuss any relevant

7

coding in regards to generating a spread spectrum signal.

8

suggests error correction coding as an example of “coding,” which

9

could possibly be embodied by the Forward Error Correction (FEC)

Linex seems to argue that “coding” would somehow

Regardless, the patents-in-suit never mention the use

Linex

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

encoder described by the patent.

11

FEC means FEC encodes the data, thereby generating FEC data).

12

the FEC means is not responsible for creating the spread spectrum

13

signal; the “chip sequence signal generator” is responsible.

14

patent, 2:16-28 (“The FEC encoder encodes the data using an error

15

correction code to generate FEC data . . . The plurality of

16

spread-spectrum devices, spread-spectrum processes the plurality

17

of subchannels of data with a plurality of chip-sequence signals,

18

respectively . . .

19

spectrum subchannel signals, respectively.”).

20

purposes of defining the term “spread spectrum signals,” the

21

coding accomplished by the FEC encoder is not relevant.

22

code that results in spread spectrum processing is relevant to

23

construction of the “spread spectrum signals” element.

24

See ‘219 patent, 5:12-35 (“The
But

‘219

[and] thereby generates a plurality of spreadTherefore, for

Only the

Linex attempts to introduce extrinsic evidence to show that

25

coding algorithms are used by other claimed spread spectrum

26

systems, such as multi-carrier spread spectrum (Docket No. 235,

27

Ex. 25), OFDM modulation, CCK, and PBCC.

28

This is not sufficient to overcome the intrinsic evidence
10

Prucnal Decl. ¶¶ 71-72.

1

previously discussed that explicitly discloses the process of

2

generating spread spectrum signals.

3

B.

4

Term to be construed Court’s construction
“Codes”
“A predetermined sequence of
bits and symbols”
‘219 patent, claims
107-109, 121, 131132

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Codes

‘812 patent, claims
97-98, 101-102
The term “codes” appears in all of the asserted claims of

11

both the ‘219 patent and the ‘812 patent.

12

in the ‘219 patent reads:

For example, claim 109

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

109. A method for recovering data conveyed in data symbols by
a plurality of different signals transmitted on separate
carrier waves from a single source over a wireless channel,
said signals being differentiated by different codes conveyed
along with said signals, comprising the steps of:
Receiving said signals at plural receiving antennas;
Demodulating the signals received at each receiving antenna
and separating said signals by detecting said different codes
conveyed in said signals;
[ . . . ]

20
Linex argues that code is a broad term and should be
21
understood according to its plain and ordinary meaning.

One

22
skilled in the art of telecommunication systems would understand
23
“code” to mean “a predetermined set of bits or symbols.”

See

24
InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d 1318,
25
1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Defendants disagree, contending that

26
although the claim language itself is broad, the emphasis on
27
spread spectrum in the specification mandates that the “codes” of
28
11

1

the claim language can only be spreading codes.

2

F.3d at 979.

3

See Markman, 52

“[T]here is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in

4

light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the

5

claim from the specification.”

6

Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

7

has repeatedly cautioned against importing limitations from the

8

specification into the claim.

9

example, the claims are not limited to what is in the specific

Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris
The Federal Circuit

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

For

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

embodiments of the claimed invention.

11

Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.

12

Cir. 2005) (although the specification may cast light on the

13

meaning of the claims, “the court may conclude that the scope of

14

the various claims may differ, some embracing different subject

15

matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the

16

specification”).

17

beyond the sole disclosed embodiments where such a reading would

18

be contrary to the written description’s guidance as to the

19

meaning of the claims.

20

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

21

(holding that where the specification expressly limited all

22

embodiments of the claimed invention to a coaxial structure and

23

disparaged prior art using dual lumens, the patentee made a clear

24

disavowal of the dual lumen design).

25

to the broad, plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term if he

26

has made a clear disavowal of claim scope or has acted as his own

27

lexicographer in defining the term.

28

Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Id. (quoting Nazomi

On the other hand, a claim should not be read

SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced

12

A patentee is not entitled

Thorner v. Sony Computer
“Both

1

exceptions require a clear and explicit statement by the

2

patentee.”

3

Id.

Read in the context of the claim language, the codes in

4

question are conveyed along with and in the signals and are used

5

to differentiate said signals.

6

specification uses the term “codes” broadly, referring to codes

7

other than spreading chip-sequence signals.

8

patent, 1:27-31 (“Coding techniques using space diversity as well

9

as time, are known as ‘space-time’ codes”), 4:12-17 (“The FEC

See ‘219 patent, claim 109.

The

See, e.g., ‘219

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

means FEC encodes the data, thereby generating FEC data . . . the

11

use of a particular FEC code is a design choice”).

