Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05031/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05031-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

HONG KONG UCLOUDLINK 

NETWORK TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SIMO HOLDINGS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05031-EMC 

ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Docket Nos. 93, 102, 105

Plaintiffs (collectively, “UCL”) have sued Defendants (collectively, “SIMO”) for patent 

infringement. The only patent at issue is UCL’s ‘780 patent. The Court held a Markman hearing 

on March 10, 2020. This order memorializes the Court’s claim construction on the disputed 

terms.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The ‘780 patent is titled “Service sharing system and apparatus.” Context for the patent is 

provided in the section of the patent titled “Background of the Invention.”

At present, almost all the communication terminals, such as mobile 

phones, data cards, and hotspot devices, are capable of establishing 

connections with the corresponding service providers or networks 

using physical Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards inserted 

thereon. SIM is a unique authentication ID issued by a service 

provider for controlling access of a user equipment. The SIM 

enables the user equipment to enjoy data and voice services.

Typically, since the service provider is bound to the SIM in the 

device, one terminal may only use voice and data services provided 

by a service provider specified by the SIM. This brings many 

inconveniences to a subscriber. The subscriber cannot select 

services provided by an appropriate service provider according to 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 21
2

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

signal strength and location information. When the subscriber is 

roaming, the subscriber may only select services provided by a 

service provider signing a roaming service agreement with the 

original service provider, and needs to pay service fees much more 

than a local subscriber. In addition, the package balance of the 

subscriber cannot be shared or exchanged to another subscriber[,] 

but only wasted; and when the package broadband traffic is 

insufficient, temporary services are very inconvenient for the 

subscriber.

Due to restriction of the tariff and package of the service provider, 

on-demand use of bandwidth cannot be practically implemented, but 

the fees are paid based on traffic. It is difficult for the subscriber to 

dynamically acquire desired services, for example, increased 

bandwidth and short message services, according to actual 

requirements.

‘780 patent, col. 1, ll. 22-50.

The ‘780 patent is directed to the above problem. 

According to the embodiments of the present invention, a subscriber 

acquires appropriate subscriber identity information, for example, 

SIM data, according to actual requirements, and implements sharing 

of services corresponding to individual or group subscriber identity 

information, thereby acquiring an international, any-network, anyservice provider, any-technology and mode, or any service (data, 

voice, video, and the like) network access service.

‘780 patent, col. 2, ll. 54-61. 

A representative claim for the ‘780 patent is claim 1. Claim 1 states as follows (terms to 

be construed are in bold):

1. A subscriber identity module (SIM)-based service sharing 

system, comprising:

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to 

simulate a read-and-write process performed by a local user 

equipment of a SIM card providing service sharing to a 

physical SIM card, wherein at least one SIM card providing 

service is insertable in the at least one SIM card read-andwrite device;

a SIM scheduling management system configured to select 

appropriate SIM from the at least one SIM card inserted in the at 

least one SIM card read-and-write device according to the 

location of a user equipment and the type of a service requested 

by a subscriber, and assign the appropriate SIM to the 

subscriber; and

at least one multi-channel communication, configured to 

communicate with the SIM scheduling management system to 

acquire the appropriate SIM assigned by the SIM scheduling 

management system, and communicate with a service provider 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 21
3

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

system corresponding to the appropriate SIM assigned by the 

SIM scheduling management system to acquire the service 

requested by the subscriber;

wherein the appropriate SIM is a smart card having the SIM 

function or SIM data;

the SIM scheduling management system comprises:

a SIM database configured to store SIM data on the at least 

one SIM card of the at least one SIM card read-and-write 

device;

a subscriber access unit configured to receive a service request 

from the multi-channel communication device, return the SIM 

card parameter assigned to the subscriber to the multi-channel 

communication device, receive an authentication data packet of 

the SIM card parameter from the multi-channel communication 

device, and return a corresponding authentication result to the 

multi-channel communication device;

a SIM scheduling unit, configured to search, according to the 

service request received by the subscriber access management 

unit, in the SIM database data to select appropriate SIM, and 

return a corresponding SIM card parameter to the subscriber 

access management unit; and

a SIM card read-and-write management unit, configured to 

transfer the authentication data packet of the SIM card parameter 

received from the subscriber access management unit to the at 

least one SIM card read-and-write device, and return an 

authentication result calculated by the at least one SIM card 

read-and-write device to the subscriber access management unit.

