Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05511/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05511-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc.
Counter-claimant
EON Corp IP Holdings LLC
Plaintiff
None
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05511-WHO 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

BACKGROUND

The parties ask me to construe ten terms from the two patents asserted in this case. The 

patents in suit relate to wireless communication systems designed to enable two-way 

communications between a network and an individual subscriber unit, such as a cell phone. 

The ’101 Patent (Patent Number 5,388,101, issued Feb 7, 1995) is titled “Interactive 

nationwide data service communication system for stationary and mobile battery operated 

subscriber units.” The ’101 Patent describes a wireless system wherein portable subscriber units 

can communicate with a network while moving through geographical zones.

The ’491 Patent (Patent Number 5,592,491, issued Jan 7, 1997) is titled “Wireless 

modem.” The ’491 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’101 Patent. The system claimed by the 

’491 Patent broadly operates by determining whether “Path A,” typically a cellular network 

connection, is impaired such that a subscriber unit cannot communicate with the network. See ’491 

Patent at 2:14-41. If it is, the system communicates using “Path B,” typically a wireless or Wi-Fi 

network connection, via a modem.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION GENERALLY

Claim construction is a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 

U.S. 370, 372 (1996); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Terms contained in claims are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics, 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 26
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

90 F.3d at 1582. In determining the proper construction of a claim, a court begins with the 

intrinsic evidence of record, consisting of the claim language, the patent specification, and, if in 

evidence, the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 

see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “A claim term used in multiple claims should be construed 

consistently . . . .” Inverness Med. Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 

1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

“The appropriate starting point . . . is always with the language of the asserted claim itself.” 

Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]he ordinary 

and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of 

ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date 

of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “There are only two exceptions to this 

general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when 

the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during 

prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not 

only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of 

the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “Claims speak to those 

skilled in the art,” but “[w]hen the meaning of words in a claim is in dispute, the specification and 

prosecution history can provide relevant information about the scope and meaning of the claim.” 

Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citations 

omitted). “[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. 

Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics, 

90 F.3d at 1582. “However, claims are not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only 

in the specification.” Id. “Thus, although the specifications may well indicate that certain 

embodiments are preferred, particular embodiments appearing in a specification will not be read 

into the claims when the claim language is broader than such embodiments.” Id. Conversely, 

“where [ ] the claim language is unambiguous, [the Federal Circuit has] construed the claims to 

exclude all disclosed embodiments.” Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200, 1215-

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 26
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

16 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he description may act as a sort of dictionary, which explains the 

invention and may define terms used in the claims,” and the “patentee is free to be his own 

lexicographer,” but “any special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the 

specification.” Markman, 517 U.S. at 989-90. 

On the other hand, it is a fundamental rule that “claims must be construed so as to be 

consistent with the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. “The construction that stays true to 

the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, 

in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 

1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Finally, the court may consider the prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence. 

Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. The prosecution history may “inform the meaning of the claim 

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

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

otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83); see also Chimie 

v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the 

prosecution history in construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed 

during prosecution.”) (internal quotations omitted).

In most situations, analysis of this intrinsic evidence alone will resolve claim construction 

disputes. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. However, “it is entirely appropriate . . . for a court to consult 

trustworthy extrinsic evidence to ensure that the claim construction it is tending to from the patent 

file is not inconsistent with clearly expressed, plainly apposite, and widely held understandings in 

the pertinent technical field.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1309 

(Fed. Cir. 1999). Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and 

prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” 

Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. All extrinsic evidence should be evaluated in light of the intrinsic 

evidence, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319, and courts should not rely on extrinsic evidence in claim 

construction to contradict the meaning of claims discernible from examination of the claims, the 

written description, and the prosecution history, Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1308 (citing Vitronics, 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 26
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

90 F.3d at 1583). While extrinsic evidence may guide the meaning of a claim term, such evidence 

is less reliable than intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318-19.

II. SENSUS LITIGATION

In a prior case brought by EON, the Hon. Jon S. Tigar of this District construed terms from 

the ’491 patent. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Aruba Networks Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 942 (N.D. 

