Adaptix, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al

Filing 123

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on December 19, 2013. (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ADAPTIX, INC.,

12

Case No. 5:13-cv-01774 PSG
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, et al,

(Re: Docket No. 109)

15

Defendants.

16
17

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

v.

(Re: Docket No. 144)

APPLE INC, et al,
Defendants.

21
22

Case No. 5:13-cv-01776 PSG

ADAPTIX, INC.,

23

Case No. 5:13-cv-01777 PSG

Plaintiff,

24

v.

25

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

APPLE INC., et al,

26

(Re: Docket No. 143)

Defendants.

27
28
1

Case No.: 13-1774, -1776, -1777, -1778, -1844, -2023
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

ADAPTIX, INC.,

2

Case No. 5:13-cv-01778 PSG
Plaintiff,

3

v.

4

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al,

5

(Re: Docket No. 150)

Defendants.

6
7

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

v.

(Re: Docket No. 134)

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS, HTC CORPORATION, and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.

12
13

Case No. 5:13-cv-01844 PSG

ADAPTIX, INC.,

14

Case No. 5:13-cv-02023 PSG

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

APPLE INC., et al,

17

(Re: Docket No. 125)

Defendants.

18
19

In this patent infringement suit, Adaptix, Inc. alleges that Motorola Mobility, L.L.C, Apple,

20

Inc., AT&T Mobility L.L.C, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless infringes U.S. Patent

21

No. 6,947,748 and U.S. Patent No. 7,454,212. Yesterday and today, the court held a tutorial and

22

claim construction hearing. The court’s constructions are as follows:

23
24
25
26
27
28

CLAIM TERM

CONSTRUCTION

“Select[ing] a set of candidate subcarriers”

“Selecting” = “Choosing.”

‘748 Patent: Claims 6, 8, 19, 21
‘212 Patent: Claim 1, 18

All other terms: plain and ordinary
meaning

“Subcarriers [of/from] the set of
subcarriers selected by the [] base station”

“Subcarriers that the base station
has chosen from the set of
2

Case No.: 13-1774, -1776, -1777, -1778, -1844, -2023
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1
2
3

‘748 Patent: Claims 6, 8, 19, 21
‘212 Patent: Claim 1, 18
“SINR Value”

4
‘748 Patent: Claim 1, 19

candidate subcarriers selected by
the subscriber”

“Calculation based on the Signalto-Interference-plus-Noise Ratios
of the cluster’s subcarriers”

5
6
7

“Index indication of a candidate cluster
with it(s) ((SINR) value)”

8

“Identifier (ID) of a chosen
candidate cluster of subcarriers
with its SINR value.”

‘748 Patent: Claims 6, 19

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

“Arbitrarily order[ed/ing]”

“Order[ed/ing] in a manner not
previously defined”

’748 Patent: Claims 6, 19
’212 Patent: Claims 13, 28

12
13
14
15
16
17

“A system employing orthogonal
frequency division multiple access
(OFDMA)”
’748 Patent: Claims 6, 8
’212 Patent: Claim 1

“OFDMA”: orthogonal frequency
division multiple access
All other terms: plain and ordinary
meaning

“Subcarrier allocation for OFDMA”

“OFDMA”: orthogonal frequency
division multiple access

’748 Patent: Claim 11

All other terms: plain and ordinary
meaning

21

“OFDMA subcarriers”

“OFDMA”: orthogonal frequency
division multiple access;

22

’748 Patent: Claims 11, 19, 21
’212 Patent: Claim 18

All other terms: plain and ordinary
meaning

“intra-cell traffic load balancing”

“balancing cluster usage within a
cell of a base station”

18
19
20

23
24
25
26

’748 Patent: Claim 11

27
28
3

Case No.: 13-1774, -1776, -1777, -1778, -1844, -2023
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

The parties should rest assured that the court arrived at these constructions with a full

1
2

appreciation of not only the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, but also the Federal Circuit's

3

teachings in Phillips v. AWH Corp. 1 and its progeny. So that the parties may pursue whatever

4

recourse they believe is necessary, a complete opinion will issue before entry of any judgment.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2013

7
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
4

Case No.: 13-1774, -1776, -1777, -1778, -1844, -2023
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER