Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

(Re: Docket No. 193)

Plaintiff Core Wireless Licensing, S.a.r.l. alleges that Defendant Apple Inc. infringes U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,477,151, 6,633,536 and 7,782,818. On April 18, 2016, the parties appeared for a 

hearing to resolve a total of ten claim construction disputes.1 The court issued a summary 

construction order later that day and explained that it would later issue a more complete order 

setting out the court’s full reasoning and analysis.

2

 The court now does just that.

I.

All three of the patents at issue relate to wireless communication systems and cellular 

networks. Each was filed in the late 1990s or early 2000s and initially assigned to Nokia 

Corporation or a related entity.3 Before transferring the patents in suit, along with several 

thousand others, to Core Wireless, Nokia designated all of them essential to implementing a 

variety of wireless communication standards.

4

 

1

See Docket No. 206.

2

See Docket No. 207.

3

See Docket No. 202-1 at 1; Docket No. 202-3 at 1; Docket No. 202-6 at 1.

4

See Docket No. 109 at ¶¶ 15-19.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 29
2

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The ’151 patent was filed on November 10, 1998 and issued on November 5, 2002.5 It 

discloses “[a] method of synchronising radio signal transmission slots at a mobile station to radio 

signal reception slots at a base station subsystem to account for a propagation delay between the 

mobile station and the base station subsystem.”6 Cellular telephone networks contain fixed base 

station subsystems and portable mobile stations—i.e., cell phones or other mobile devices.

7

 

Because base station subsystems can only receive data from one mobile station at a time on a 

particular frequency band, base station subsystems in modern cellular networks dynamically 

allocate time slots for each mobile station based on the latter’s data transmission needs.8

To account for propagation delay—the time it takes for transmissions to reach the base 

station subsystem from the mobile station—the mobile station transmits data to the base station 

subsystem some amount of time before the time slot allocated to the mobile station, so that the 

data transmission arrives at the base station subsystem at the correct time.9 That amount of time, 

which is recalculated regularly to compensate for the mobile station’s movement, is called a 

timing advance value, or TAV,

10 as depicted in Figure 3 of the ’151 patent:

 

5

See Docket No. 202-1 at 1. The patent was assigned to Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd. See id.

6

Id.

7

See id. at fig. 2.

8

See id. at col. 1 ll. 26-37. For example, in the GPRS protocol, “a given frequency band is 

divided in the time domain into multi-frames, each multi-frame consisting in turn of 52 TDMA 

(Time Division Multiple Access) frames,” where each frame is 4.615 milliseconds long and is 

itself “divided into eight consecutive slots of equal duration.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 42-47.

9

See id. at col. 2 ll. 21-28.

10 See id. at col. 2 ll. 21-31.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 29
3

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

To establish a TAV, each mobile station periodically sends a “timing access burst” to the 

base station subsystem.11 The base station subsystem then calculates a TAV for each channel 

allocated to the mobile station and transmits updated TAVs periodically to all mobile stations,

12

as 

depicted in Figure 4 of the ’151 patent:

A TAV is required not only for uplink channels—meaning data transmission channels for 

sending information from the mobile station to the base station subsystem—but also for downlink 

channels, because even on downlink channels “certain signalling data (e.g. acknowledgements) is 

going in the reverse direction (i.e. the uplink direction).”13 The ’151 patent teaches sharing the 

same TAV between both the uplink and downlink channels.14 By decreasing the number of data 

slots that must be devoted to transmitting timing advance information, the invention increases the 

 

11 Id. at col. 2 ll. 39-45.

12 See id. at col. 2 ll. 45-48; id. at col. 2 l.66-col. 3 l.50.

13 Id. at col. 2 ll. 32-38.

14 See id. at col. 3 ll. 64-66.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 29
4

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

number of mobile stations that can use the same time slot for transmitting that information.15 

Accordingly, Claims 13 and 14 of the ’151 patent read:

13. A mobile station for use in a radio telephone network, the radio telephone network 

comprising a base station subsystem and a plurality of mobile stations for 

communicating with the base station subsystem and in which radio signal transmission 

slots at a mobile station are synchronised to radio signal reception slots at the base 

station subsystem to account for a propagation delay between the mobile station and 

the base station subsystem, the reception slots corresponding to uplink and/or downlink 

user data packet switched transmission channels allocated dynamically by the base

station subsystem, the mobile station being configured to receive:

a single timing advance index allocated to the mobile station at the base station 

subsystem, which index identifies one idle frame in a multiframe structure in 

which the mobile station should transmit a timing access burst to the base 

station subsystem and one or more further idle frames in the multiframe 

structure in which the mobile station should receive an updated timing advance 

value;

the one or more further idle frames in the multiframe structure identified by the 

timing advance index;

an idle frame slot number, which is allocated to the mobile station at the base 

station subsystem, identifying the time slot in the idle frames when the timing 

access burst and the timing advance values should be transmitted;

the updated timing advance value in the further one or more idle frames, and the 

mobile station further being configured to transmit; and

data using the timing advance index and the idle frame slot number to determine 

timing advance values for all user data channels allocated to the mobile station.

14. A mobile station for use in a radio telephone network, the radio telephone network 

comprising a base station subsystem and a plurality of mobile stations for 

communicating with the base station subsystem and in which radio signal transmission 

slots at a mobile station are synchronised to radio signal reception slots at the base 

station subsystem to account for a propagation delay between the mobile station and 

the base station subsystem, the reception slots corresponding to uplink and/or downlink 

user data packet switched transmission channels allocated dynamically by the base 

station subsystem, the mobile station being configured to:

receive a timing advance value once, from the base station subsystem to the mobile 

station, and to;

advance transmission slots at the mobile station for both the uplink and downlink 

channels using the received timing advance value so that transmitted data is 

received at the base station subsystem in the allocated base station subsystem 

reception slots.16

 

15 See id. at col. 3 ll. 59-67.

16 Id. at col. 10 ll. 9-61.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 29
5

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The ’536 patent was filed on September 16, 1997 and issued on October 14, 2003.

17

 It 

discloses “[a] method and a transmitter . . . and a receiver . . . for transmitting messages . . . in a 

digital telecommunications system.”18 Transmissions between mobile stations and base station 

subsystems in a cellular network fall into two categories: (1) “speech,” a broad term of art 

including not just human speech but also all other user data, such as messaging, multimedia, email 

and data from the Internet; and (2) signaling data, meaning messages that control how the system 

operates.19 Ordinarily, user data and signaling data use entirely different transmission channels.20 

However, cellular networks may evolve to require more or different signaling messages than the 

signaling channel can accommodate.21

The ’536 patent addresses this problem by sending signaling messages through the speech 

channel using a technique called frame stealing. Cellular networks use various algorithms to

detect or correct the errors inevitably introduced by over-the-air transmission.22 For example, the 

GSM protocol uses a cyclic redundancy check by which the receiver can verify that a particular 

frame of data was transmitted correctly.23 Frame stealing involves intentionally marking certain 

speech transmission frames as “bad” and storing signaling data in those frames instead of 

speech.

24

 Ideally, the signaling messages will require so few stolen speech frames that the user 

will perceive little or no interruption in speech.25 This also preserves backwards compatibility: old 

 

17 See Docket No. 202-3 at 1. The patent was assigned to Nokia Telecommunications Oy. See id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at col. 1 ll. 9-22.

20 See id. at col. 2 ll. 33-49.

21 See id. at col. 4 ll. 32-57. 

22 See id. at col. 3 ll. 11-51; id. at col. 6 ll. 45-61.

23 See id. at col. 6 ll. 61-63.

24 Id. at col. 6 l.64-col. 7 l.3.

25 See id. at col. 7 ll. 3-29.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 5 of 29
6

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

devices that do not implement the invention simply ignore the signaling messages.26

Claim 1 of the ’536 patent reads:

1. A method for transmitting messages and user information in a digital 

telecommunications system, the method comprising:

sending the user information via a transmission channel in transmission frames 

assigned to the user information, wherein each transmission frame has one of 

two states, the states being a good state and a bad state;

for each different message, defining a corresponding unique bit pattern;

[] for each individual message, placing the corresponding bit pattern into a 

transmission frame;

transmitting each message by marking as the message at least one transmission 

frame which is assigned to the user information; and

restricting the number of consecutive frames marked as messages to a sufficiently 

low number so as not to substantially impair the quality of the user information, 

wherein the marking substantially consists of inserting a bit pattern 

corresponding to the message into the at least one transmission frame and 

setting the state of the transmission frame to bad.27

The ’818 patent was filed on January 19, 2001 and issued on August 24, 2010.28 It 

discloses a system and method for connecting a mobile phone to a cellular communication 

network.29 The coverage area of a cellular network is typically divided into areas—called “routing 

areas” in GPRS networks and “location areas” in GSM and UMTS networks—which are 

themselves divided into cells.30 Typically, each area is assigned a single serving node—called a 

“Serving GPRS Support Node” or SGSN in a GPRS network, for example—and all 

communications from or to mobile phones in a particular area go through the corresponding

serving node.31 This dependency has a negative effect on the fault tolerance of the network: if the 

 

26 See id. at col. 7 ll. 44-53; id. at col. 11 ll. 33-49.

27 Id. at col. 12 ll. 11-30.

28 See Docket No. 202-6 at 1. The patent was assigned to Nokia Corporation. See id.

29 See id.

30 Id. at col. 1 ll. 36-56. 

31 Id. at col. 1 ll. 19-33, 49-56.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 6 of 29
7

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

serving node breaks down or requires maintenance, the associated area is completely shut down.32 

The solution is to allow multiple serving nodes to serve the same area.33

The ’818 patent teaches a number of techniques for selecting a particular serving node 

among all of the serving nodes available for an area. For example, when connecting to the cellular 

network in an area, a cell phone may select a serving node, also called a “core network (CN) 

node,” using a “core network (CN) identifier”; if the cell phone does not choose a specific service 

node, the routing equipment may select a default serving node for the cell phone.34 In one

possible mechanism for choosing a serving node, the cell phone sends a request for a serving node 

to a radio network controller (RNC), which then contacts a DNS (Domain Name System) server to 

obtain a list of serving nodes available for a given area.35 This flow is depicted in Figure 3 of the 

’818 patent:

 

32 See id. at col. 1 ll. 57-63.

33 See id. at col. 1 l.64-col. 2 l.23.

34 Id. at col. 6 ll. 12-61.

35 See id. at col. 7 ll. 39-50, 57-67; id. at col. 10 l.60-col. 12 l.46.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 7 of 29
8

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Claim 41 of the ’818 patent reads:

