Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01784/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01784-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1783-CAB-BLM

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 68]

BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1784-CAB-BLM

[Doc. No. 65]

BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1786-CAB-BLM

[Doc. Nos. 86, 93]

On June 19-20, 2019, the Court held a hearing to construe certain disputed terms and 

phrases of the patents at issue in this lawsuit. Having considered the submissions of the 

parties, the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth at the hearing and herein, 

the Court enters the claim constructions listed below.

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 20
2

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

I. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,319,889 and 8,204,5541

The ‘889 patent and the ‘554 patent (a continuation of the ‘889 patent) are for a

System and Method for Conserving Battery Power in a Mobile Station. The patent

addresses the need in the art as of 2003, for “a way to prolong the lifetime of a mobile 

station [cordless phone or cell phone] without having to use a battery with an increased 

capacity.” [Doc. No. 1-2, at Col. 1:21-26, 35-37.] The system and method accomplish this 

by reducing the power consumption of the display of an activated mobile station when the 

display is not needed, particularly during a telephone call thereby saving needless power 

consumption. [Id., at Col. 1:47-51.]

The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘889 patent

and the ‘554 patent.

Claim 1 [of ‘889 patent]. A mobile station, comprising:

A display;

A proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of proximity of an

external object; and

A microprocessor adapted to:

(a) Determine whether a telephone call is active;

(b)Receive the signal from the proximity sensor; and

(c) Reduce power to the display if (i) the microprocessor determines that a telephone 

call is active and (ii) the signal indicates the proximity of the external object; 

wherein

The telephone call is a wireless telephone call;

The microprocessor reduces power to the display while the signal indicates the 

proximity of the external object only if the microprocessor determines that the 

wireless telephone call is active; and

The proximity sensor begins detecting whether an external object is proximate 

substantially concurrently with the mobile station initiating an outgoing 

wireless telephone call or receiving an incoming wireless telephone call.

[Id., at Col. 4:2-25.]

 

1 These patents are filed in case 18cv1783 at Doc. Nos. 1-2 and 1-3. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 20
3

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

Claim 7 [of ‘554 patent]. A mobile station, comprising:

a display;

a proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of the first condition,

the first condition being that an external object is proximate; and

a microprocessor adapted to:

(a) determine, without using the proximity sensor, the existence of a second 

condition independent and different from the first condition, the second condition 

being that a user of the mobile station has performed an action to initiate an 

outgoing call or to answer an incoming call;

(b)in response to a determination in step (a) that the second condition exists, activate 

the proximity sensor;

(c) receive the signal from the activated proximity sensor; and 

(d)reduce power to the display if the signal from the activated proximity sensor 

indicates the first condition exists.

[The mobile station as recited in claim 1,] wherein the proximity sensor begins 

detecting whether an external object is proximate substantially concurrently with 

the mobile station initiating an outgoing telephone call.

[Doc. No. 1-3 at Col. 4:2-22, 40-43.]

The ‘889 and ‘554 Claim Constructions

A. signal indicative of proximity of an external object;

a signal indicative ... that an external object is proximate

 The parties agree that the proximity sensor is adapted to generate a signal that 

indicates an external object is within predetermined range. [Doc. No. 1-2 at Abstract 

and Col. 1:44-4.] Defendants, however, sought additional language in the construction that 

the sensor generates “a signal that indicates an external object is or is not detected to be 

within a predetermined range.” The Court declined to include the proposed or is not

language.

The plain language of the claim states the sensor generates a signal when an external 

object is proximate. Nothing in the claim or the specification supports a construction that 

a signal is generated to indicate the absence of a proximate external object. If there is no 

external object sensed, then no signal is generated. The signal may cease when an object is 

no longer proximate (Id. at Col 4:16-18, the microprocessor reduces power to the display 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 20
4

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

“while the signal indicates the proximity of the external object”). Defendants’ proposed 

construction creates a requirement that the proximity sensor generate a signal that indicates 

an external object is not within a predetermined range. This is not supported by the claim 

language or the specification. The Court construes “a signal indicative of proximity of an 

external object” and “a signal indicative ... that an external object is proximate” as a signal

that indicates an external object is within predetermined range.