12

of “codes” throughout the specification demonstrates that the

13

patentee did not act as his own lexicographer, but rather freely

14

utilized the accepted meaning of the term in the art.

15

the patentee at times added a modifier to the term “codes.”

16

example, the ‘812 patent contains a number of dependent claims

17

that specify that certain codes that are “spreading codes.”

18

patent, claim 114 (“The receiver system of claim 97 wherein said

19

different codes conveyed along with said signals are spreading

20

codes”) and claim 116 (“The method as recited in claim 99 wherein

21

said different codes conveyed along with said signals are

22

spreading codes”).

23

to “codes” and sometimes to “spreading codes” indicates that the

24

two are different, and that the former should be construed

25

according to its ordinary meaning in the art.

26

claim differentiation is the strongest in this scenario, “where

27

the limitation that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent

28

claim already appears in a dependent claim.”

The varied use

Further,
For

‘812

The fact that the patentee sometimes referred

13

The doctrine of

InterDigital

1

Commc'ns, LLC, 690 F.3d at 1324 (finding that “codes” as

2

unmodified was not a spreading code).

3

Defendants next contend that the patentee made a clear

4

disavowal of claim scope in the prosecution history.

5

prosecution of the reissue of the ‘219 patent, Linex amended the

6

“Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” section of the

7

specification to read, “Each spread-spectrum means thereby

8

generates a plurality of spread-spectrum-subchannel signals,

9

respectively.

During

Each spread-spectrum-sub-channel signal is defined

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

by the code represented by a respective chip-sequence signal.”

11

‘219 patent, 5:26-31 (emphasis added).

12

inserted the phrase “the code represented by.”

13

Office Action, the patentee explained, “This submission includes

14

an amendment to the specification to include the words ‘the code

15

represented by’ which is inherent in spread spectrum processing

16

. . .”

17

Action) at 12.

18

sequence signal is only a nonlimiting example of said code

19

defining the signal.

20

sentence less restrictive.

21

does not amount to the type of clear and unmistakable disclaimer

22

required by Thorner.

23

In its amendment, Linex
In its Response to

Docket No. 235-14 (Feb. 23, 2010 Response to Office
Fairly read, this amendment notes that a chip-

If anything, the amendment makes the
The statement made during prosecution

Additionally, during the prosecution of the same patent the

24

patentee stated his intent to broaden the patent’s scope, not

25

limit it:

26
27
28

This reissue application is broadening to correct errors
of claiming less than the patentee had a right to claim.
Broadening results from adding new claims “spread
spectrum” broadly to cover spread spectrum processing of
all types within the conventional meaning of “spread
14

1
2
3

spectrum” in connection with receiver systems and
methods for use in MIMO and from adding new claims
covering receiver system and methods for processing
received signals containing codes indicating
transmission of the signals from different transmitting
antennas.

4
Docket No. 235-22 at 2.

This statement demonstrates the

5
patentee’s intention (1) to broaden the patent to encompass
6
spread spectrum systems “broadly,” and (2) to add new claims
7
for processing “received signals containing codes indicating”
8
their originating antennas, with no mention of these codes
9
necessarily being spreading codes.

Because there was no

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

apparent intent by the patentee to “deviate from the ordinary
11
and accustomed meaning” of “codes” in either the
12
specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is
13
entitled to the full scope of the term in the art.

Thorner,

14
669 F.3d at 1366.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

C.

Combining and Combiner Circuit

Terms to be
construed
“Combining”

Court’s construction
“Aggregating”

‘219 patent, claims
107-109, 121, 131132
‘812 patent, claims
98, 102
“Combiner/combining” No additional construction
“circuits/circuitry” necessary. See above.
‘219 patent, claims
107-108, 121

26
27

‘812 patent, claims
98, 102

28
15

1
2
3
4
5
6

The term “combining” appears in claim 109 of the ‘219 patent
in the following context:
[ . . . ]
Recovering the data symbols conveyed in said signals and
combining received data symbols transmitted in signals with
the same code and received by different receiving antennas,
thereby forming plural streams of combined data symbols; and
Multiplexing data derived from said plural streams of
combined data symbols to form a single stream of data.

7
8
9

Defendants argue that the term should be construed in line
with the Texas court’s construction regarding the ‘322 patent.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Texas court ruled that “combining” in the context of the

11

invention meant “forming a single aggregated version of the

12

received signal from the multiple versions of the transmitted time

13

and space diverse signals received at the multiple receiver

14

antennas.”

15

the claimed invention required the use of both space and time

16

diversity.