41. A method, comprising:

storing an operator identifier and/or a core network element identifier;

inserting the core network element identifier to a connection initiating message for 

establishing a connection; and

sending said connection initiating message comprising the core network element 

identifier to a radio network controller, the radio network controller configured 

to select a core network element from a sub-list of core network elements 

selected from core network elements stored on a list to connect to a user 

equipment, the core network elements in the sub-list serving a particular routing 

area where the user equipment is currently located, the core network elements 

in the sub-list selected based on one or more of: an area identifier associated 

with the particular routing area where the user equipment is located and the 

core network element identifier;

wherein the core network elements stored on the list serve a plurality of different 

routing areas, wherein each of the core network elements stored on the list 

serves one of the plurality of different routing areas.36

Following the Markman hearing held in this case, the court construed the disputed claim 

terms as follows:37

PATENT NO. CLAIM TERM/PHRASE CONSTRUCTION

’151 “the radio telephone network comprising a base 

station subsystem and a plurality of mobile 

stations for communicating with the base station 

subsystem and in which radio signal 

transmission slots at a mobile station are 

synchronised to radio signal reception slots at 

the base station subsystem to account for a 

propagation delay between the mobile station 

and the base station subsystem, the reception 

slots corresponding to uplink and/or downlink 

user data packet switched transmission channels 

allocated dynamically by the base station 

subsystem”

This portion of the claim is limiting. The 

phrase “base station subsystem” throughout the 

claims should be construed as “radio access 

network, which is a system of base station 

equipment (transceivers, controllers, etc.) 

which is responsible for communicating with 

mobile stations in a certain area.”

’151 “receive a timing advance value once” “receive a timing advance value one time for a 

multiframe structure”

’151 “data” plain and ordinary meaning

’151 “for both the uplink and downlink channels” “for transmissions in the uplink direction on 

both the uplink and downlink channels”

’536 “good state” “state flagging that the frame contains errorfree user information”

 

36 Id. at col. 26 l.50-col. 27 l.4.

37 See Docket No. 207.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 8 of 29
9

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

’536 “bad state” “state flagging that the frame does not contain 

error-free user information”

’536 “bit pattern” “sequence of bits conveying a signaling 

message not delineated by a code word”

’536 “substantially impair the quality of the user 

information”

indefinite

’818 “routing area” “area where a mobile station is registered in the 

serving node and where eventually the serving 

node pages the mobile station to establish 

downlink connection”

’818 “an inserter configured to insert the core 

network identifier to an connection initiating 

message for establish an connection [sic]”

indefinite

II.

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

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).38

Ten years after the Federal Circuit’s seminal Phillips decision,39 the canons of claim 

construction are now well-known—if not perfectly understood—by both parties and courts. “To 

construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the meaning of any disputed words from the 

perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing.”40 This requires a 

careful review of the intrinsic record comprised of the claim terms, written description and 

prosecution history of the patent.41

While claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” the claims 

themselves and the context in which the terms appear “provide substantial guidance as to the 

 

38 See Docket Nos. 158, 161.

39 See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

40 Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

41 See id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312) (“To construe a claim term, the trial court must 

determine the meaning of any disputed words from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the 

pertinent art at the time of filing. Intrinsic evidence, that is the claims, written description, and the 

prosecution history of the patent, is a more reliable guide to the meaning of a claim term than are 

extrinsic sources like technical dictionaries, treatises, and expert testimony.”).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 9 of 29
10

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

meaning of particular claim terms.” Indeed, a patent’s specification “is always highly relevant to 

the claim construction analysis.”42 Claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which 

they are part.”43 Although the patent’s prosecution history “lacks the clarity of the specification 

and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes,” it “can often inform the meaning of the 

claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the 

inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than 

it would otherwise be.”44 The court also has the discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, 

including dictionaries, learned treatises and testimony from experts and inventors.45 Such 

evidence, however, is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally 

operative meaning of claim language.”46

A patent applicant must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter 

which the applicant regards as his invention.”47 “[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its 

claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to 

inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”48 The 

 

42 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-15.

43 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Ultimax 

Cement Mfg. Corp v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F. 3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

44 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotations omitted).

45 See id. (“Although we have emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim 

construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists 

of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor 

testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’”) (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980).

46 Id. (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) 

(internal quotations and additional citations omitted).

47 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The asserted patents were filed before the effective date of the Leahy Smith 

America Invents Act (“AIA”), which applies to patent applications filed on or after September 16, 

2012. Therefore, all citations to § 112 refer to the pre-AIA statute, which contains paragraph 

numbers rather than lettered subsections.

48 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 10 of 29
11

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

definiteness standard requires “clear notice of what is claimed, thereby appris[ing] the public of 

what is still open to them.”49 Therefore, “a patent does not satisfy the definiteness requirement of 

§ 112 merely because ‘a court can ascribe some meaning to a patent’s claims.’”50 “The claims, 

when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective 

boundaries for those of skill in the art.”51

The court has construed some claims as “means-plus-function” claims, meaning that they 

are “drafted in a manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6.”52 That provision permits a 

patentee to express a claim limitation “as a means or step for performing a specified function 

without the recital of structure . . . in support thereof,” but it restricts such claims to cover only 

“the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”53 A 

claim’s “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies.”54 When a claim 

does not use the word, the opposite presumption applies.55 The latter presumption can be 

overcome, however, by a showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand 

the words of the claim to “have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”56

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. “First, the court 

must determine the claimed function. Second, the court must identify the corresponding structure 

 

49 Id. at 2129. 

50 Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Nautilus,

134 S. Ct. at 2130). 

51 Id.

52 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).

53 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

54 Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349.

55 See id. at 1348.

56 Id. at 1349.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 11 of 29
12

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in the written description of the patent that performs the function.”57 “Means-plus-function claim 

limitations under § 112 ¶ 6 must satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112 ¶ 2.”58 If the court 

cannot “identify any ‘corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification,’ the 

claim term is indefinite.”59 “Even if the specification discloses a ‘corresponding structure,’ the 

disclosure must be adequate; the patent’s specification must provide ‘an adequate disclosure 

showing what is meant by that [claim] language.’”60

III.