B. substantially concurrently

 Defendants argue that a person of skill in the art could not understand the scope of 

claim 1 of the ‘889 patent and claim 7 of the ‘554 patent because the claims require the 

proximity sensor begin detecting whether an object is proximate “substantially 

concurrently” with the mobile station initiating or receiving a telephone call. Defendants 

contend that the patent provides no standard for determining what is encompassed by 

“substantially concurrently.” Defendants therefore argue the claims are indefinite and 

invalid. The Court is not persuaded. 

The Court construes “concurrently” to have its ordinary meaning of 

“simultaneously” or “at the same time.” The use of a relative term such as “substantially” 

does not render the patent claim so unclear as to prevent persons skilled in the art from 

determining the claim scope. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012). When such a word is used the court must determine whether the patent provides 

some standard for measuring the degree. Words of degree—such as “substantially”—are 

not considered indefinite so long as intrinsic evidence “provides objective boundaries for 

those of skill in the art.” See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 

(Fed. Cir. 2014).

“Substantially” as a word of degree is generally understood to mean “essentially” or 

“mainly.” In the context of the claims and the patents, the Court finds this phrase not to be 

indefinite and that a person of skill in the art would understand that the proximity sensor 

will begin detecting the proximity of an external object essentially at the same time the 

mobile station receives or makes a call. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 20
5

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

II. U.S. Patent No. 7,039,4352

The ‘435 patent is for a Proximity Regulation System for use with a portable cell 

phone and a method of operation thereof. Filed in 2001, the patent is directed at increased 

health concerns regarding the power used to transmit the radio frequency of cell phones 

when operated close to the body of the cell phone user. “For example, when held close to 

the ear, many users have health concerns about the high level of radio frequency energy 

causing damage to brain cells.” [Doc. No. 33-8 at Col. 1:14-40.] The patent claims a system 

and method to automatically reduce the transmit power level of a portable cell phone when 

located near a human body thereby decreasing the perception of health risks associated 

with the use thereof. [Id. at Col. 1:63-67.]

Plaintiff requested construction of the following term in bold of the ‘435 patent. 

Claim 1. A portable cell phone, comprising:

a power circuit that provides a network adjusted transmit power level as a function 

of a position to a communications tower; and

a proximity regulation system including:

 a location sensing subsystem that determines a location of said portable cell phone 

proximate a user; and

 a power governing subsystem, coupled to said location sensing subsystem, that 

determines a proximity transmit power level of said portable cell phone based on 

said location and determines a transmit power level for said portable cell phone 

based on said network adjusted power level and said proximity transmit power level.

[Id. at Col. 8:2-15.]

Plaintiff sought clarification that the limitation of a network adjusted transmit power 

level as a function of a “position to a communications tower” is based on the transmit signal 

strength of a communications path between the communications tower and the portable 

cell phone. [Id. at Col. 3:39-41.] Plaintiff therefore proposed that position to a 

communications tower be construed as “transmit signal strength of a communications 

path between the communications tower and the portable cell phone.” Defendants offered 

that the network adjusted transmit power level as a function of the position of the cell phone

 

2 This patent is filed in case 18cv1786 at Doc. No. 33-8. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 20
6

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

to a communications tower is unambiguous to one in the art and required no construction

or explanation. The Court agrees and declines to construe, or explain, the claim term.

III. U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156

3

The ‘156 patent is an Automatic Hand off for Wireless Piconet Multimode Cell 

Phone. Filed in 2001, the background of the invention describes existing multimode cell 

phones with the capability to make a telephone connection using a cellular network or 

alternatively using a short-range RF frequency such as a Bluetooth wireless piconet 

network. It additionally describes such phones functioning as walkie-talkies, connecting 

to a similarly capable handset using a short-range RF frequency such as Family Radio 

System Band. [Doc. No. 1-5 at Col. 1:13-22, Col. 2:37-52, Col. 7:44-44.] The patent 

further describes how the convenience of being able to switch from one connection mode 

to another was inhibited by the necessity that the user “must first terminate any existing 

telephone call, and then manually switch the mode of the 3-1 telephone” and then 

reestablish the call. [Id. at Col. 1:31-45.]