17

meaning of “aggregating time and space diverse signals.”

18

Docket No. 235-16 at 27.

That ruling recognized that

Accordingly, Defendants urge this Court to adopt a

Linex takes issue with this proposed construction because it

19

dictates the components that are to be combined, rendering the

20

rest of the claim language superfluous.

21

claim 98 (“space diversity combiner circuitry for combining

22

signals received on said different receiving antennas, whereby

23

said data inputs to said multiplexer are derived from data symbols

24

generated by combining symbols from each of said receiving

25

antennas”).

26

and should be construed according to its plain and accustomed

27

meaning in the art, or “aggregating.”

See, e.g., ‘812 patent,

The function of “combining” can be easily understood

28
16

1

Linex correctly notes that “a court must presume that the

2

terms in the claim mean what they say, and, unless otherwise

3

compelled, give full effect to the ordinary and accustomed meaning

4

of claim terms.”

5

Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

6

that, even if the claim language itself is broad, the term should

7

be construed more narrowly because of the specification and

8

statements made during the prosecution of the ‘322 patent.

9

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366.

Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco
Defendants respond

Here, the specification repeatedly

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

emphasizes that the present invention employs both time and space

11

diversity to increase capacity and performance of the system.

12

“The present invention broadly includes an antenna system

13

employing time (RAKE) and space (antenna) diversity.”

14

patent, 4:48-50; ‘322 patent, 4:38-41.

15

that Linex made statements during the prosecution history of the

16

‘322 patent that constituted a disavowal of a system using only

17

space diversity.

18

application do not automatically limit the scope of a later

19

application; the limiting effect depends on whether the descendant

20

patents use the same language.

21

Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (disavowal of

22

claim scope during prosecution of parent application applied where

23

patents used same claim term involving same limitation) and

24

Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173,

25

1182 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (prosecution history disclaimer did not

26

apply to descendant patent because they used different claim

27

language).

‘812

Defendants further argue

Statements made during prosecution of a parent

Compare Omega Eng’g, Inc. v.

28
17

1

Even if Defendants can show that space and time diversity is

2

required, the Court cannot import limitations into claims that do

3

not contain any textual reference to the limitation.

4

Worldwide Associates, Inc., 175 F.3d at 990.

5

must invite an interpretation that includes the limitation; if

6

courts “begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in

7

order to limit such claim, [they] should never know where to

8

stop.”

9

antenna system employing time and space diversity to the function

Id.

Johnson

The claim language

Here, nothing connects the supposed requirement of an

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of “combining.”

11

art would understand the claim terms, it is not clear that such a

12

person would equate “combining” to “aggregating space and time-

13

diverse signals.”

14

of the “combining” term itself is to aggregate different data

15

signals.

16

combining received data symbols . . .”).

17

language elaborates on what exactly is to be combined, which in at

18

least some instances translates to diversity.

19

circuits for combining received data symbols transmitted in

20

signals with the same code and received by different receiving

21

antennas, thereby forming plural streams of combined data

22

symbols”).

23

link between the term “combining” and the space and diversity

24

limitation they argue exists, the Court declines to import that

25

limitation.

26

adequately describes the process.

Focusing on how a person of ordinary skill in the

See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

The function

See ‘219 patent, claim 121 (“Combiner circuits for
The rest of the claim

See id. (“Combiner

Because Defendants have not established the necessary

A definition of “combining” as “aggregating”

27

The parties additionally dispute the meaning of three related

28

“combiner circuitry” terms which describe how circuits perform the
18

1

“combining” function.

2

do not require construction, but if the Court chooses to construe

3

them, then Linex proposes simply replacing “combining” with

4

“aggregating” in each of the phrases.

Linex alleges that these additional terms

See Docket No. 200 at 7.

5

Defendants contend that, although they are each phrased

6

differently, all of the “combiner/combining” “circuits/circuitry”

7

terms should be universally construed as “circuits that combine

8

data symbols in the separated signals originating from different

9

receiving antennas according to the code transmitted with each

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

signal.”

11

terms do not require any further construction because the function

12

of the combiner circuits is described by the claim language that

13

follows -- the combiner circuit combines the received data symbols

14

transmitted in signals with the same code, which are received by

15

different receiving antennas.

16

D.
Separating
Terms to be
construed
“Separating”

17
18
19

‘219 patent,
claims 109, 121,
133

20
21

23

25
26
27

These

See, e.g., ‘219 patent, claim 121.

Court’s construction
“Distinguishing signals based
on the codes in each
individual signal”

‘812 patent,
claims 97, 101.

22

24

The Court has already construed “combining.”