The parties request construction of a total of four claim terms as to the ’151 patent. The 

court construes these terms as follows:

 

57 Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Applied Med. Res. 

Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

58 EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing 

S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

59 Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(quoting Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).

60 Noah Sys., 675 F.3d at 1311-12 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 

1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 12 of 29
13

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A. Issue #1: “radio telephone network”

CLAIM TERM #1

“the radio telephone network comprising a base station subsystem and a plurality of mobile 

stations for communicating with the base station subsystem and in which radio signal transmission 

slots at a mobile station are synchronised to radio signal reception slots at the base station 

subsystem to account for a propagation delay between the mobile station and the base station 

subsystem, the reception slots corresponding to uplink and/or downlink user data packet switched 

transmission channels allocated dynamically by the base station subsystem”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

This portion of the claim is not limiting. The 

phrase “base station subsystem” throughout the 

claims should be construed as “radio access 

network, which is a system of base station 

equipment (transceivers, controllers, etc.) which 

is responsible for communicating with mobile 

stations in a certain area”; otherwise, the term 

has its plain and ordinary meaning.

This portion of the claim is limiting. The 

phrase “base station subsystem” should have its 

plain and ordinary meaning.

CONSTRUCTION

This portion of the claim is limiting. The phrase “base station subsystem” throughout the claims 

should be construed as “radio access network, which is a system of base station equipment 

(transceivers, controllers, etc.) which is responsible for communicating with mobile stations in a 

certain area.”

This term appears in claims 13 and 14 of the ’151 patent. In both claims, the term 

precedes the phrase “the mobile station being configured to:” and a semicolon-separated list of 

claim limitations.61 Core Wireless contends that the claim term does not limit the scope of the 

claims because it is part of the preamble to the claims and simply describes the intended use for 

the claimed invention.

Ordinarily, “the word ‘comprising’ is an open transition phrase” from the preamble to the 

body of the claim.62 True, the portion preceding the colon—which includes the claim term at 

issue—simply describes the prior art; the claims focus on the configuration of the mobile station. 

 

61 Docket No. 202-1 at col. 10 ll. 9-61.

62 Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., N.V., 365 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

(quoting AFG Indus. Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also 

Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“A drafter 

uses the term ‘comprising’ to mean ‘I claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 13 of 29
14

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

But that purported preamble does far more than merely “state a purpose or intended use for the 

invention.”63 Instead, it provides essential context for the claims, including the synchronization 

mechanism the system uses to account for propagation delay. Additionally, “limitations in the 

body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble,” so the preamble is “a 

necessary component of the claimed invention.”

64

 The claim term does limit the invention.

Because the claim term is limiting, the jury will need to understand the term “base station 

subsystem,” but the phrase does not explain itself. In fact, Core Wireless points out that the 

phrase is a term of art specific to GPRS, but the ’151 patent is not restricted to that protocol, and 

Core Wireless alleges infringement by devices implementing the LTE protocol.65 Core Wireless’ 

proposed construction of the phrase comports with the specification and provides helpful context 

for the remainder of the claim. The court therefore adopts that construction.

The portions of claims 13 and 14 following the word “comprising” are limiting. The court 

construes “base station subsystem” throughout the claims as “radio access network, which is a 

system of base station equipment (transceivers, controllers, etc.) which is responsible for 

communicating with mobile stations in a certain area.”

 

63 Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Rowe 

v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

64 Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting NTP, 

Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

65 See Docket No. 212 at 39:4-40:2.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 14 of 29
15

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Issue #2: “receive a timing advance value once”

CLAIM TERM #2

“receive a timing advance value once”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

“receive a timing advance value that is shared 

by both uplink and downlink channels in the 

uplink direction”

“receive one timing advance value for all uplink 

and downlink channels allocated to the mobile 

station per each multiframe structure”

CONSTRUCTION

“receive a timing advance value one time for a multiframe structure”

This term appears in claim 14 of the ’151 patent, which describes a system that uses timing 

advance values to ensure that transmissions from a mobile station reach a base station subsystem 

in designated time slots. The claim teaches a mobile station configured to “receive a timing 

advance value once, from the base station subsystem to the mobile station” and “advance 

transmission slots at the mobile station for both the uplink and downlink channels using the 

received timing advance value.”66 In this way, both “the uplink and downlink channels of a 

mobile station . . . will share the same timing advance value.”67

For the term “receive a timing advance value once,” both parties propose constructions that 

refer to how the claimed invention shares that TAV between the uplink and downlink channels. 

However, much of the remainder of the claim already describes how the mobile station will use 

the TAV: to “advance transmission slots at the mobile station for both the uplink and downlink 

channels using the received timing advance value.”68 In construing the term at issue, the use of 

the received TAV is beside the point.

The other point of disagreement between the parties is whether to construe the claim to 

require that the TAV be received once per multiframe structure. Both sides agree that the TAV 

 

66 Docket No. 202-1 at col. 10 ll. 54-59.

67 Id. at col. 3 ll. 63-66.

68 Id. at col. 10 ll. 56-59.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 15 of 29
16

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

must be updated regularly,

69 but the word “once” in the claim is not enough to convey this. The 

abstract of the patent describes calculating and transmitting updated TAVs “once every 8 

multiframes,”70 as does the specification itself.71 In the absence of any other meaningful standard 

for how often the TAV should be updated, the court opts for Apple’s proposal.

The court construes “receive a timing advance value once” as “receive a timing advance 

value one time for a multiframe structure.”