The patent is directed at an apparatus and methods to provide a smooth switchover 

and interactions between the separate modes of operation with minimal or even 

unnoticeable disruption of the participants or content of the telephone conversation. [Id.

at Col. 1:46-48; Col. 3:26-33.]

The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘156 patent. 

Claim 1. A multimode cell phone, comprising

a cell phone functionality; and

an RF communication functionality separate from said cell phone functionality;

a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said 

multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF 

communication functionality; and

an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell phone 

functionality and said RF communication functionality, operable to switch a 

communication path established on one of said cell phone functionality and said RF 

 

3 This patent is filed in case 18cv1783 at Doc. No. 1-5. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 20
7

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

communication functionality, with another communication path later established on 

the other of said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality.

[Id. at Col. 8:15-31.]

The ‘156 Claim Constructions 

A. cell phone functionality

 Cell phone functionality is a term used by the patentee to describe an existing mode 

of communication link made via a wireless cellular network, and the Court construes it 

as such. [Id. at Col.1:31-33, “a 3-in-1 cell phone conventionally provides establishment of 

a telephone call with a wireless cell phone network”; Col. 3:49-63, Fig. 1.] Defendants

argue that no structure is provided for this limitation, however the Court finds that such 

wireless cellular network communications were known in the art, the patent employs such 

network communications but claims no improvement to the wireless cellular network, and 

further description is unnecessary. 

B. RF communication functionality

 RF communication functionality is a term used by the patentee to describe an 

existing mode of communication link made via short-range radio frequencies (such as 

a BLUETOOTH piconet network or Family Radio System Band), and the Court construes 

it as such. [Id. at Col. 1:13-18, Col. 2:37-Col. 3:12, Col. 7:31-44.] Defendants argue that 

no structure is provided for this limitation, however the Court finds that such short-range 

radio frequency communications discussed in the patent were known in the art, the patent 

employs such short-range radio frequency communications but claims no improvement of 

such modes and further description is unnecessary.

C. [to establish] simultaneous communications paths 

 The parties agreed in part that “simultaneous communications paths” means “two or 

more communication links at the same time” from the multimode cell phone. The claim

language provides the further limitation that these simultaneous paths, or links, are

established using both the cell phone functionality (i.e., a wireless cellular network) and 

the separate RF communication functionality (i.e., a short-range radio frequency). The 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 20
8

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

Court therefore finds Defendants’ proposed construction that the links be defined as 

“distinct and different” is superfluous in the context of the entire claim which requires they 

use different and separate modes of connection.

Defendants further proposed as part of the construction that the two or more 

communications links are made between the multimode cell phone and a far-end 

communication device at the same time, thereby incorporating into the construction a 

definition of “to establish.”4 Plaintiff alternatively proposed that the two or more links 

from the multimode cell phone be active. Although the parties disagreed with each other’s 

proposed additional language, the Court is not persuaded they are necessarily different, in 

so far as they define “to establish” as part of the claim limitation, to establish 

simultaneous communications paths.

The patent describes the invention as “a technique for transferring an active 

telephone call from cordless telephone mode [RF communication functionality] to cell 

phone mode (and vice versa) in a 3-in-1 cell phone.” [Id., at Col. 3:26-28; Fig.2.] The 

multi-mode cell phone establishes an active connection (a telephone call using the multimode phone’s RF mode) to a far-end device, that can be any telephonic device, multi-mode 

or single mode. [Id., Col. 4:12-17.] The multi-mode cell phone then establishes a second 

active communication path in a different mode (the cellular network mode) that connects 

with the far-end device at the same time the first communication path is still active. After 

the second connection is established, the connection on the first communication path is 

terminated. The phone call proceeds uninterrupted by the change of mode. [Id., Fig. 2; 

Col. 4:50- Col. 5:6.] The communication path, or link, is established when it is actively 

connected to the far-end device. 