This term appears in similar contexts of multiple claims.
See ‘219 patent, claims 109, 121, 133; ‘812 patent, claims 97,
101.

All of these terms describe the function of “separating”

signals as related to the detection of the different codes
conveyed in the signals.

See, e.g., ‘219 patent, claim 109

28
19

1

(“separating said signals by detecting said different codes

2

conveyed in said signals”); claim 121 (“separating said received

3

spread spectrum signals by detecting said different codes conveyed

4

in said spread spectrum signals”); ‘812 patent, claim 101

5

(“Circuitry for despreading and separating said different spread

6

spectrum signals in response to detections of said different codes

7

conveyed in said signals”).

8
9

Linex’s view is that separating can be understood according
to its dictionary definition, which is “distinguishing.”

See Am.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Heritage Dictionary 1242 (3d ed. 2000) (“To differentiate or

11

discriminate between; distinguish”).

12

instead to adopt a definition of “separating the received signals

13

into the individual transmitted signals and their multipath

14

components by detecting the codes mixed with the data symbols in

15

each individual transmitted signal.”

Defendants urge the Court

16

As they did regarding their proposed construction of the term

17

“combining,” Defendants again emphasize that the claimed invention

18

requires time diversity.

19

hand-in-hand, the same limitations ought to apply here.

20

Defendants allege that Linex disavowed any method or device which

21

does not involve time diversity, or multipath, during the

22

prosecution of the ‘322 patent.

23

of the purported disavowal and its application to the child

24

patents are far from clear.

25

no textual “hook” in the language of the “separating” claim terms

26

that invites insertion of the time diversity limitation.

27

in the specification is there any limitation that connects the

Because “combining” and “separating” go

As noted previously, the strength

More fundamentally, however, there is

28
20

Nowhere

1

function of “separating” with sorting based on multipath

2

components.

3

The claim language explicitly discloses that the codes

4

facilitate “separating” of the transmitted signals.

5

‘219 patent, claim 121.

6

the signal, is the counterpart to application of the codes at the

7

transmission stage.

8

spread spectrum signals is very similar to its transmission, just

9

run in reverse”).

See, e.g.,

Separating, which occurs upon receipt of

See Acampora Decl. ¶ 17 (“Reception of a

Upon receipt of the signals, matched filters

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

identify signals containing a certain code.

11

patent, Abstract.

12

“distinguishing signals based on the codes in each individual

13

signal.”

14

II.

Id. ¶¶ 18-19; ‘219

Accordingly, “separating” can be understood as

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

15

A.

16

Summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party

17

demonstrates there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

18

such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

19

law.

20

317, 323 (1986).

21

outcome of the case, as defined by the framework of the underlying

22

substantive law.

23

248 (1986).

24

reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party.

25

The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the

26

district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those

27

portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits that

28

demonstrate the absence of a disputed issue of material fact.

Summary Judgment Standard

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
Material facts are those that might affect the

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a

21

Id.

1

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

2

party may not rely merely on allegations or denials of its

3

pleadings, but must set forth “specific facts showing that there

4

is a genuine issue for trial.”

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

6

In opposing the motion, the non-moving

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (citing

The court must construe the evidence in the light most

7

favorable to the non-moving party, making all reasonable

8

inferences that can be drawn.

9

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Intel Corp. v.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir.

11

1991); Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th

12

Cir. 1987).

13

B.

14

Patents are presumed valid absent clear and convincing

Invalidity

15

evidence of invalidity.

16

S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011).

17

invalid if it was disclosed in a patent application or a published

18

patent.

19

party must “explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed

20

in the prior art reference.”

21

308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

22

relies on prior art that was already considered by the USPTO to

23

prove invalidity, the burden of proof is especially difficult.

24

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1467

25

(Fed. Cir. 1990).

26

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131
A patent is anticipated and therefore

35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

To show anticipation, the moving

Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.,
When the moving party

Defendants claim that U.S. Patent No. 5,345,599 (Paulraj)

27

anticipates each of the asserted claims of the ‘219 and ‘812

28

patents.

The USPTO considered Paulraj during prosecution of the
22

1

‘219 and ‘812 patents.

2

entitled “Increasing capacity in wireless broadcast systems using

3

distributed transmission/directional reception (DTDR),” discloses

4

a method and apparatus for increasing the capacity of a wireless

5

broadcast communications system.

6

demultiplexing or splitting a signal into multiple signals,

7

sending the signals using multiple spatially-separated

8

transmitters, then receiving the signals at a receiving site with

9

multiple antennas and reconstituting the original data signal.

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 63.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Paulraj, Abstract.