Cal. March 5, 2014) (Sensus). In ruling on the Sensus defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 

Judge Tigar further construed claims from the ’491 patent. EON CorpIP Holdings LLC v. Cisco 

Sys. Inc, 36 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2014) (Sensus II). He granted defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment and his decision was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. Id., aff’d 

sub nom. EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 595 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In 

this case, I have already determined that Judge Tigar’s summary judgment determinations in 

Sensus II collaterally estop EON from relitigating the same issues here. August 17, 2015 Order 

(Dkt. No. 130). With respect to claim construction, collateral estoppel likewise will apply against 

EON (but not Apple)1to constructions made by Judge Tigar that Apple argues should be adopted 

here. Even if collateral estoppel did not apply, I consider Judge Tigar’s constructions persuasive 

and absent a showing that it would be erroneous to adopt them in this case, I will follow them.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the parties agree to the following constructions:

“An interactive video data system comprising,” as used in the preamble of claim 19 of the 

‘101 Patent, is not limiting.

The term “modem,” as used in claims 13 and 17 of the ‘491 Patent, is defined as: “a device 

that modulates an analog carrier signal to encode digital information, and demodulates such a 

carrier signal to decode the transmitted digital information.” 

The term “multiplexed,” as used in claim 13 of the ‘491 Patent, is defined as: “combined 

messages transmitted over a single channel.” 

 

1 W. v. Quality Gold, Inc., No. 5:10-CV-03124-JF HRL, 2011 WL 6055424, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

16, 2011) (noting collateral estoppel can only be applied in the claim construction context against 

a party who was a party in the prior proceeding).

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 26
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 term “synchronously related,” as used in claim 13 of the ‘491 Patent, is defined as: 

“related in time.” 

I. ’491 PATENT

A. “network hub switching center”

As used in claim 13:

A two-way communication system comprising:

. . .

a network hub switching center for routing communications from 

and to said at least one subscriber unit, and

. . . . 

Patent/Term Sensus EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“a network hub 

switching center”

(claims 13 and 17 of 

the ‘491 Patent)

“a switching center 

that performs the 

switching functions 

needed for 

operation of the 

subscriber units in a 

group of cells that 

the switching center 

services.”

The switching 

center is a network 

hub that is 

responsible for 

routing packetized 

data messages to 

and from subscriber 

units.

“a switching center 

that performs the 

switching functions 

needed for 

operation of the 

subscriber units in a 

group of cells that 

the switching 

center services.”

An Internet 

server—i.e., one 

that provides for 

email, social 

networks, location 

services, search 

engines, or

other Internet-based 

services—does not 

fall within the 

scope of the term.

In Eon CorpIP Holdings LLC v. Aruba Networks Inc, 62 F. Supp. 3d 942, 968 (N.D. Cal. 

2014) (Sensus I), Judge Tigar construed this term to mean: “a switching center that performs the 

switching functions needed for operation of the subscriber units in a group of cells that the 

switching center services.” Id. at 957-58. Although both parties adopt the Sensus I construction, 

each argues additional language is necessary to clarify the scope of the claim. See, e.g., Eon Corp. 

IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (courts are required 

to resolve appropriate disputes “about claim scope” unless the parties’ arguments go to 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 26
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

infringement and not construction). Under Apple’s proposal, the network hub switching center 

cannot be an Internet server. Under EON’s proposal, the network hub switching center operates 

on packetized data. I address each of these limitations in turn.

1. Operation on the Internet

Apple argues that EON is precluded from arguing that the network hub switching center 

could be a “third-party Internet server,” because that interpretation was explicitly rejected in 

Sensus. Oppo. 4. Apple contends that, in relation to the meaning of “network hub switching 

center,” Sensus decided that: “(1) the claimed ‘network’ is a ‘cellular core network,’ and (2) the 

Sensus Court’s claim construction ‘requires the switching center to be a cellular core network 

component.’” Oppo. 5. EON contends that Apple’s additional language is improper because (1) it 

is inconsistent with the intrinsic record; (2) it is impermissibly based on Apple’s infringement 

position; and (3) it incorrectly conflates the Sensus court’s construction of “network hub switching 

center” with the court’s application of that construction at summary judgement. Opening Br. 5-6; 

Reply 1. 

As noted above, I have already concluded that Sensus may preclude EON from raising 

issues that were decided in that case. Dkt. 130. Here, preclusion turns on whether Apple’s 

proposed limitation was “actually litigated” in Sensus.