In accordance with the claim language, the teachings of the patent, and the 

prosecution history the Court construes to establish simultaneous communication paths 

 

4

“To establish simultaneous communications paths” is the function of the module claimed in this 

limitation and discussed further in the construction of module, infra. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 20
9

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

from said multimode cell phone as making two or more communications links from 

the multimode cell phone to a far-end communication device at the same time. 

D. a module to establish simultaneous communications paths from said 

multimode cell phone

 The Court determines that “module” in the context of this claim is subject to 35 

U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. Under section § 112 ¶6, an applicant is permitted to make use of meansplus-function language, to express a claim limitation as a means or step for performing a 

specified function without claiming the structure. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 

792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Such limitations are construed as the scope of the 

structure, materials or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed 

function or equivalents thereof. Id. In making the determination of whether a limitation is 

subject to the strictures of § 112 ¶6 the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or the 

absence of the word “means” but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons 

of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure. 

Id. at 1348. 

The entire claim limitation is “a module to establish simultaneous communications 

paths from said multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF 

communication functionality.” [Doc. No. 1-5 at Col. 8:20-23.] This format is consistent 

with traditional means-plus-function claims limitations, replacing “means” with “module”

and reciting the function to be performed. “Module” is a well-known nonce word that can 

operate as a substitute for “means” in the context of § 112 ¶6. Williamson, 792 F.3d at

1350. In this case ‘module” does not provide any indication of structure for providing the 

function of establishing simultaneous communications paths from said multimode cell 

phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality. 

Having determined that “module” is subject to § 112 ¶6, the court must determine 

what structure, if any, disclosed in specification corresponds to the claimed function. If 

the patentee fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure the claim is indefinite.

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 20
10

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

In accordance with the claim, this module is part of the multimode cell phone. It is 

distinct from the claim limitations of cell phone functionality [id. at Fig. 1, (100a)], RF 

communication functionality [id. at Fig. 1, (100b)], and the automatic switch over module 

[id. at Fig. 1, (101)]. The module of the multimode cell phone, that establishes 

simultaneous communications paths using cell phone and RF communication functionality 

is not identified in any figure. There is no direct reference in the specification to this 

module.

There is reference to the “automatic switch over module” in the specification. [Id.

at Col. 1:51-61; 3:56-60, Col. 4:1-6; Fig 1, (101).] The word module appears nowhere else 

in the specification. This reference is however to a separate claim limitation from the 

“module” that establishes the simultaneous communications paths. The claimed “automatic 

switch over module” operates to switch from an established communications path to the 

later established communications path.

Plaintiff identified the following portions of the patent as disclosing the structure 

that corresponds to the claimed module’s function of establishing the simultaneous 

communication paths: Figs. 1, 3; Col. 3:48-4:49; 4:54-5:62; 6:3-55; 6:60-8-5. [See

18cv1783, Doc. No. 63-1 at 44.] This absurdly overinclusive designation fails to identify 

a sufficiently definite structure that corresponds to the claimed function.

Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as “corresponding structure” if the 

intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the 

claim. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. Plaintiff cites to the entirety of figures 1 and 3, 

which include a multitude of unrelated structures, and large blocks of the specification that 

encompass structures separate from the multimode cell phone that provide many different 

functions. The Court will not scour the Plaintiff’s submission to locate, or otherwise 

ascertain from the blanket proffer made by Plaintiff what structure of the multimode cell 

phone is disclosed to provide the function of establishing the simultaneous 

communications paths. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 20
11

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

Although the patent discloses a number of steps that may be performed by hardware 

or software not contained in the multimode cell phone to create a cellular network 

connection and an RF connection between the phone and a far-end device, the claimed 

“module” of the multimode cell phone device remains a mystery. It is not sufficient to 

simply state that one of ordinary skill in the art would “know this is a structure for RF 

communications through a genus of RF communication types well known in the art.” [Doc. 