11

Paulraj,

The invention operates by

by Figure 2 of the patent:

The invention disclosed by Paulraj is embodied

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

1

The parties agree that Paulraj discloses all but three

2

elements in the asserted claims: (1) signals from a single source,

3

(2) codes conveyed along with said signals, and (3) spread

4

spectrum signals.2

5
6

1.

Signals from a single source

Linex characterizes Paulraj as teaching transmission of data

7

signals from multiple sources rather than a single source as

8

required by the claimed invention.

9

require the signals to originate from “a single source.”

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

All of the asserted claims
For

example, claim 109 recites:
A method for recovering data conveyed in data symbols by a
plurality of different signals transmitted on separate
carrier waves from a single source over a wireless channel
. . .
It is undisputed that the “source” means the origin of data

14
in said signals.

Linex’s infringement expert expressly confirms

15
this point, stating, “One of ordinary skill in the art would
16
understand that the plain language of the asserted claims of the
17
‘219 and ‘812 patents requires that the different ‘signals’ must
18
come from a single source or data source.”

Prucnal Supp. Decl.

19
¶ 73 (emphasis omitted).

The specification corroborates that the

20
“source” is “of data.”

‘219 patent, 1:55-56.

The claims of the

21
‘812 patent too demonstrate that the “single source” is the “data
22
source” of the signals.

‘812 patent, claim 97.

As discussed in

23
the background of the asserted patents, the data is split into
24
different subchannel signals which are then transmitted by a
25
26
27
28

2

See Docket No. 268-4 at 35 (detailing the parties’ experts’
agreement that all of the elements of the asserted claims except
the three identified are disclosed by Paulraj). This agreement
was confirmed at the hearing. Docket No. 294 at 47-48.
24

1

plurality of antennas, then received by a plurality of receiving

2

antennas and reconstituted to form the original data stream.

3

As demonstrated by Figure 2, Paulraj also teaches a “single
data source.”

5

transmission of a source signal from a plurality of spatially

6

separated transmitters . . .”).

7

embodied by broadcast studio (50).

8

signals originating from broadcast studio (50), which are then

9

transmitted by different transmitting stations to the receiver.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

Linex insists that the “transmitted signals in Paulraj are not

11

from a single source because Paulraj requires his transmitting

12

stations 1, 2, and 3 to be dispersed over a wide geographical

13

area.”

14

of the specification of Paulraj discussing the desirability of

15

spatially dispersed transmitting antennas.

16

¶ 74.

17

the patents-in-suit for a nonexistent requirement that the

18

plurality antennas be closely situated, which does not exist in

19

either of the asserted patents.

20

to the distance between the transmission antennas, requiring only

21

that the receiving signals originate from a single data source.

22

In fact, nothing in any of the claims of the ‘219 or the ‘812

23

patents mandates a maximum separation between the plurality of

24

antennas; the patent elsewhere discloses a minimum distance

25

between the antennas but never a maximum.

26

(“antennas preferably by at least one-quarter (1/4) wavelength,

27

and preferably as far as practicable”) (emphasis added).

Paulraj, claim 1 (“A wireless broadcast system for

Docket No. 273-4 at 23.

The single source in Paulraj is
Figure 2 plainly shows the

Linex cites to several excerpts

Prucnal Supp. Decl.

But Linex mistakes the “single data source” limitation of

The asserted claims are silent as

28
25

‘219 patent, 2:49-51

1
2

2.

“Codes conveyed along with” and “in” said signals

In every asserted claim, the signals are differentiated by

3

“different codes conveyed along with” and “conveyed in said

4

signals.”

5

limitations appear in every asserted claim.

6

Neither party asked the Court to define the terms “conveyed along

7

with” or “in” or “signal.”

8

judgment of non-infringement, Defendants advocate a construction

9

of “conveyed along with” and “in” to mean that the codes and the

See, e.g., ‘219 patent, claim 109.

Both of these

See id.

In their separate motion for summary

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

rest of the signal occupy the same time and frequency.

11

283-3 at 13.3

12

support of this proposed construction.

13

by Defendants is that all of the disclosed preferred embodiments

14

show codes being conveyed at the same time and frequency as the

15

rest of the signal.

16

not limited to what is disclosed in the preferred embodiments.

17

Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc., 403 F.3d at 1369.

18

proposal was offered, and these terms can be understood according

19

to their plain and ordinary meaning, the Court does not assign any

20

special meaning to these terms.

21

Docket No.

Defendants present no compelling evidence in
The only evidence offered

But as previously discussed, the invention is

Because no counter

According to Linex, Paulraj differs from the claimed

22

invention of the ‘219 and ‘812 patents because Paulraj discloses

23

the transmission of codes that travel independently and separately

24

from signals carrying payload data.

Paulraj discloses several

25
26
27
28

3

Defendants reason that if the more specific construction of
these terms is adopted, then the accused devices do not infringe;
if that construction is not adopted, and this limitation is read
broadly, then the claims are invalid.
26

1

methods for “selectively suppress[ing] signals” based on their

2

predefined characteristics, or distinguishing them from each

3

other.

4

spatial information such as the array covariance matrix, the

5

steering vectors,” “array characterizing data,” etc.

6

col. 9, ll. 55-60.

7

characterizing data is directly (or indirectly) updated during

8

signal reception, and the spatial filter parameters updated

9

continuously.”

Such known characteristics may include “knowledge of

Paulraj,

For example, in the “tracking mode, the array

Id., col. 9, ll. 66-70; col. 10, ll. 1-2.

Because

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

characterization information is updated continuously “during

11

signal reception,” the codes must be conveyed along with, or

12

adjacent to the signal.

13

Another example of Paulraj disclosing codes conveyed with and in

14

said signals is in describing another embodiment: “In another

15

embodiment, different, but known, signals are transmitted

16

simultaneously from each tower.”

17

describes codes that are “conveyed along with” and “in” each

18

signal that differentiate these signals.

19

Acampora Decl. ¶ 376; Paulraj, 9:66-10:1.

Paulraj, 10:15-17.

Paulraj thus

Linex disagrees, pointing out that “the training signals in

20

Paulraj may be sent from transmit antennas different than those

21

sending payload data.”

22

Supp. Decl. ¶ 71).

23

array characterizing data may be ‘updated during signal

24

reception.’”

25

Defendants’ argument -- that codes continuously update the signal

26

transmission.

27

embodiment, Paulraj “also separately teaches special ‘different,

28

but known’ signals that may be sent to measure array

Docket No. 273-4 at 24-25 (citing Prucnal

Linex concedes that Paulraj “teaches that

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 70.

This is the basis of

However, Linex stresses that in describing another

27

1

characterizing data.”

2

training signals, or codes, may possibly be conveyed from

3

different antenna than those that convey the payload data.

4

claim, even if true, does not take away from the excerpts

5

identified by Defendants, which expressly recognizes that the

6

training signals can be “transmitted at regular intervals from one

7

transmitter at a time, or from different transmitters

8

simultaneously.”

9

373-377, 389.

Id. (citing Paulraj, 10:3-20).

The

This

Prucnal Validity ¶ 879; Acampora Decl. ¶¶ 371,

See also Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 67 (noting that each

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

receiving antenna will receive “each of the transmitted signals

11

from each of the” transmitting antennas) (citing Paulraj, 7:50-52)

12

(“A receiving station . . . will receive all d signals [i.e., all

13

transmitted data signals] in the same frequency channel”).

14

least the examples raised by Defendants, Paulraj teaches codes

15

that are “conveyed along with” and “in” said signals.

16
17

3.

In at

Spread spectrum signals

Of the asserted claims, some recite “spread spectrum signals”

18

and others recite simply “signals.”

19

Linex’s infringement theory, “there is no material difference

20

between the training signals in Paulraj and those in the Accused

21

Products,” and so the training signals in Paulraj satisfy the

22

“spread spectrum signals” limitation.

23

Paulraj may discuss the use of coding and decoding, it fails to

24

disclose what type of coding is used and how it is used.

25

No. 273-4 at 25.

Defendants claim that, under

Linex’s responds that while

Docket

26

The meaning of “spread spectrum signals” is specific -- the

27

Court construed this term to mean “signals corresponding to data

28

which has been processed with one or more codes that distribute
28

and increase the bandwidth of the data across the available

2

bandwidth.”

3

data in a way that distributes the signal across the available

4

bandwidth.

5

element of the claimed invention not disclosed by Paulraj.

6

Because this element appears in some of the asserted claims

7

(claims 121, 131-132 of the ‘219 patent; claims 101-102 of the

8

‘812 patent), those claims are valid.

9

claims (claims 107-109 of the ‘219 patent; claims 97-98 of the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

‘812 patent), which read simply “signals” rather than “spread

11

spectrum signals,” are completely anticipated by Paulraj and are

12

thus invalid.

13

C.

14

To establish infringement, each claim limitation must be

Nothing in Paulraj describes a code that processes

The “spread spectrum signals” limitation is the only

The rest of the asserted

Non-infringement

15

present in the accused product, literally or equivalently.

16

Equip. Co. v. Kentucky Farms, Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir.

17

1998).