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Claim construction is a question of law, although it may have factual underpinnings. See 

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy, 656 Fed. App'x 1008, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see 

also Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1357 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). It "serves to define the scope of the patented invention and the patentee's right to 

exclude." HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communs. Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 

see also O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 

(stating that “the purpose of claim construction is ‘to determin[e] the meaning and scope of the 

patent claims asserted to be infringed’”).

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 21
4

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

Words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary 

meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to a person of 

ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the 

time of the invention. "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of 

claim language . . . may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and 

claim construction in such cases involves little more than the 

application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly 

understood words." However, in many cases, the meaning of a 

claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is not readily 

apparent.

Id. (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of 

skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because 

patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to 

"those sources available to the public that show what a person of 

skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to 

mean." Those sources include "the words of the claims themselves, 

the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and 

extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the 

meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art."

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Although extrinsic evidence "can shed useful light on the relevant 

art, . . . it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning 

of claim language." Id. at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Terms at Issue

1. “wherein at least one SIM card providing service is insertable in the at least one 

SIM card read-and-write device” (claim 1)

UCL’s Proposed 

Construction

SIMO’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

wherein at least one SIM card 

read-and-write device is 

configured to receive at least 

one SIM card that provides 

service

wherein at least one SIM card 

that provides service is 

inserted in the at least one 

SIM card read-and-write 

device

wherein at least one SIM card 

providing service is capable 

of being inserted in the at 

least one SIM card read-andwrite device 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 21
5

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 dispute between the parties essentially concerns the term “insertable.” UCL argues 

that “insertable” means capable of being inserted whereas SIMO argues that “insertable” must 

mean actually inserted or the invention does not work, i.e., is not operable. UCL has the better 

argument.

First, as UCL points out, the specification for the ‘780 patent (intrinsic evidence) uses 

language stating that the SIM card “may” be inserted:

• “One or a plurality of SIM cards providing services may be inserted in each of the 

at least one SIM card read-and-write device.” ‘780 patent, col. 5, ll. 31-33 

(emphasis added).

• “In an embodiment of the present invention, during specific implementation, the 

management channel establishing unit 431 comprises at least one SIM card slot and 

a SIM card read-and-write chip connected to the at least one SIM card slot, wherein 

a SIM card of the subscriber may be inserted into the SIM card slot.” ‘780 patent, 

col. 9, ll. 36-41 (emphasis added).

Second, the dictionary definition (extrinsic evidence) for “-able” (the adjective suffix) is 

“capable of, fit for, or worthy of (being so acted upon or toward) – chiefly in adjectives derived 

from verbs.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-able (last visited March 10, 2020).

In response, SIMO contends that “Plaintiffs’ proposed ordinary meaning of ‘insertable’ as 

the ‘capacity of being inserted’ should be rejected because it makes inserting a SIM card optional 

and renders the entire claimed invention inoperable.” Resp. Br. at 4; see also AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. 

Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] construction that renders the 

claimed invention inoperable should be viewed with extreme skepticism.”). SIMO also points to 

language from the patent specification using the term “inserted” without qualifications:

• “The SIM scheduling management 41 selects appropriate SIM from SIM cards 

inserted in the SIM card read-and-write device 42 according to the location of a 

user equipment and the type of a serviced requested by a subscriber, and in 

consideration of a network environment of the subscriber and subscriber attributes; 

and assigns the selected SIM to the subscriber . . . .” ‘780 patent, col. 6, ll. 1-7 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 21
6

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

(emphasis added).

• “The SIM card read-and-write chip 421, under control of a SIM card management 

unit 423, implements read and write of a SIM card inserted in the SIM card slot 

422.” ‘780 patent, col. 7, ll. 38-40 (emphasis added).

• “[T]he subscriber is registered in the SIM scheduling management system as a user 

of the system, and one or a plurality of SIM cards are inserted sing the SIM card 

read-and-write device 42 (SIM box) used by the individual subscriber.” ‘780 

patent, col. 10, ll. 58-62 (emphasis added).

But SIMO’s argument is not persuasive because it fails to take into account UCL’s 

concession that, at some point in time, a SIM card is inserted in order for the invention to work; 

UCL’s point is simply that claim 1 is an apparatus claim, one that essentially describes the 

structure of the claimed invention. See Reply at 4 (“[C]laim 1 does not require that a SIM card be 

inserted at all times . . . ; it merely requires the various system components to be ‘configured to’ 

perform the actions at the appropriate time.”). The claim is not confined to an operative state.