No. 63-1 at 42.] 

The ‘156 patent fails to disclose any structure of the multimode cell phone that

corresponds to the function to “establish simultaneous communications paths from said 

multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF communication 

functionality.” The Court therefore finds Claim 1 of the ‘156 patent invalid for 

indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. Defendants’ corresponding motion for summary

judgment on this claim is GRANTED. 

E. an automatic switch over module 

The Court determines that “an automatic switch over module” in the context of this 

claim is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. The entire claim limitation is “an automatic switch 

over module, in communication with both said cell phone functionality and said RF 

communication functionality, operable to switch a communication path established on one 

of said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, with another 

communication path later established on the other of said cell phone functionality and said 

RF communication functionality.” [Doc. No. 1-5 at Col. 8:24-31.]

This format is consistent with traditional means-plus-function claims limitations, 

replacing “means” with “module” and reciting the function to be performed. The prefix 

“automatic switch over” does not impart structure into the term module. The detail that 

this module of the multimode cell phone will switch the communication path of the 

multiphone cell phone from cell phone mode to RF mode, or vice versa, automatically, 

does not impart any structure.

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 20
12

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

The “automatic switch over module” is referenced in the specification. [Id. at Col. 

3:56-60, Col. 4:1-6; Fig 1, (101).] It is mentioned in the Summary of Invention:

[in] accordance with the principles of the present invention, a multimode cell phone 

comprises a cell phone functionality, and an RF communication functionality 

separate from the cell phone functionality. An automatic switch over module is in 

communication with both the cell phone functionality and the RF communication 

functionality. The automatic switch over module operates to switch a 

communication path established on either the cell phone functionality or the RF 

communication functionality, with another communication path established on the 

other of the cell phone functionality and the RF communication functionality.

[Id. at Col. 1:51-61.]

Similarly, it is discussed briefly in the Detailed Embodiment:

[importantly, an automatic switch over module 101 is in communication with each 

communication path functionality, e.g., with the cell phone functionality 110a, the 

piconet cordless telephone functionality 100b, and the walkie-talkie functionality 

100c.... [While] operating in a cell phone mode, the automatic switch over module 

101 of the multimode cell phone 100 may detect walkie-talkie communications 

activity from the far party’s multimode cell phone 100 and establish a 

communication link therebetween even while the two parties remain in cell phone 

communication.

[Id. at Col. 3:56-60, Col. 4:1-6; Fig. 1.]

These are the only direct references in the patent to the “automatic switch over 

module” and the function of establishing the simultaneous communications link described 

above is not the claimed function of this module, but that of the separately claimed 

“module” limitation discussed in the preceding section.

Plaintiff identified the following portions of the patent as disclosing the structure 

that corresponds to the function of switching the established communication paths: Figs. 

1, 3; Col. 3:48-4:49; 4:54-5:62; 6:3-55; 6:60-8-5. [See 18cv1783, Doc. No. 63-1, at 48.] 

This is the same designation made for the “module” limitation discussed in the previous 

section. Plaintiff’s designation of the same broad and overinclusive passages as the 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 20
13

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

disclosed structure for two separate claim limitations underscores that the patent fails to 

identify a sufficiently definite structure that corresponds to this claimed function as well.

Although the patent discloses a number of steps that may be performed by hardware 

or software not contained in the multimode cell phone to switch from a cellular network 

connection to an RF connection, or vice versa, between the multimode cell phone and a 

far-end device, the claimed “automatic switch over module” of the multimode cell phone 

device is not identified with sufficiently definite structure. It is just a black box in Fig 1. 

Nor is it sufficient to simply state that one of ordinary skill in the art would “know this is 

a structure for RF communications through a genus of RF communication types well 

known in the art.” [Doc. No. 63-1 at 46.] 