18

first, the court must construe the asserted claims; then, the

19

court must compare the accused products with the construed claims

20

and determine whether the products contain each limitation of the

21

claims, either literally or equivalently.

22

American Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

23

product literally infringes if it contains each element and

24

limitation of the patent claim as construed.

25

product may also infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, which

26

applies if there is “‘equivalence’ between the elements of the

27

accused product or process and the claimed elements of the

28

patented invention.”

Dawn

Determining patent infringement is a two-step process:

Id.

Freedman Seating Co. v.

Id. at 1357.

Equivalence must be assessed on a
29

A

A

1

limitation-by-limitation basis; the standard test for equivalence

2

is whether the accused product performs substantially the same

3

function, in substantially the same way, to obtain substantially

4

the same result for every asserted claim.

5

Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1296-97 (Fed. Cir.

6

2009).4

7

Id. at 1358; Abbott

Defendants all practice the wireless standard known as IEEE

8

802.11n, which uses orthogonal frequency division multiplexing

9

(OFDM) and combines that technology with multiple antenna

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

technology known as “multiple-input multiple-output” (MIMO).

11

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 79; Docket No. 274, Ex. 74 (IEEE 802.11n

12

Standard).

13

In OFDM, data and other transmission information is

14

transmitted in “packets,” or groups.

15

Rept. ¶¶ 232-239; Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 79-88.

16

consist of: HT-LTF, a P-matrix or a set of P-codes, payload data,

17

and pilot sequences.

18

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 88.

19

and MIMO equalization.

20

phase, a long training field is sent, which is comprised of an HT-

Acampora Non-Infringement
The packets

Acampora Non-Infringement Rept. ¶ 233;
The first phase is channel estimation

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 89.

During this

21
4

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

To defeat a summary judgment motion of non-infringement on
doctrine of equivalents grounds, a patentee must provide
“particularized testimony and linking argument” on a limitationby-limitation basis “that creates a genuine issue of material fact
as to equivalents.” AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions,
479 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Generalized testimony as
to the overall similarity between the claims and the accused
infringer’s product or process will not suffice.” Id. Linex
failed completely to address the doctrine of equivalents in
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thus waiving
any equivalency theory. The Court therefore considers only
whether every limitation is literally present in the accused
devices.
30

1

LTF modified mathematically using a P-matrix, or a known set of 1s

2

and -1s in matrix form.

3

Rept. ¶ 236.

4

wireless channel.

5

uses a channel-estimating mechanism to compare the known HT-LTF to

6

the HT-LTF received.

7

Infringement Rept. ¶ 646.

8

entity (H-matrix) documenting the differences between the known

9

HT-LTF stored at the receiver and the modified HT-LTF received;

Id. ¶¶ 84-85; Acampora Non-Infringement

During transmission, this field is modified by the
The receiver knows the HT-LTF information and

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 93; Acampora NonThe receiver creates a mathematical

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the differences are those caused by transmission through the

11

wireless channel.

12

Next, after training, the data-bearing OFDM symbols are

13

transmitted.

14

pilot signals, or predetermined sequences of bits, which are also

15

modified by the wireless channel and are used to update channel

16

conditions that may have occurred after the training interval.

17

See id. ¶ 104; Acampora Non-Infringement Rept. ¶ 235.

18

Id.; Acampora Non-Infringement Rept. ¶ 236.

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 86.

Accompanying the data are

Defendants contend that certain elements of the asserted

19

claims are not satisfied by the accused devices: (1) “spread

20

spectrum signals,” (2) “codes conveyed along with” and “in” the

21

“signals,” and (3) “separating” and “combining.”5

22

Court has already found several claims to be invalid, and validity

Because the

23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Defendants’ “separating” and “combining” non-infringement
arguments rely on the presumption that the Court would imply space
and multipath limitations in its construction of those terms.
Because the Court declined to adopt Defendants’ proposed
constructions, these non-infringement arguments are now moot.
31

1

is a prerequisite to any infringement claim,6 the Court considers

2

only the accused devices’ potential infringement of the remaining

3

valid claims.

4

Defendants first argue that the accused products do not

5

infringe the limitation “spread spectrum signals,” which appears

6

in all of the remaining valid claims.

7

contends that the OFDM packets produced by the accused devices are

8

in fact spread spectrum signals.

Linex disagrees and

The Court construed “spread spectrum signals” to mean

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

“signals corresponding to data which has been processed with one

11

or more codes that distribute and increase the bandwidth of the

12

data across the available bandwidth.”

13

limitation, the OFDM packets must include (1) data, (2) that has

14

been processed by codes to increase the bandwidth of that data.