Moreover, UCL’s position is supported by the language in claim 1 itself:

1. A subscriber identity module (SIM)-based service sharing system 

comprising:

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to simulate 

a read-and-write process performed by a local user equipment of a 

SIM card providing service sharing to a physical SIM card, wherein 

at least one SIM card providing service is insertable in the at least 

one SIM card read-and-write device;

a SIM scheduling management system configured to select 

appropriate SIM from the at least one SIM card inserted in the at 

least one SIM card read-and-write device according to the location 

of a user equipment and the type of a service requested by a 

subscriber, and assign the appropriate SIM to the subscriber . . . .

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). The above language makes clear that a SIM card does 

have to be “inserted” in order for the invention to work; however, in the first element above, UCL 

could have, but did not, use the term “inserted” but rather “insertable.” “[W]hen an applicant uses 

different terms in a claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms to 

reflect a differentiation in the meaning of those terms.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 6 of 21
7

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

Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford 

Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that “the use of [different] terms [here, 

‘surrender value protected investment credit’ and ‘stable value protected investment credit’] in 

close proximity in the same claim gives rise to an inference that a different meaning should be 

assigned to each” – although adding that the inference “is not conclusive”).

Accordingly, “insertable” does not mean actually inserted. That being said, the Court does 

not adopt the specific construction proposed by UCL. UCL suggests the following construction: 

“wherein at least one SIM card read-and-write device is configured to receive at least one SIM 

card that provides service.” But “insertable” is with reference to the SIM card whereas 

“configured to receive” is with reference to the SIM card read-and-write device. Therefore, the 

Court adopts following construction instead (which hews more closely to the claim language): 

“wherein at least one SIM card providing service is capable of being inserted in the at least one 

SIM card read-and-write device.”

2. “at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to simulate a read-andwrite process performed by a local user equipment of a SIM card providing service 

sharing to a physical SIM card” (claim 1)

UCL’s Proposed 

Construction

SIMO’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

no construction necessary; or 

[alternatively] at least one 

SIM card read-and-write 

device that is configured to 

simulate a read-and-write 

process to a physical SIM

card as would be performed 

by a local user equipment of a 

indefinite not indefinite

at least one SIM card readand-write device that is 

configured to simulate a readand-write process to a 

physical SIM card as would 

be performed by a local user 

equipment of a SIM card 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 7 of 21
8

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

SIM card providing service 

sharing

providing service sharing

The above phrase in dispute comes from the first element of claim 1 of the ‘780 patent:

1. A subscriber identity module (SIM)-based service sharing system 

comprising:

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to 

simulate a read-and-write process performed by a local user 

equipment of a SIM card providing service sharing to a physical 

SIM card, wherein at least one SIM card providing service is 

insertable in the at least one SIM card read-and-write device . . . .

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). SIMO contends that the above phrase is indefinite and 

therefore claim 1 should be deemed invalid.

SIMO has 

the burden of establishing indefiniteness by clear and convincing 

evidence. See TecSec v. Int'l Bus Machines Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 

1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Generally, "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." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 

2120, 2124 (2014); see also Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Mylan Inc., No. 

13-CV-04001-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159527, at *13-14 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2014) (noting that, prior to Nautilus, "the 

Federal Circuit applied an 'insolubly ambiguous' standard to 

indefiniteness questions" but "the Supreme Court rejected the 

insolubly ambiguous standard and replaced it with a 'reasonable 

certainty' standard").

Whether a claim is indefinite or definite is a question of law. See 

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1260 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014). But while "[i]ndefiniteness is . . . a legal determination

arising out of the court's performance of its duty construing the 

claims," "[l]ike enablement, definiteness, too, is amenable to 

resolution by the jury where the issues are factual in nature." BJ 

Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 338 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003).

Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. NHK Int'l Corp., No. 17-cv-01097-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16877, 

at *22-23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2018). 

In its papers, SIMO makes several arguments as to how different components of the phrase 

above are indefinite. Each of those arguments is addressed below. 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 8 of 21
9

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. What Provides the “service sharing”?

SIMO argues first that, with respect to the above phrase, it is not clear what exactly 

provides the “service sharing” – e.g., is it a SIM card, the SIM card read-and-write device, or a 

local user equipment? 

The Court rejects SIMO’s argument. Arguably, the above phrase could have benefited 

from the use of additional punctuation and is confusing if considered in isolation. However, when 

the specification of the patent is taken into consideration, the phrase is understandable. This is 

especially true give that “patents are ‘not addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally,’ 

but rather to those skilled in the art.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 909 

(2014).1 

The “Background of the Invention” provides important context. 