C. Issue #3: “data”

CLAIM TERM #3

“data”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

“user or signaling data” plain and ordinary meaning

CONSTRUCTION

plain and ordinary meaning

This term appears in claims 13 and 14 of the ’151 patent. Both of these claims teach that 

TAVs are used for “user data” channels.72 In addition, claim 13 discloses a mobile station 

“configured to receive . . . data . . . to determine timing advance values for all user data channels 

allocated to the mobile station,”73 and claim 14 describes the mobile station using the TAV when 

“transmitt[ing] data” on “both the uplink and downlink channels.”74 Core Wireless seeks to 

 

69 See id. at col. 2 ll. 29-31 (“[I]t is necessary to recalculate the propagation delay at regular 

intervals and to provide the updated values to the MS.”).

70 Id. at 1.

71 See id. at col. 3 ll. 30-31 (“[A] TAV for a given channel is updated only once every eight 

multiframes . . . .”); id. at col. 3 ll. 45-55 (describing sending TAVs every eight multiframes).

72 Id. at col. 10 ll. 17, 41, 50.

73 Id. at col. 10 ll. 19-20, 39-41.

74 Id. at col. 10 ll. 55-61.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 16 of 29
17

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

clarify that, at least where the word “data” is used in isolation, it can mean both user and signaling 

data. As Core Wireless notes, the specification states that mobile stations use TAVs when 

transmitting both user data and signaling data on user data channels.

75

Because the plain meaning of the term “data” incorporates user and signaling data, 

construing the term is not necessary. That said, Apple is not correct in its contention that the term 

“data” in these claims refers exclusively to user data.76 Both claims mention a user data channel, 

but those channels necessarily carry signaling data as well.77 Where the term “data” is used 

without a modifier in these claims, it does not just mean “user data.”

The court construes “data” according to its plain and ordinary meaning.

D. Issue #4: “for both the uplink and downlink channels”

CLAIM TERM #4

“for both the uplink and downlink channels”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

“for both the uplink channels and for signaling 

data (e.g., acknowledgements) in the uplink 

direction for the downlink channels”

plain and ordinary meaning

CONSTRUCTION

“for transmissions in the uplink direction on both the uplink and downlink channels”

This term also appears only in claim 14 of the ’151 patent, which teaches a mobile station 

that uses the same TAV for both uplink and downlink channels. Core Wireless urges the court to 

construe this term to state explicitly that the TAV is used only for uplink communications on the 

downlink channel. Apple argues that doing so would effectively read “downlink channel” out of 

the claim because that phrase represents—both in the prior art and in the ’151 specification—a 

 

75 See id. at col. 2 ll. 32-38.

76 See Docket No. 212 at 77:4-79:3.

77 See Docket No. 202-1 at col. 2 ll. 32-38; col. 10 ll. 17-19, 49-52.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 17 of 29
18

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

channel for “user data transmission from the [base station subsystem] to the [mobile station].”78

Core Wireless makes the more persuasive case. As the Eastern District of Texas found in 

construing the same claim:

In context of the specification, it is clear that reference to downlink 

channels includes the corresponding uplink transmissions of the 

downlink channel. “Both the uplink and downlink channels will 

share the same timing advance value for transmissions in the uplink 

direction.” ’151 Patent at 3:64-66. Further, “a TAV is also required 

when a downlink channel is established as, even though user data is 

coming from the BSS to the MS, certain signalling data (e.g., 

acknowledgements) is going in the reverse direction (i.e., the uplink 

direction).” Id. at 2:34-38. In this context, the patent also states: 

“[t]here is no need to repeat the transmission of timing advance 

information for all channels, as the same timing advance value can 

be used for all uplink transmissions (associated with both uplink and 

downlink channels).” Id. at 7:7-10. Defendants have pointed to no 

uses of a TAV for the downlink transmissions of a downlink 

channel. In contrast, as noted above, the specification repeatedly 

teaches the use of a TAV for the uplink transmission of a downlink

channel.79

Apple admits that the specification discloses using the TAV for uplink communications 

over the downlink channel. Nonetheless, Apple contends that the court should not read the claim 

term to cover only those communications, since the claim itself is not drawn so narrowly. In 

essence, Core Wireless believes that the claim requires only that the mobile station use the TAV 

for uplink communications over the downlink channel, while Apple suggests that the mobile 

station may or must use the TAV for the downlink channel in some other way. Apple may be 

right that its plain meaning construction would not exclude the embodiments disclosed in the 

specification. But the court’s duty at this stage is “to resolve a dispute about claim scope that has 

been raised by the parties,” and it cannot “le[ave] this question of claim scope unanswered” by 

declining to construe the claim.80 The specification supports Core Wireless’ view.

 

78 Id. at col. 6 ll. 50-51.

79 Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case Nos. 14-cv-00911, 14-cv-00912, 2015 

WL 6746910, at *20 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2015).

80 Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 

2008)). 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 18 of 29
19

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The court construes “for both the uplink and downlink channels” as “for transmissions in 

the uplink direction on both the uplink and downlink channels.”81

IV.

The parties request construction of a total of four claim terms as to the ’536 patent. The 

court construes these terms as follows:

A. Issue #1: “good state” / “bad state”

CLAIM TERM #5

“good state”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

“a state of a frame from which the receiver can 

conclude that the frame should be treated as a 

normal good speech frame”

“a frame state indicating that the frame was 

transmitted error-free over an air interface”

CONSTRUCTION

“state flagging that the frame contains error-free user information”

CLAIM TERM #6

“bad state”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

“a state of a frame from which the receiver can 

conclude that the frame should not be treated as 

a normal good speech frame”

“a frame state characterized by a flag indicating 

that the frame was not transmitted error-free 

over an air interface”

CONSTRUCTION

“state flagging that the frame does not contain error-free user information”

These terms appear in all asserted claims of the ’536 patent. As above, the invention of the 

’536 patent uses a technique called frame stealing to send signaling messages in transmission 

frames intended for “speech,” meaning in this context any user data. The patent takes advantage 

 

81 The court has modified Core Wireless’ construction to clarify that the specification teaches 

using the TAV only for uplink communications over both channels. See Docket No. 202-1 at col. 

