Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

Patent Nos. 6,477,151, 6,633,536 and 7,782,818. Consistent with Pat. L.R. 4-3(c), the parties seek 

construction of terms and phrases in claims in the patents-in-suit.1 The parties appeared for a 

hearing on the matters at hand earlier today.

2

 To avoid unnecessary delay, at this time the court 

proceeds to issue its constructions without its full reasoning and analysis:

PATENT NO. CLAIM TERM/PHRASE CONSTRUCTION

’151 “the radio telephone network comprising a base 

station subsystem and a plurality of mobile 

stations for communicating with the base station 

subsystem and in which radio signal 

transmission slots at a mobile station are 

synchronised to radio signal reception slots at 

the base station subsystem to account for a 

propagation delay between the mobile station 

and the base station subsystem, the reception 

slots corresponding to uplink and/or downlink 

user data packet switched transmission channels 

allocated dynamically by the base station 

subsystem”

This portion of the claim is limiting. The 

phrase “base station subsystem” throughout the 

claims should be construed as “radio access 

network, which is a system of base station 

equipment (transceivers, controllers, etc.) 

which is responsible for communicating with 

mobile stations in a certain area.”

 

1

See Docket No. 85. 

2

See Docket No. 206.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 207 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-cv-05008-PSG

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

multiframe structure”

’151 “data” plain and ordinary meaning

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

both the uplink and downlink channels”

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

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

error-free user information”

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

message not delineated by a code word”

’536 “substantially impair the quality of the user 

information”

indefinite

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

serving node and where eventually the serving 

node pages the mobile station to establish 

downlink connection”

’818 “an inserter configured to insert the core 

network identifier to an connection initiating 

message for establish an connection [sic]”

indefinite

The parties should rest assured that the court arrived at these constructions with a full 

appreciation of not only the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, but also the relevant 

precedent from the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.3 So that the parties may pursue 

whatever recourse they believe is necessary, a complete opinion will issue before entry of any 

judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3

See, e.g., Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2128-30 (2014); Williamson 

v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 207 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 2