At present, almost all the communication terminals, such as mobile 

phones, data cards, and hotspot devices, are capable of establishing 

connections with the corresponding service providers or networks 

using physical Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards inserted 

thereon. SIM is a unique authentication ID issued by a service 

provider for controlling access of a user equipment. The SIM 

enables the user equipment to enjoy data and voice services.

Typically, since the service provider is bound to the SIM in the 

device, one terminal may only use voice and data services provided 

by a service provider specified by the SIM. This brings many 

inconveniences to a subscriber. The subscriber cannot select 

services provided by an appropriate service provider according to 

1

In Nautilus, 

[t]he parties differ[ed] . . . in their articulations of just how much 

imprecision §112, ¶ 2 tolerates. In [the alleged infringer] Nautilus’ 

view, a patent is invalid when a claim is ‘ambiguous, such that 

readers could reasonably interpret the claim’s scope differently.’ 

Biosig [the patent holder] and the Solicitor General would require 

only that the patent provide reasonable notice of the scope of the 

claimed invention.

Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 908. “Although the Supreme Court did not state its holding in these terms, 

its decision in Nautilus is closer to Biosig's position than to Nautilus' position” as “[t]he Court 

expressed primary concern with the public-notice function of a patent's claims, and never accepted

Nautilus' position that a claim subject to more than one reasonable interpretation must be 

indefinite.” In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 12-244, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100448, at 

*35 n.2 (W.D. Pa. July 23, 2014). A contrary interpretation would suggest claim constructions

could often be deemed indefinite. It is common for terms to be subject to more than one 

reasonable interpretation.

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 9 of 21
10

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

signal strength and location information. When the subscriber is 

roaming, the subscriber may only select services provided by a 

service provider signing a roaming service agreement with the 

original service provider, and needs to pay service fees much more 

than a local subscriber. In addition, the package balance of the 

subscriber cannot be shared or exchanged to another subscriber[,] 

but only wasted; and when the package broadband traffic is 

insufficient, temporary services are very inconvenient for the 

subscriber.

Due to restriction of the tariff and package of the service provider, 

on-demand use of bandwidth cannot be practically implemented, but 

the fees are paid based on traffic. It is difficult for the subscriber to 

dynamically acquire desired services, for example, increased 

bandwidth and short message services, according to actual 

requirements.

‘780 patent, col. 1, ll. 22-50.

As indicated by the above, the prior art involved use of a SIM card on local user equipment 

to get data and voice services. The invention improves on that prior art as follows:

• “One or a plurality of SIM cards providing services may be inserted in each of the 

at least one SIM card read-and-write device 42.” ‘780 patent, col. 5, ll. 31-33.

• “[T]he SIM card read-and-write device 42 may be subject to three types of different 

specifications and capacities in terms of hardware” – (1) “a SIM rack of a large 

group [which] supports read, write, and storage of several to tens of SIM cards,” (2) 

“a SIM array of a small group [which] supports read, write and storage of tends of 

SIM cards,” and (3) “a SIM box of an individual [which] supports read, write and 

storage of one or a plurality of SIM cards.” ‘780 patent, col. 5, ll. 34-53.

• “The SIM scheduling management 41 selects appropriate SIM from SIM cards 

inserted in the SIM card read-and-write device 42 according to the location of a 

user equipment and the type of service requested by a subscriber, and in 

consideration of a network environment of the subscriber and subscriber attributes; 

and assigns the selected SIM to the subscriber, thereby implementing an 

international, any-network (any-service provider), any technology and mode, anyservice network access service for the subscriber, and implementing sharing of the 

services corresponding to individual or a group SIM.” ‘780 patent, col. 6, ll. 1-11.

Or as UCL’s expert, Dr. Feuerstein, testifies: 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 10 of 21
11

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

Because the SIM card read-and-write device may be, for example, a 

SIM rack, SIM array, or SIM box, the physical SIM card need not 

actually be located on the local user equipment. Thus, the SIM card 

read-and-write device “simulates” the read-and-write processes to a 

physical SIM card located, for example, in the SIM rack, SIM array, 

or SIM box, as would be performed by a local user equipment of a 

SIM card providing service sharing.

Docket No. 79-1 (Feuerstein Decl. ¶ 59).2 

Thus, when SIMO asks what exactly provides the service sharing, the response is that 

“providing service sharing” – as used in the above phrase – modifies the noun “SIM card.” In 

other words, it is a SIM card that provides service sharing. This makes grammatical sense in that 

the noun closest to the modifier “providing service sharing” is “SIM card.” Thus, the above 

phrase could have been more clearly written as follows: “at least one SIM card read-and-write 

device, configured to simulate a read-and-write process (performed by a local user equipment of a 

SIM card providing service sharing) to a physical SIM card.” 