3 ll. 64-66; id. at col. 7 ll. 7-10.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 19 of 29
20

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of the fact that wireless protocols define mechanisms for the receiver of a speech transmission 

frame to detect whether over-the-air transmission introduced an error in the frame.82 The ’536 

patent teaches intentionally marking speech transmission frames as “bad,” in whatever way the 

underlying wireless protocol defines, and storing signaling messages in those frames instead.83 

The patent is not restricted to a particular protocol.84 It generically defines “[a] ‘bad’ frame within 

the context of the present application [as] a frame wherefrom the receiver can conclude that the 

frame should not be treated as a normal good frame,”

85 and the specification does not explicitly 

define a “good frame.”

Core Wireless proposes that the court should adopt this construction, with the addition of 

the word “speech” to clarify that the claim refers to “good” and “bad” “speech frames,” defined in 

the specification as “a frame that is used in the system concerned to transmit information, such as 

speech, music or other sound, a video signal, or multimedia.”86 For its part, Apple points to the 

prosecution history. To overcome an indefiniteness rejection, the applicant argued that “a bad 

frame is a well-known term of art meaning a flag that indicates whether or not a frame was 

transmitted error-free over an air interface.”87

Neither party’s proposal is of much help. Core Wireless’ suggestion is circular. Claim 9, 

for example, describes a method for receiving messages,88 but Core Wireless would have a term in 

that claim defined only in terms of what “the receiver can conclude.” Also, as Apple notes, this 

 

82 See Docket No. 202-3 at col. 3 l.33-col. 4 l.10; id. at col. 6 ll. 45-63.

83 See id. at col. 6 l.64-col. 7 l.3.

84 See id. at col. 11 l.65-col. 12 l.9.

85 Id. at col. 6 ll. 58-61.

86 Id. at col. 6 ll. 54-58.

87 Docket No. 202-4 at 6.

88 See Docket No. 202-3 at col. 12 ll. 50-64.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 20 of 29
21

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

construction makes no reference to the inventor’s stated intent of relying on the preexisting 

concept of a “bad frame.”

89

Apple’s preferred construction, meanwhile, is confusing and unnecessarily limiting. The 

’536 patent teaches storing signaling messages in “bad” frames, so a construction that mentions

whether the “frame was transmitted error-free over an air interface” might lead the jury astray. 

Moreover, Apple’s construction restricts the claims to wireless protocols that use a simple “flag” 

for marking whether the frame was transmitted error-free—unlike the exemplary GSM-based 

embodiment in the specification, which uses a more complex cyclic redundancy check.90 Apple 

cites the Federal Circuit’s guidance that “the prosecution history . . . limits the interpretation of 

claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during 

prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”91 But the statement in the prosecution history did 

not seek to narrow a claim; it simply explained that the concept of a “bad” frame was well known 

in the prior art, while citing a GSM textbook as an example.

92

The court therefore chooses a third option. The specification uses the terms “good” and 

“bad” to refer to those concepts in the context of the underlying wireless protocol.93 A “bad” 

frame, therefore, is one that does not contain error-free user information, regardless of whether 

over-the-air transmission introduced an error or the sender stole the frame to send a signaling 

message instead. And it is something about the frame itself—a flag, a CRC or perhaps something 

else entirely, depending on the wireless protocol at issue—that indicates whether a frame is 

“good” or “bad” in this sense.

 

89 See id. at col. 6 ll. 31-37; id. at col. 7 ll. 41-57; id. at col. 11 ll. 32-64.

90 See id. at col. 8 l.39-col. 9 l.23.

91 Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

92 See Docket No. 202-4 at 6.

93 See Docket No. 202-3 at col. 6 ll. 58-61; id. at col. 8 ll. 57-60; id. at col. 9 l.66-col. 10 l.5.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 21 of 29
22

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The court construes “good state” as “state flagging that the frame contains error-free user 

information.” The court construes “bad state” as “state flagging that the frame does not contain

error-free user information.”

B. Issue #2: “bit pattern”

CLAIM TERM #7

“bit pattern”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

plain and ordinary meaning “a sequence of bits conveying a signalling 

message; not a code word that delineates the 

message”

CONSTRUCTION

“sequence of bits conveying a signaling message not delineated by a code word”

This term appears in all asserted claims of the ’536 patent. The specification describes at 

length exactly how signaling messages are stored in the stolen speech transmission frames. Each 

possible signaling message has a corresponding pattern of bits.94 Even if only a small number of 

signaling messages are possible—for example, only 20—the bit patterns should be much longer 

than necessary—for example, 100 bits—for two reasons.95 First, this makes it “impossible in 

practice for a speech encoder . . . to produce one of the 20 selected message code words of e.g. 

100 bits by chance,” so that, when a receiver detects a bit pattern corresponding to a signaling 

message, it can know for certain that the transmitter intended to send a signaling message.96 

Second, this allows for some error correction in signaling message transmission—even if a 

message code word contains a few errors, the receiver still can correctly interpret the message so 

long as it does not deviate from the predefined code word by too much.97

 

94 See id. at col. 10 ll. 21-23.

95 See id. at col. 10 ll. 25-30.

96 Id. at col. 10 ll. 30-40.

97 See id. at col. 10 l.55-col. 11 l.20.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 22 of 29
23

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

As the prosecution history shows, this mechanism for transmitting signaling messages 

differed from a prior art reference in which “the beginning and end of a message are explicitly 

indicated by separate code words.”98 In the ’536 patent, by contrast, “no separate code words are 

needed, and message detection is based only on individual messages.”99 Apple observes that 

“explicit statements made by a patent applicant during prosecution to distinguish a claimed 

invention over prior art may serve to narrow the scope of a claim.”100 Even if the plain and 

ordinary meaning of the term “bit pattern” might incorporate the use of code words to set off the 

start and end of a message, the prosecution history bars any such interpretation of the claim.

The court construes “bit pattern” as “sequence of bits conveying a signaling message not 

delineated by a code word.”

C. Issue #3: “substantially impair the quality of the user information”

CLAIM TERM #14

“substantially impair the quality of the user information”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

plain and ordinary meaning indefinite

CONSTRUCTION

indefinite

This term appears in claims 1 and 17 of the ’536 patent. The claims specify that, when 

transmitting signaling messages, the sender must “restrict[] the number of consecutive [stolen] 

frames . . . to a sufficiently low number so as not to substantially impair the quality of the user 

information.”101

 

98 Docket No. 202-4 at 8 (emphasis omitted).

99 Id.

100 Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

101 Docket No. 202-3 at col. 12 ll. 24-25; id. at col. 13 ll. 37-40.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 23 of 29
24

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Apple argues that the claim is indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art could 

not ascertain with reasonable certainty how many consecutive stolen frames would be a 

“sufficiently low number,” or how many frames could be stolen before the process would 

“substantially impair” the quality of the user data transmission. These terms of degree may be 

definite if they “provide[] enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the 

invention.”102 However, “[t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution 

history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.”103

At least on one point, the specification seems clear: stealing a single frame would fall 

within the claimed invention.104 But the edges of the claim are murkier. The specification says 

that the method “does not normally impair the quality of the reception at all” and that “[t]he effect 

on speech quality is practically non-existent.”105 However, it also says that even “[c]hange of one 

speech frame may cause a perceptible snap in the speech”106 and that sending messages “will 

deteriorate the quality of speech to some extent.”107 And on the specific question of if and when 

the claims permit stealing two consecutive speech frames, the ’536 patent is essentially silent. In 

short, the claims leave a “zone of uncertainty”—which Nautilus bars.108

The court finds that the term “substantially impair the quality of the user information” is 

indefinite.

 

102 Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370 (citing Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 

U.S. 45, 65-66 (1923)).

103 Id. at 1371 (citing Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2130 & n.8).

104 See Docket No. 202-3 at col. 6 ll. 47-54; id. at col. 7 ll. 7-12.

105 Id. at col. 7 ll. 12-14, 28-29.

106 Id. at col. 6 ll. 47-48.

107 Id. at col. 11 ll. 44-49.

108 134 S. Ct. at 2129 (quoting United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 

(1942)).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 24 of 29
25

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

V.

The parties request construction of two claim terms as to the ’818 patent. The court 

construes these terms as follows:

A. Issue #1: “routing area”

CLAIM TERM #9

“routing area”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

“the area where a mobile station is registered in 

the serving node and where eventually the 

serving node pages the mobile station to 

establish downlink connection”

plain and ordinary meaning

CONSTRUCTION

“area where a mobile station is registered in the serving node and where eventually the serving 

node pages the mobile station to establish downlink connection”

This term appears in claims 30 and 41 of the ’818 patent, which are, respectively, a related 

apparatus and method claim. As above, the ’818 patent teaches a mechanism by which multiple 

serving nodes, or core network elements, can serve a single area. These claims in particular 

disclose a cell phone—or, in the parlance of the claims, “user equipment”—sending a “connection 

initiating message comprising [a] core network element identifier to a radio network controller.”

109

 

The radio network controller then can select a core network element for the cell phone based on 

“an area identifier associated with the particular routing area where the user equipment is located 

and the core network element identifier.”110

The parties dispute the interpretation of the term “routing area” in these claims. The 

background section of the specification says the following about the term:

Routing Area (RA) is a standard term used in conjunction with 

GPRS, while GSM and UMTS Circuit Switched systems use the 

term Location Area (LA). In both case [sic], the area is referring to 

the area where a mobile station is registered in the serving node (e.g. 

 

109 Docket No. 202-6 at col. 25 ll. 20-22, 25-27; id. at col. 26 ll. 56-58, 61-63.

110 Id. at col. 25 ll. 28-32; id. at col. 26 ll. 63-67.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 25 of 29
26

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SGSN or MSC/VLR), and where eventually the serving node pages 

the mobile station to establish downlink connection.111

Core Wireless therefore proposes that the court construe “routing area” according to the language 

in the background, minus the parenthetical phrase with examples of what serving nodes were 

called in the then-prevalent wireless protocols.

Apple, however, argues that the definition in the specification is not the patentee’s 

lexicography because the specification defines the broader term “area,” not “routing area.”112 The 

specification acknowledges that the term “routing area” is a “standard term” used consistent with 

the plain meaning in the GPRS standard.113 The GPRS standard, in turn, defines the term as “an 

area in which a mobile station, in certain operation modes, may move freely without updating the 

SGSN. A routing area may include one or several cells. A RA is always contained within a 

location area.”114 As a result, Apple seeks a plain and ordinary meaning construction—which, 

presumably, it would use to argue that a GPRS routing area is required for infringement.

On balance, Core Wireless has the better argument. The specification consistently uses the 

term “routing area” interchangeably with “area” and “location area.”115 More importantly, 

although the claims themselves only use the term “routing area,” the specification clearly indicates 

 

111 Id. at col 1 ll. 40-46.

112 See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting 

that, absent “sufficient clarity to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the inventor 

intended to redefine the claim term,” “claim terms should be construed consistently with their 

ordinary and customary meanings, as determined by those of ordinary skill in the art”).