The ‘156 patent fails to disclose any structure of the multimode cell phone that 

corresponds to the function “to switch a communication path established on one of said 

cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, with another 

communication path later established on the other of said cell phone functionality and said 

RF communication functionality.” The Court therefore finds Claim 1 of the ‘156 patent 

invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6. Defendants’ corresponding motion for 

summary judgment on this claim is GRANTED. 

IV. U.S. Patent No. 7,990,8425

 The ‘842 patent is for a device that generates backward-compatible long training 

sequences for wireless communication networks. The patent addresses the need “to create 

a long training sequence of minimum peak-to-average ratio that uses more sub-carriers 

[than the existing standard compliant devices] without interfering with adjacent channels” 

and “be usable by legacy devices in order to estimate channel impulse response and to 

estimate carrier frequency offset between a transmitter and a receiver.” [Doc. No. 1-4, at 

Col. 2:8-16; 37-43.]

 

5 This patent is filed in case 18cv1783 at Doc. No. 1-4.

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 20
14

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘842 patent.

Claim 1. A wireless communications device, comprising

a signal generator that generates an extended long training sequence; and

an Inverse Fourier Transformer operatively coupled to the signal 

 generator,

wherein the Inverse Fourier Transformer processes the extended long training 

sequence from the signal generator and provides an optimal extended long 

training sequence with a minimal peak-to-average ratio, and

wherein at least the optimal extended long training sequence is carried by a 

greater number of subcarriers than a standard wireless networking 

configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing 

scheme.

Claim 14. The wireless communications device according to claim 1, wherein the 

optimal extended long training sequence is longer than a long training sequence used 

by a legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a legacy 

wireless networking protocol standard.

[Id. at Col. 5:37-49; Col. 6:28-32.]

‘842 Claim Constructions

A. an extended long training sequence

Defendants contend this phrase is indefinite and has no understandable meaning to 

a person of skill in the art. Plaintiff contends it would be clear to person of skill that an 

extended, or expanded, long training sequence in the context of the entirety of the claim 

language and the specification is a training sequence that uses more active subcarriers than

an existing standard. The Court finds that an extended, or expanded, long training sequence 

is one longer than the long training sequence that was the known standard implemented in 

the art at the time the patent was filed. [Id. at Col. 2:55-58; Col. 3:21-24; Col. 4:6-18.]

The specification identifies the standard for an Orthogonal Frequency Division 

Multiplexing scheme at the time the patent was filed as a technique that uses 52 of the 

available 64 active subcarriers. [Id. at Col. 2:8-16.]

If, as Plaintiff advocates, a standard wireless networking configuration for an OFDM 

scheme is whatever that standard is at the time the patent is being practiced, then the Court 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 20
15

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

agrees with the Defendants that the claim would be indefinite. The patent does not disclose 

a standard implementing more than 64 active subcarriers and does not teach an OFDM 

scheme with more than 64 active subcarriers, but rather teaches how to use more of those 

existing subcarriers than the current standard utilized. Consequently, the extended long 

training sequence is bounded by the scheme known in the art at the time the patent was 

filed. The Court therefore construes an extended long training sequence as a training 

sequence that uses more than 52 of 64 active subcarriers. Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness is denied.

B. optimal extended long training sequence 

 Defendants contend this phrase is indefinite and has no understandable meaning to 

a person of skill in the art. Plaintiff contends it would be clear to person of skill that an 

optimal extended long training sequence in the context of the entirety of the claim language 

and the specification is a long training sequence with a minimal peak to average ratio 

resulting from processing by the Inverse Fourier Transformer. The Court agrees with 

plaintiff that an optimal extended long training sequence is an extended long training 

sequence with minimal peak to average ratio, i.e., a peak to power ratio of 3.6dB6, using 

more subcarriers than the standard at the time the patent was filed. [Id. at Col. 2:37-39; 

Col. 5:14-19, 20-25.] The Court therefore construes an optimal extended long training 

sequence as a training sequence with a minimal peak to average ratio of 3.6dB that 

uses more than 52 of 64 active subcarriers. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

of invalidity based on indefiniteness is denied.