That being said, the Court notes that, even though “providing service sharing” modifies 

“SIM card,” the SIM card is associated with “local user equipment” and, in that respect, the “local 

user equipment” also provides service sharing. Moreover, the “SIM card read-and-write device” 

emulates the read-and-write process performed by the “local user equipment” and thus is also 

designed to provide service sharing.

b. What is the Meaning of “service sharing”

As noted above, the disputed phrase is as follows (in bold):

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to 

simulate a read-and-write process performed by a local user 

equipment of a SIM card providing service sharing to a physical 

SIM card, wherein at least one SIM card providing service is 

insertable in the at least one SIM card read-and-write device . . . .

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). According to SIMO, there is an indefiniteness problem 

with the above phrase because it is not clear what “service sharing” means above. SIMO contends 

2 Dr. Feuerstein opines as to how one skilled in the art would understand the above phrase. SIMO 

has offered no expert testimony to the contrary, simply relying – as it acknowledged at the hearing 

– on linguistics alone. While SIMO was not required to offer any expert testimony, patents are not 

(as noted above) “‘addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally,’ but rather to those 

skilled in the art.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 909.

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 11 of 21
12

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 “service sharing” could be interpreted either as:

(1) a noun – i.e., “providing service[-]sharing”; or

(2) a noun followed by a gerund – i.e., “providing service[,] sharing to a physical SIM 

card.”

See Resp. Br. at 10. SIMO defends the latter interpretation on the basis that the patent 

specification at times refers to a SIM card providing service only – and not service sharing. See, 

e.g., ‘780 patent, col. 5, ll. 31-33 (“One of a plurality of SIM cards providing services may be 

inserted in each of the at least one SIM card read-and-write device.”); ‘780 patent, col. 12, ll. 4-6 

(“The SIM scheduling management system returns SIM providing services of the service provider 

2 to the multi-channel communication device.”). SIMO notes that this is also consistent with 

claim 1 which refers (in the first element above) to the following: “wherein at least one SIM card 

providing service is insertable in the at least one SIM card read-and-write device.” ‘780 patent, 

claim 1.

SIMO’s interpretation is far fetched. Notably, nothing in the patent (including the 

specification) talks about “sharing to a physical SIM card,” which is what the SIMO’s 

interpretation requires. Furthermore, SIMO’s interpretation would be grammatically awkward –

i.e., “at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to simulate a read-and-write process 

performed by a local user equipment of a SIM card providing service[,] sharing to a physical SIM 

card.” Sharing what to a physical SIM card?

SIMO is correct that different words in the same claim are usually afforded different 

meanings (i.e., “service[-]sharing” and “service”). But SIMO ignores the fact that “service[-

]sharing” is a kind of service; furthermore, it is clear from the patent as a whole (including the

specification) that the service to be provided by the invention is service sharing specifically. See, 

e.g., ‘780 patent, col. 6, ll. 1-12 (“The SIM scheduling management 41 selects appropriate SIM 

from SIM cards inserted in the SIM card read-and-write device 42 according to the location of a 

user equipment and the type of service requested by a subscriber, and in consideration of a 

network environment of the subscriber and subscriber attributes; and assigns the selected SIM to 

the subscriber, thereby implementing an international, any-network (any-service provider), anyCase 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 12 of 21
13

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

technology and mode, implementing sharing of the services corresponding to individual or a group 

SIM.”). 

SIMO protests that the prosecution history (intrinsic evidence) supports its position. But 

the argument is not well taken. For example, it is true that the claim as originally drafted (thenknown as claim 12) did refer to “at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to 

simulate a read-and-write process performed by local user equipment of a SIM card providing 

service sharing a physical SIM card.” Docket No. 93-2, at 34 (prosecution history). That is, the 

claim as originally drafted referred to “a SIM card providing service sharing a physical SIM card,” 

and not “a SIM card providing service sharing to a physical SIM card” (as stated in current claim 

1). However, the omission of “to” appears to have been an administrative-type of mistake that 

UCL corrected or at least an error addressed after the patent examiner determined that the claim 

was “subject to restriction and/or election requirement.” Docket No. 93-2, at 121.

SIMO points out that, during the prosecution of the patent, UCL also made another change 

to the claim then-known as claim 12:

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to simulate 

a read-and-write process performed by a local user equipment of a 

SIM card providing service sharing to a physical SIM card, wherein 

at least one SIM card providing service sharing are is insertable in 

the at least one SIM card read-and-write device. 

