Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 403

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying (340) in case 5:13-cv-01777-PSG; denying (307) in case 5:13-cv-01778-PSG; denying (315) in case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG; denying (291) in case 5:13-cv-01844-PSG; denying (316) in case 5:13-cv-02023-PSG (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10

ADAPTIX, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC., et al.,

(Re: Docket No. 315)

14
Defendants.

15
16

ADAPTIX, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-01777-PSG

17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

(Re: Docket No. 340)
Defendants.

21
ADAPTIX, INC.,

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

23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
(Re: Docket No. 307)

26
27

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

APPLE, INC., et al.,

20

22

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

Defendants.
1
Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

1

ADAPTIX, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-01844-PSG

2
3
4
5

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff,
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS, et al.,

6

(Re: Docket No. 291)

Defendants.

7
8

ADAPTIX, INC.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11

Case No. 5:13-cv-02023-PSG

APPLE, INC., et al.,
(Re: Docket No. 316)

12

Defendants.

13
14

Each of of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,212 and U.S. Patent No. 6,947,748

15

requires “selecting a set of candidate subcarriers.” Claiming no such selecting step can be found in

16

the lone accused mode of any accused product, Defendants Apple Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC,

17

Verizon Wireless and HTC Corporation move for summary judgment of non-infringement.

18

Because there is a genuine dispute as to whether the transmission of CQI reports on all subcarriers

19

each time the base station requests information meets this key limitation, the court DENIES

20

Defendants’ motion.

21

I.

22

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), the “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant

23

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

24

judgment as a matter of law.” 1 At the summary judgment stage, the court “does not assess

25

credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a genuine factual issue

26
27

1

28

2
Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

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

1

for trial.” 2 Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. 3 A dispute as to a

2

material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for

3

the nonmoving party. 4

4

“To establish infringement of a patent, every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in

5

an accused product or process . . . . Thus, [an] accused infringer [] is entitled to summary

6

judgment, on the ground of non-infringement, by pointing out that the patentee failed to put forth

7

evidence to support a finding that a limitation of the asserted claim was met.” 5

8

The ’212 patent describes a method and apparatus for, among other things,“select[ing] a set

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

of candidate subcarriers” for use in wireless communication. Subcarriers are narrow frequency

10

bands over which wireless devices transmit data, as, for example, between a smartphone handset

11

and the nearest base station for its cellular network. The patent refers to wireless handsets as

12

“subscriber units” or simply “subscribers,” reflecting that the users of these handsets have

13

subscribed the devices to membership in the cellular network.

14

In a cellular network of the ’212 patent, the base station allocates subcarriers among the

15

various subscriber units in a way that facilitates data transmission. In particular, the ’212 patent

16

describes that a subscriber unit gives the base station feedback as to which subcarriers that

17

subscriber unit is receiving particularly well, and the base station then uses that feedback—together

18

with other information—to allocate particular subcarriers to that subscriber unit. The patent further

19

describes that the subscriber unit—after receiving that allocation of subcarriers—submits updated

20

feedback to the base station and then receives an updated allocation of subcarriers from the base

21

station.

22
23

2

24

3

25

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559-60 (2006).

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”).

26

4

See id.

27

5

Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).

28

3
Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

1

In this court’s claim construction order issued in late 2013, the court construed “select[ing]

2

a set of candidate subcarriers” to mean “choosing” a set of candidate subcarriers. 6 Defendants

3

identify the “case dispositive issue” presented by their motion as “whether the accused subscriber

4

unit performs any action that qualifies as ‘choosing’ a set of candidate subcarriers.” 7

5

II.

6

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The parties further

7

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

III.

10

At issue is whether, construing all inferences in Adaptix’s favor, a reasonable jury could

11

find that that the accused products “choose” anything. Whatever its own views on the subject, the

12

court finds that a reasonable jury could make such a finding, rendering summary judgment

13

unwarranted.

14

First, it is undisputed that all of the accused products in question operate in what the 3GPP

15

standard refers to as “CQI Reporting Mode 3.” 8 It also is undisputed that when an accused product

16

operates in Mode 3, it provides feedback to the base stations on all subcarriers each time the base

17

station requests something called a channel quality indicator report. 9 Based on the reported CQI,

18

the subscriber receives an updated allocation of subcarriers from the base station through which to

19

transmit. 10

20

Second, the jury could accept the testimony of Adaptix expert Michael Caloyannides that

21

Mode 3 practices the disputed limitation. Dr. Calyonnides explains that the measuring step is the

22
23

6

See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 158 at 2.

24

7

Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 314-5 at 9.

25

8

See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 314-5 at 5-7.

26

9

See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 314-5 at 8.

27

10

28

4
Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

See id. at 5.

1

first step performed by each accused product, separate from the other two steps. 11 From this

2

measurement, the product can select a set of candidate subcarriers by assembling a 3-0 or 3-1

3

report with the wideband CQI and differential CQI. 12 The device then provides feedback by

4

sending the relevant report to the base station. 13 Thus, the record provides evidence of the accused

5

functionality performing both the “measuring” and “selecting” steps with distinct processes.

6

Third, Verizon’s expert also testified that subcarriers are chosen in Mode 3 when the

7

differential CQI is reported for each subcarrier in a subband:

8

Q. Okay. And so a CQI – a differential CQI is reported back is for each
subband. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And each subband, as you said, is comprised of multiple subcarriers?
A. Yes.
Q. And so the differential CQI for that subband is an indication of the
channel quality for those subcarriers that the phone chooses to report back to
the base station?
A. Yes. There a collective – collectively for those subcarriers.
Q. Right. 14

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

In addition to their own evidence to the contrary, Defendants argue that the asserted method
is inherently devoid of choice because the Mode 3 standard dictates that the CQI for all subcarriers

16

be reported. 15 While Defendants make a clever argument, that argument cannot be squared with

17

one of the embodiments of the patent that specifically envisions feedback on all subcarriers. 16 In

18

particular, the specification teaches that “[i]n one embodiment, each subscriber measures the SINR

19

of each subcarrier cluster and reports these SINR measurements to their base station through an

20

access channel.” 17 The specification goes on to state “[t]he number of clusters selected may

21

11

Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 339-1 at ¶ 24.

22

12

Id. at ¶ 25.

23

13

Id. at ¶ 26.

14
15

Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 339-6 at 78:18-79:5.
See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 314-5 at 11; Docket No. 339 at 4.

24
25
26
27
28

16

See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 1-2 at col. 3, ll. 7-12 (“The feedback may comprise channel
and interference information . . . on all subcarriers or just a portion of subcarriers.”).
17

Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 339-3 at col. 5, ll. 53-55.
5
Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT