Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 11/06/2014. (nkl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:13-cv-259-JRG-RSP
Case No. 2:13-cv-258-JRG-RSP
Case No. 2:12-cv-832-JRG-RSP
Before the Court is Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement of the ‘403 and ‘210 Patents (Dkt. 245, the “Motion”).
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Any evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v.
S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). Summary judgment is proper when there is no
genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “By its very
terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the
parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine [dispute] of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 24748. The substantive law identifies the material facts, and disputes over facts that are irrelevant or
unnecessary will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 248. A dispute about a
material fact is “genuine” when the evidence is “such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The moving party must identify the basis for granting
summary judgment and evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
The parties’ briefing centers on the ‘403 and ‘210 patents’ limitations that require
transmitters operating in “simulcast.” At the claim construction hearing, the Court construed
“transmit … in simulcast” to mean “transmitting the same information at the same time.” Both
parties in this case agreed to that construction.
Apple disagrees with MTEL’s contention that space-time block coding (“STBC”) and
spatial expansion (“SE”) techniques each meet this limitation.
Apple’s argument as to SE is that because “cyclic shifts” are introduced into transmission
streams, the same information is not transmitted at the same time. (Mot. at 5.) Apple
acknowledges that these “cyclic shifts” are a matter of nanoseconds. (Id.) In even the most
advanced of technology, there are often delays that are imperceptible to the end user but
necessary for computing systems to function properly. Even without the “cyclic shifts” proposed
by Apple, it is entirely likely that if you drill down far enough (to the femtosecond, for example)
that most real world computing systems – even the ones initially embodied in the patent
specifications at issue here – are incapable of transmitting information in a perfectly
The question of whether Apple’s particular implementation of SE
introduces enough delay that it fails to infringe the claims as construed is a question of fact for
With regard to STBC, Apple relies on Dr. Vojcic’s report and testimony, contending that
Dr. Vojcic conceded that the antennas in question are transmitting different information at the
same time. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Vojcic did not so neatly concede this point: in response to
Apple’s questioning, he testified that “on each subcarrier, [the] same modulation symbol would
be transmitted on all two or three antennas at the same time.” (Resp. at 9.) Apple alleges that
MTEL is asking the Court to revisit its construction, and Apple asks the Court to refuse to do so.
After a careful review of the record, however, the Court does not find that MTEL is requesting
this Court to deviate from its construction. Rather, MTEL’s argument is quite plain: STBC
infringes because it transmits a “block of information” using multiple transmitters at the same
time. The Court does not believe that this position is inconsistent with its claim construction
ruling – which Apple has repeatedly affirmed is correct and should not be revisited. A jury may
find that Apple’s use of STBC does not infringe the claims as construed by the Court, and it
appears from the partial record before the Court that such a finding might be reasonable. But the
Court is not convinced that when viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, as it is required to do in the context of a motion for summary judgment, there is no
genuine dispute whether Apple’s use of STBC is encompassed by the claims.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement of the ‘403 and ‘210 Patents (Dkt. 245) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 6th day of November, 2014.
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?