Docket No. 93-2, at 162-63 (prosecution history) (strike out and emphasis in original). But this is 

not a clear disavowal of claim scope. See Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 

1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that a “disavowal need not be explicit” but it “must be clear and 

unequivocal”; “the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence 

that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature” – notably, 

“[a]mbiguous language cannot support disavowal”). “Service” does not necessarily exclude 

service sharing which can be a kind of “service.”

Accordingly, the Court rejects SIMO’s contention that there is indefiniteness based on a 

lack of clarity about what “service sharing” means.

c. What is the Meaning of “simulate”?

SIMO next contends indefiniteness based on the use of the term “simulate”:

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 13 of 21
14

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

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to simulate 

a read-and-write process performed by a local user equipment of a 

SIM card providing service sharing to a physical SIM card, wherein 

at least one SIM card providing service is insertable in the at least 

one SIM card read-and-write device . . . .

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). According to SIMO, “simulate” must be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning as the term is not defined in the specification, and UCL is construing 

“simulate” to mean the “complete opposite.” Resp. Br. at 13. SIMO maintains that “something 

simulated is a representation of an action but not the real action,” and, “[b]ecause ‘simulate’ 

means to imitate but not do the same thing as, the claim language ‘simulate a read and write 

process’ is indefinite. It is not clear what kind of read-and-write process would be imitated, but 

not actually performed . . . .” Resp. Br. at 15 (emphasis added).

SIMO’s argument is not persuasive. There is no real dispute between the parties that 

“simulate” means something along the lines of “imitate.” See Resp. Br. at 15 (SIMO’s position) 

(stating that “‘simulate’ means to imitate”); Docket No. 79-1 (UCL’s position) (Feuerstein Decl. ¶

60) (testifying that “a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] at the time of the invention 

would understand to ‘simulate’ means to imitate or emulate the way in which another system or 

process works”). SIMO assumes, however, that something is not “imitated” when the same result 

is achieved. But the invention at issue has clearly been designed to achieve the same result as the 

prior art (i.e., service sharing); it is simply the way of accomplishing the result that makes the 

invention different. This is consistent with the claim language, namely, that a “process” is being 

simulated or imitated, not the end result. 

d. Interpreting “to” to mean “of”

SIMO’s next argument is not entirely clear but appears to be related to its argument in Part 

II.C.1, supra. Below is the phrase at issue from claim 1: 

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to simulate 

a read-and-write process performed by a local user equipment of a 

SIM card providing service sharing to a physical SIM card, 

wherein at least one SIM card providing service is insertable in the 

at least one SIM card read-and-write device . . . .

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). According to SIMO, UCL takes the position that the SIM 

card read-and-write device is “configured to simulate a read-and-write process” “to a physical 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 14 of 21
15

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

SIM card” (i.e., the language bolded above) – reading out entirely the nonbolded language in 

between. See Resp. Br. at 17 (arguing that UCL lacks support for moving ‘to a physical SIM card’ 

from the end of the phrase to directly after ‘configured to simulate a read-and-write process”). 

SIMO also argues that this interpretation cannot be accepted because the specification of the 

patent talks about reading and writing of a SIM card, not to. See, e.g., ‘780 patent, col. 7, ll. 38-40 

(“The SIM card read-and-write chip 421, under control of a SIM card management unit 423, 

implements read and write of a SIM card inserted in the SIM card slot 422.”) (emphasis added); 

‘780 patent, col. 6, ll. 17-19 (“In the embodiments of the present invention, the multi-channel 

communication device 43 may support read and write of one or a plurality of physical SIM cards”) 

(emphasis added).

As indicated above, see Part II.C.1, the Court agrees with UCL that the SIM card read-andwrite device is configured to simulate a read-and-write process (performed by a local user 

equipment) to a physical SIM card. Furthermore, the excerpts above from the patent specification 

– referring to reading and writing of a SIM card – ultimately supports UCL’s interpretation that 

the nonbolded language between “configured to simulate a read-and-write process” and “to a 

physical SIM card” should effectively be put in a parenthetical (i.e., so as to modify “read-andwrite process”). Finally, the Court is not troubled by the fact that the claim uses “to” while the 

patent specification uses “of.” The claim uses the word “to” because it is talking about a “readand-write process.” In contrast, the patent specification simply references reading and writing, 

and not a process specifically.

e. “to a physical SIM card”

Finally, SIMO argues that “to a physical SIM card” lacks any written description3: “[T]he 

specification lacks any support for read-and-write process being performed ‘to a physical SIM 

card.’ Plaintiffs completely ignore this point, and seek to resolve this discrepancy by redefining 

‘to’ as ‘of.’” Resp. Br. at 18. This argument is simply a variant of the one directly above, and 

therefore is rejected. As indicated above, SIMO argues that the specification of the patent refers to

3 Clearly, this is not an indefiniteness argument.

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 15 of 21
16

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

reading and writing of a SIM card, not to. But the claim may use the term “to” because it is 

talking about a read-and-write process.

f. Summary

For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find indefiniteness and adopts UCL’s 

construction, and not SIMO’s.

3. “a SIM database configured to store SIM data on the at least one SIM card of the at 

least one SIM card read-and-write device” (claim 1)

UCL’s Proposed 

Construction

SIMO’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

a SIM database configured to 

store SIM data of the at least 

one SIM card stored in the at 

least one SIM card read-andwrite device

a SIM database configured to 

store SIM data on the at least 

one SIM card of the at least 

one SIM card read-and-write 

device

a SIM database configured to 

store SIM data of the at least 

one SIM card stored in the at 

least one SIM card read-andwrite device

The parties’ dispute concerning the above phrase is about the word “on.” SIMO argues 

that “on” must be interpreted to mean a physical location – i.e., a SIM database is configured to 

store SIM data physically on the SIM card. UCL argues in response that “on” is a word that can 

mean “of” or “about” – e.g., a book “on” minerals is a book “about” minerals. See Docket No. 79-

1, at 21 (definition of “on” provided in Merriam Webster) (providing as the twelfth definition (out 

of twelve): “ABOUT, CONCERNING <a book ~ minerals>”).

The Court agrees with UCL that “on,” as used in the above phrase, does not implicate 

physical location. Most tellingly, the patent specification contains the following language: “The 

SIM database 411 stores SIM data of the SIM card inserted on the SIM card read-and-write device 

. . . .” ‘780 patent, col. 8, ll. 5-6. In addition, other parts of the patent specification indicate that 

SIM data would not be pinned to a physical location on the SIM card. See, e.g., ‘780 patent, col. 

8, ll. 13-17 (stating that “the SIM data stored in the SIM database 411 comprises various 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 16 of 21
17

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

communication modes in different regions and of different service providers”) (emphasis added). 

Finally, it would make little sense for “on” to mean a physical limitation when that would mean 

embodiments disclosed in the patent specification would be excluded from claim 1. See Resp. Br. 

at 22 (SIMO not disputing that its construction “would exclude the preferred embodiments”). As 

UCL points out, the Federal Circuit has stated that “[a] claim construction that excludes a 

preferred embodiment is ‘rarely, if ever, correct.’ A construction that excludes all disclosed 

embodiments . . . is especially disfavored.” Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., 790 

F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original). SIMO, in response, cites Lucent 

Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit 

stated: “[W]here we conclude that the claim language is unambiguous, we have construed the 

claims to exclude all disclosed embodiments.” Id. at 1215-16. But, in the instant case, there is 

ambiguity, if only by virtue of the language in the patent specification using the word “of.” See 

‘780 patent, col. 8, ll. 5-6 (“The SIM database 411 stores SIM data of the SIM card inserted on the 

SIM card read-and-write device . . . .”) (emphasis added).

SIMO protests still that it was the use of the word “on” – i.e., the limitation it placed – that 

prompted the patent examiner to give approval to the invention over the prior art. See Resp. Br. at 

19 (arguing that, “in the notice of allowance, the examiner repeated and emphasized the ‘on’ 

limitation in his reasons for allowing the patent over the prior art”). But contrary to what SIMO 

suggests, the notice of allowance does not specifically call out the word “on”. Moreover, nothing 

in the notice of allowance indicates an understanding of “on” to implicate physical location. 

Accordingly, the Court adopts UCL’s proposed construction over SIMO’s.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 17 of 21
18

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

4. “SIM function”

UCL’s Proposed 

Construction

SIMO’s Proposed

Construction

Court’s Construction

no construction necessary; or

[alternatively] functions of a 

SIM

indefinite not indefinite;

the function of a SIM, i.e., a 

means by which a service 

provider authenticates a 

subscriber, thus enabling the 

subscriber to use her user 

equipment to enjoy services 

provided by the service 

provider

Below is the broader context for the term “the SIM function”:

1. A subscriber identity module (SIM)-based service sharing system, 

comprising:

at least one SIM card read-and-write device, configured to 

simulate a read-and-write process performed by a local user 

equipment of a SIM card providing service sharing to a physical 

SIM card, wherein at least one SIM card providing service is 

insertable in the at least one SIM card read-and-write device;

a SIM scheduling management system configured to select 

appropriate SIM from the at least one SIM card inserted in the at 

least one SIM card read-and-write device according to the 

location of a user equipment and the type of a service requested 

by a subscriber, and assign the appropriate SIM to the 

subscriber; and

at least one multi-channel communication, configured to 

communicate with the SIM scheduling management system to 

acquire the appropriate SIM assigned by the SIM scheduling 

management system, and communicate with a service provider 

system corresponding to the appropriate SIM assigned by the 

SIM scheduling management system to acquire the service 

requested by the subscriber;

wherein the appropriate SIM is a smart card having the SIM 

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 18 of 21
19

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

function or SIM data;

. . . .

‘780 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). According to SIMO, “the SIM function” is indefinite 

because it lacks an antecedent basis in claim 1 (i.e., “a SIM function”), and nothing in the patent, 

including the specification, sets “the outer boundaries of ‘the SIM function.’” Resp. Br. at 24. In 

short, what SIMO means here is that there are many functions of a SIM and, without further 

clarity as to which function is implicated, there is an indefiniteness problem.

The lack of an antecedent basis for “the SIM function” is not dispositive. As the Federal 

Circuit has noted: “The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (‘MPEP’) states: ‘the failure to 

provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope 

of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not 

indefinite.’” Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001).4 For example, in In 

re Downing, 754 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit did not find the absence of an 

antecedent basis for “the end user” a problem because it was, in essence, obvious what was meant 

by the term:

In this case, the "business information relevant to the end user" 

limitation introduces the term "the end user" without an antecedent 

basis. However, claim 1 only references one "end user." While the 

specification discloses many different end users, claim 1's recitation 

of one end user could only refer to the end user using the product. 

Who else could the end user be?

Id. at 996.

4

In Bose itself, the Federal Circuit effectively found an antecedent basis for a term – “an ellipse 

having a major diameter” – by implication. See Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., 154 

F. App'x 903, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim is not invalid for indefiniteness if its antecedent 

basis is present by implication.”). It explained:

[M]athematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major 

diameter. The prior recitation of "an ellipse" therefore, provides the 

antecedent basis for "an ellipse having a major diameter." "Inherent 

components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the 

recitation of the components themselves." MPEP § 2173.05(e). The 

MPEP provides an analogous example: "the limitation 'the outer 

surface of said sphere' would not require an antecedent recitation 

that the sphere have an outer surface."

Bose, 274 F.3d at 1359.

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 19 of 21
20

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 instant case is not quite like Downing in that claim 1 of the ‘780 patent does not, in 

and of itself, make obvious what is meant by “the SIM function.” On the other hand, the patent 

specification does shed light on what “the SIM function” means. There are at least two places in 

the specification that talk about what function a SIM provides:

• “SIM is a unique authentication ID issued by a service provider for controlling 

access of a user equipment. The SIM enables the user equipment to enjoy data and 

voice services.” ‘780 patent, col. 1, ll. 26-29.

• “In the embodiments of the present invention, the subscriber identity information is 

used for a service provider to authenticate a subscriber, wherein the subscriber 

identity information comprises SIM data of a subscriber serviced by a mobile 

service provider, [etc].” ‘780 patent, col. 3, ll. 55-59.

Admittedly, the patent specification does not expressly define “the SIM function” as a means by 

which a service provider authenticates a subscriber, thus enabling the subscriber to use her user 

equipment to get services provided by the service provider. However, implicitly, that is how the 

functioning of a SIM is described. And because that is how the functioning of a SIM is described, 

the fact that a SIM could provide other additional functions does not render the term indefinite in 

this context. (In its papers, SIMO did not identify other such functions; however, it identified at 

least one other function at the claim construction hearing.).

Accordingly, the Court rejects SIMO’s contention that “the SIM function” is indefinite. 

That being said, the construction that UCL provides is also problematic – e.g., referring to 

“functions” (plural) rather than “function” (singular) and failing to provide any specificity on what 

the function actually is. The Court adopts the following construction instead: “the function of a 

SIM, i.e., a means by which a service provider authenticates a subscriber, thus enabling the

subscriber to use her user equipment to enjoy services provided by the service provider.”

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 20 of 21
21

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the above claim constructions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05031-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 21 of 21