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
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?