15

Linex raises two infringement theories regarding the OFDM packet:

16

(1) the P-matrix spreads the bandwidth of HT-LTF data, creating a

17

spread spectrum signal, and (2) pilots spread the bandwidth of the

18

payload data, creating a spread spectrum signal.

19

at 15.

20

To infringe this

Docket No. 273-4

Regarding its first infringement theory, Linex claims that

21

the P-matrix is the code that processes the HT-LTF data to double

22

the bandwidth of the HT-LTF data.

23

is undisputed that the P-matrix is a predetermined sequence of

Prucnal Decl. ¶¶ 84-88, 91.

It

24
25
26
27
28

6

TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151,
1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“a judgment of invalidity necessarily moots
the issue of infringement”). See also Sandt Technology, Ltd. v.
Resco Metal and Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2001); SSI Sys. Int'l Inc. v. TEK Global S.R.L., 929 F. Supp. 2d
971, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
32

1

bits, which meets the definition of code.

2

not the unknown information that is intended to be conveyed to the

3

receiver.

4

LTF sequences.

5

of data.

6

sends first to the receiver so that the receiver can understand

7

the state of the wireless channel.

8

The HT-LTF, however, is

The receiver already has stored copies of the known HTThe HT-LTF therefore does not meet the limitations

The HT-LTF is more akin to a code that the transmitter

Linex’s infringement expert concedes this point. The HT-LTF
is “used to estimate the channel properties for transmission of

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

the OFDM packets and to control the MIMO equalization process.”

11

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 93.

12

the channel so that the receiver will know how to interpret the

13

actual data to be conveyed.

14

are information that the [accused] devices use to distinguish

15

which packet was transmitted from which transmit antenna.”

16

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 88.

17

LTF data is test and control data” and is not the information

18

intended to be conveyed to the recipient.

19

that HT-LTFs are not data, but codes.

20

contention that HT-LTF is not data as defined by the asserted

21

claims is the expert’s attempt to distinguish prior art elsewhere

22

in his declaration.

23

reference on the basis that “Marzetta teaches that ‘training

24

signals’ are sent in a ‘first stage’ -- the training stage, which

25

is separate and independent of a ‘second stage,’ in which ‘message

26

data or other information’ are transmitted . . . Codes are not

27

sent along with and in signals containing the message data during

28

system operation”); ¶¶ 70-71 (distinguishing Paulraj reference

The HT-LTF therefore tests and defines

Id.

“HT-LTFs, P codes, and pilots

The expert further admits that the “HT-

Id.

This demonstrates

Further supporting the

See id. ¶ 95 (distinguishing Marzetta

33

1

because it “does not teach that the training signals would be

2

conveyed along with and in signals that also carry payload data”).

3

The accused devices work in a fashion similar to the distinguished

4

prior art references Marzetta and Paulraj, sending a training

5

stage separate and apart from the message data.

6

jury could determine that the HT-LTFs constitute data.

7

No reasonable

Linex’s next infringement theory is that the pilot codes

8

modify the payload data, creating a spread spectrum signal.

9

contends that pilots are a predetermined sequence of bits that

Linex

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

process and spread the payload data.

11

Linex’s infringement expert explains that the payload data is

12

inserted on certain IDFT subcarriers while pilots are inserted

13

onto separate IDFT subcarriers which are disbursed among the data

14

subcarriers.

15

Docket No. 283-5 (Schilling Depo.) at 443-44 (“I believe the pilot

16

signals have their own unique channel and they do not vary with

17

the data”).

18

are transmitted on separate subcarriers, or frequencies, from the

19

payload data and do not process or spread the payload data across

20

the available bandwidth.

21

second infringement theory also fails to meet the Court’s

22

construction of “spread spectrum signals.”

23

not established that there is a disputed issue of fact regarding

24

whether the accused products meet the limitation of “spread

25

spectrum signals.”

26

must practice every limitation of the asserted claims, Defendants

27

are entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of the

28

remaining valid claims.

Id.

Prucnal Supp. Decl. ¶ 98.

The inventor agrees with this assessment.

In other words, it is undisputed that the pilot codes

By the undisputed evidence, Linex’s

As a result, Linex has

Because, to infringe, the accused products

34

1
2

CONCLUSION
The Court has construed the disputed terms of the asserted

3

claims.

4

‘812 patent are invalid as anticipated by Paulraj.

5

131-132 of the ‘219 patent and claims 101-102 of the ‘812 patent

6

are valid, but are not infringed by the accused devices.

7

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants,

8

who shall recover their costs from Linex.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Claims 107-109 of the ‘219 patent and claims 97-98 of the
Claims 121,

The

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/20/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35