113 Docket No. 202-6 at col 1 ll. 40-41.

114 Docket No. 202-8 at § 3.12; see also Docket No. 202-9 at § 3.9 (“The Routing Area (RA) is 

defined as an area in which a mobile station, in certain operation modes, may move freely without 

updating the SGSN. A routing area includes one or several GERAN/UTRAN cells. A RA is 

always contained within a location area.”).

115 See, e.g., Docket No. 202-6 at col. 1 ll. 57-63 (discussing “GSM and UMTS” but using the 

term “routing area”); id. at col. 4 ll. 46-47 (referring to an “RAI,” or routing area identifier, in the 

context of “GSM and UMTS”); id. at col. 12 ll. 58-61 (using “location area” in the context of a 

GPRS embodiment).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 26 of 29
27

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that the claimed invention is not restricted to GPRS networks.116 Despite the ambiguous language 

in the background section, as a whole the specification would “put one reasonably skilled in the art 

on notice” of the inventor’s intent to define “routing area” more broadly than its use in the GPRS 

context.117 Core Wireless’ definition comports with the specification and would help the jury.

The court construes “routing area” as “area where a mobile station is registered in the 

serving node and where eventually the serving node pages the mobile station to establish downlink 

connection.”

B. Issue #2: “inserter configured to insert the core network identifier”

CLAIM TERM #13

“an inserter configured to insert the core network identifier to an connection initiating message for 

establish an connection [sic]”

Core Wireless’ Preferred Construction Apple’s Preferred Construction

Not governed by § 112 ¶ 6. In the alternative:

Function: “insert the core network identifier to 

a connection initiating message for establish 

[sic] a connection”

Structure: the structure described in cols. 3:54-

59 and 4:37-41, and statutory equivalents 

thereof

indefinite

CONSTRUCTION

indefinite

This term appears in claim 30 of the ’818 patent, which essentially describes an apparatus 

that performs the method disclosed in claim 41. The apparatus of claim 31 comprises “an inserter 

configured to insert the core network identifier to an connection initiating message for establish an 

connection [sic]” as well as “a transmitter configured to send said connection initiating message 

. . . to a radio network controller.”118

 

116 See id. at col. 2 ll. 27-48; col. 22 ll. 34-36.

117 Merck, 395 F.3d at 1370.

118 Docket No. 202-6 at col. 25 ll. 14, 17-22.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 27 of 29
28

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The first question with respect to this claim is whether it is a means-plus-function claim at 

all. Core Wireless argues, with the support of an expert declaration,119 that a POSITA would 

understand the term “inserter” to mean something specific, just like the words “detent mechanism” 

in Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.120 Core Wireless’ expert points to programming 

language constructs named “inserters” and a part of the 3GPP specification that discusses 

inserting.121 But, unlike a detent mechanism, the word “inserter” only evokes the function of 

inserting. In fact, Core Wireless’ sole suggestion for commonly understood structure for the term 

relates to classes in the C++ programming language that do nothing more than insert software 

objects into others.

122

 In the field of wireless communication technology, the term “inserter” has 

no “reasonably well understood meaning in the art.”

123

Because Apple does not dispute that the claim teaches a function, the only remaining issue 

is whether the specification adequately discloses a “corresponding structure” for the claim.124 

Core Wireless cites language in the specification teaching that “the user equipment may then add 

an identifier information such as CN identifier to a message.”125 According to Core Wireless and 

its expert, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ‘user equipment’ here 

refers to a terminal device used in cellular communication, such as a cell phone or other mobile 

stations” and that these devices necessarily contain “a specific programmable processor called a 

baseband processor or baseband chip.”126

 

119 See Docket No. 203-6 at ¶¶ 10, 25-31.

120 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

121 See Docket No. 203-6 at ¶¶ 29-32; id., Exs. B, C, D. 

122 See id., Exs. B, C.

123 Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583.

124 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

125 Docket No. 202-6 at col. 4 ll. 37-39.

126 Docket No. 203-6 at ¶ 35.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 28 of 29
29

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This is unconvincing. First of all, claim 30 itself refers to “user equipment,” so the term 

“inserter” in the same claim cannot just mean the same thing.127 A more plausible reading of the 

claim is that the user equipment is the entire claimed apparatus, not just the inserter. And Core 

Wireless’ argument that the specification inherently discloses a baseband processor is beside the 

point. “Having failed to provide any disclosure of the structure for the . . . function, [Core 

Wireless] cannot rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to fill in the gaps.”128

In any case, even if the specification did disclose a processor, the Federal Circuit requires 

means-plus-function claims implemented by a special purpose computer to disclose an algorithm 

for performing the function.129 “[T]he algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in 

prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.”130 Although 

the specification discloses “add[ing] an identifier information . . . to a message,”131 Core Wireless 

points to nothing in the specification that teaches precisely how the inserter does so. That 

disclosure does not provide sufficient structure.

The court finds that the term “an inserter configured to insert the core network identifier to 

an connection initiating message for establish an connection” is indefinite.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

127 Docket No. 202-6 at col. 25 ll. 26-28.

128 Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

129 See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352.

130 Id. (citing Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

131 Docket No. 202-6 at col. 4 ll. 37-41; see also id. at col. 3 ll. 54-59 (“[T]he identifier such as CN 

(Core Network) Identifier may be added to a message, e.g. RRC (Radio Resource Control) 

message . . . .”).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 222 Filed 06/03/16 Page 29 of 29