C. Inverse Fourier Transformer

 The parties agree that an Inverse Fourier Transform is a well-known mathematical 

principle used to map functions between one domain and another domain, which can 

include domains such as space, time and frequency. They therefore agree that an Inverse 

 

6 The specification provides reasonable certainty to the meaning of “optimal” by providing an objective 

standard of a peak to power ratio by identifying a ratio “that is” (i.e.) 3.6dB as the optimal ratio. 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 20
16

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

Fourier Transformer is a circuit and/or software that performs a defined mathematical 

function that transforms a series of values from one domain into another domain.

 Defendants however contend that in the context of this claim for a wireless 

communications device, that function is necessarily limited to transforming a series of 

values from the frequency domain to the time domain. Plaintiff disagrees and argues that 

the claim language and specification require no such narrowing of the claim to specific 

types of domains or the direction of the transformation. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff.

 Ultimately, it may be that to “process the extended long training sequence from the 

signal generator and provide an optimal extended long training sequence with a minimal 

peak-to-average ratio” as required by the claim, the Inverse Fourier Transformer must 

operate as the Defendants contend, but the Court will not import the Defendants’ proposed 

limitation into the claim. The Court construes Inverse Fourier Transformer as a circuit 

and/or software that performs a defined mathematical function that transforms a 

series of values from one domain into another domain.

D. a greater number of subcarriers than a standard wireless networking 

configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing 

scheme. 

 Defendants contend this phrase is indefinite. The Court however finds that the 

specification identifies the known standard implemented in the art at the time the patent 

was filed. [Id. at Col. 2:8-28.] The Court construes a standard wireless networking 

configuration for an OFDM scheme as a configuration using no more than 52 of 64 

active subcarriers. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on 

indefiniteness is denied.

E. longer than a long training sequence used by a legacy wireless local 

area network device in accordance with a legacy wireless 

networking protocol standard.

 Defendants contend this phrase is indefinite. The Court however finds that the 

specification identifies the known standard implemented in the art at the time the patent 

was filed. [Id. at Col. 2:8-28.] The Court construes a legacy wireless networking protocol 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 20
17

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

standard as standard using no more than 52 of 64 active subcarriers. [Id. at Col 2:3-7, 

37-43; Col. 4:4-18.] Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on 

indefiniteness is denied.

V. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,957,4507

 The ‘450 patent is for a method and system for frame formats for MIMO channel 

measurement exchange. The patent is directed toward utilizing signal processing 

techniques to directionally focus the transmission and reception of signals in a specific 

direction known as beamforming, to address signal fading, a significant problem, in 

wireless communications systems that often results in temporary loss of communications 

at mobile terminals. [Doc. No. 33-7 at Col. 1:35-42, 63-65.] 

The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘450 patent.

Claim 1. A method for communication, the method comprising:

computing a plurality of channel estimate matrices based on signals received by a 

mobile terminal from a base station, via one or more downlink RF channels, wherein 

said plurality of channel estimate matrices comprise coefficients derived from 

performing a singular value matrix decomposition (SVD) on said received 

signals; and

transmitting said coefficients as feedback information to said base station, via one 

or more uplink RF channels.

Claim 21. A method for communication, the method comprising:

computing a plurality of channel estimates based on signals received by a mobile 

terminal from a base station, via one or more downlink RF channels,

deriving a matrix based on the plurality of channel estimates, wherein the matrix 

comprises coefficients from performing a singular value matrix decomposition 

(SVD) on said plurality of channel estimates; and

transmitting the coefficients as feedback information to said base station, via one or 

more uplink RF channels.

[Id. at Col. 19:13-22; Col. 20:42-51.]

 

7 This patent is filed in case 18cv1786 at Doc. No. 33-7.

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 20
18

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

‘450 Claim Constructions

A. Channel estimate matrices/matrix based on the plurality of 

channel estimates

 The patent states that “computations which are performed at the receiving mobile 

terminal may constitute an estimate of the ‘true’ values of H(t)8and may be known as 

‘channel estimates’.” [Id. at Col. 4:14-17.] It further states that H(t) may be referred to as 

the “channel estimate matrix.” [Id. at Col. 4:19-21.] Based on language of the 

specification, the Court construes channel estimate matrices and a matrix based on the

plurality of channel estimates as one or more matrices that is, or are, the estimates of 

the values of H(t).

B. coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix 

decomposition (SVD)

 Based on the Court’s construction of channel estimate matrices, as set forth above, 

the parties agreed that no construction of this term was necessary and its plain and ordinary 

meaning applies. The Court notes that the patent describes “SVD” as “a method which 

may reduce the quantity of channel feedback information which is transmitted between a 

receiving mobile terminal and a transmitting mobile mobile terminal,” and incorporates by 

reference, in its entirety, U.S. application Ser. No. 11/052,389 for its description of SVD. 

[Id. at Col. 8:45-49.] It is therefore anticipated that in applying the “plain and ordinary 

meaning” of coefficients derived from performing SVD, the parties’ interpretation will 

comport with the disclosure in the incorporated reference. 

VI. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,416,8629

 The ‘862 patent is for efficient feedback of channel information in a closed loop 

beamforming wireless communication system. This patent is also directed toward utilizing 

 

8 H represents the transfer system function [id. at Col. 3:53-57] which may become a function of time 

represented by H(t). [Id. at Col. 4:5-7.]

9 This patent is filed in case 18cv1784 at Doc. No. 1-6.

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 20
19

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

signal processing techniques to directionally focus the transmission and reception of 

signals in a specific direction known as beamforming, and to improve that technique by 

reducing beamforming feedback information for wireless communications. [Doc. No. 1-6

at Col. 2:66-3:13; Col. 3:49-51.] 

The parties requested construction of the following terms in bold of the ‘862 patent.

Claim 9. A wireless communication device comprising:

a plurality of Radio Frequency (RF) components operable to receive an RF signal 

and to convert the RF signal to a baseband signal; and

a baseband processing module operable to:

 receive a preamble sequence carried by the baseband signal;

 estimate a channel response based upon the preamble sequence;

 determine an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) based upon

 the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U);

 decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to

 produce the transmitter beamforming information; and 

 form a baseband signal employed by the plurality of RF components to wirelessly

 send the transmitter beamforming information to the transmitting wireless device. 

[Id. at Col. 17:15-34.]

‘862 Claim Constructions

A. decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix 

(V) to produce the transmitter beamforming information

The parties agreed that to “decompose” the estimated transmitter beamforming 

unitary matrix (V) to produce information is properly construed as “factor” the estimated 

transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce information. The parties disagreed 

as to the need to construe the product of the factoring – “the estimated transmitter 

beamforming information.” After argument the Court concluded that it was not necessary 

to construe the product of the factoring of the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary 

matrix – the transmitter beamforming information that is then wirelessly transmitted to the 

transmitting wireless device. This appears to be a mathematical function and a person of 

skill in this art would understand. The Court declined Defendants’ request to construe 

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 20
20

18CV1783, 18CV1784, 18CV1786

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

“transmitter beamforming information” without prejudice to revisiting this issue if needed 

at a later stage of the litigation. 

B. A baseband processing module 

 Defendants argued that this “module” should be construed in accordance with 

Section 112(6) as it has no understood meaning in the art and can only be understood by 

the functions it must carry out as set forth in the claim. Plaintiff however demonstrated 

that Defendants’ expert acknowledged that a baseband processor is a device known in the 

art and the patent describes that baseband processing module as one or more such baseband 

processors that would be implemented to perform the required steps. [See Case No. 

18cv1786, Doc. No. 99 at 17-18.] The Court declined Defendants’ request to apply Section 

112(6) to this claim limitation. 

VII. Conclusion

As discussed at the hearing and set forth above, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ 

joint motion for summary judgment on indefiniteness is GRANTED as to Claim 1 of the 

‘156 patent and DENIED as to remaining claims, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 

re order on motion to strike [Doc. No. 93 in Case No. 18cv1786] is DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 94 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 20