2

 I conclude that it was. In the Sensus

summary judgment order, the court clarified its construction of “network hub switching center” in 

several ways. First, the court clarified that in its prior claim construction order it “used the word 

“network” to mean a cellular core network, “not something as expansive as the internet.” Sensus 

II, 36 F. Supp. 3d at 928. Judge Tigar also concluded that “the public switched network is part of 

the cellular network.” Id. at 928 (citing the ’491 Patent specification). Second, the court rejected 

EON’s contention that “a third-party Internet server may constitute the claimed ‘network hub 

switching center.’” Id. Although not part of the Sensus court’s explicit construction, Judge Tigar

adopted these limitations to define the scope of the word “network” in “network hub switching 

 

2

The other three issue preclusion factors – that the issues in Sensus were disposed of in a final 

judgment, that they were “actually litigated,” and that Eon was a party to Sensus – are satisfied for 

the same reasons as explained in my order granting summary judgment. Dkt. 130.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 26
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

center.” EON has already attempted to argue that a “network hub switching center” can be an 

Internet server, and a court has already rejected this contention. EON does not get a second bite at 

this Apple. Therefore, I conclude that EON is estopped from arguing that a “network hub 

switching center” can be an Internet server. 

EON argues that Sensus II made an infringement determination specific to the facts in that 

case, but did not create a “per se rule” that prevents network hub switching centers from being 

Internet servers. Reply 1-2. In particular, EON distinguishes Sensus on the grounds that the 

allegedly infringing network hub switching centers in that case were not in the networks of the 

accused infringers (Sprint and US Cellular). Reply 3. At the claim construction argument, EON 

similarly argued that Judge Tigar’s construction can only be preclusive as to third-party NHSCs 

(which Judge Tigar concluded were outside the accused cellular networks), but should not be 

extended to excluding “the internet” or NHSCs operated by defendant Apple.3 

In making this argument, EON falls prey to the same mistake of which it accuses Apple: 

infecting claim construction with infringement contentions. Although Apple’s proposed language 

is derived from the Sensus summary judgment order (which, of course, deals with EON’s 

infringement contentions), the court’s reasoning in excluding internet servers from its definition of 

“network” had nothing to do with these contentions. Instead, the court based its reasoning on the 

intrinsic record, specifically Figure 2 of the ‘491 Patent, which showed the placement of the public 

switched network as being part of the cellular network and, therefore, network hub switching 

centers likewise excluded third-party servers. Sensus, 36 F. Supp. 3d at 928. 

The Sensus court’s conclusion applies not only to the specific infringement dispute before 

it, but to the meaning of the term generally. As such, it is appropriate here to define “network hub 

 

3 At claim construction, EON argued that the portion of the Sensus order I rely on was focused on 

third party networks, as shown by Judge Tigar’s reliance on Figure 2 in the 491 patent to show 

placement of public switched network. EON argues that Figure 3, which shows the NHSC itself, 

is more relevant to the question before me. However, Judge Tigar’s reliance on Figure 2 was to 

show that the “network” at issue was the cellular one used by the patent process, as opposed to 

third party networks (operated by defendants in Sensus). The network limitation would flow to 

and likewise limit the NetworkHSC, as confirmed by Judge Tigar’s conclusion that “since a thirdparty server does not fall within the scope of the term ‘network hub switching center,’ EON’s 

argument fails.” EON is focusing on a distinction without a difference.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 7 of 26
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

switching center” as not including an internet server.4

2. Packetization

EON argues that the intrinsic record demonstrates that the network hub switching center 

communicates through a packet-switched network and routes messages. Opening Br. 7. There is 

support for Eon’s position, ’101 Patent at 7:57-59 (“... messages from the individual subscriber 

home units 4, (X) longer than 240 bits require several frames, with accumulation into packets 

...”). Apple does not dispute that many communication networks (including networks other than 

the Internet) used packetized data. Apple Br. 7-8. EON’s proposed addition, however, could be 

read to imply that the NHSC always routes packetized data, a limitation which is not supported. 

Therefore, I will adopt EON’s proposed language with slight modification. 

3. Construction

Therefore, “network hub switching center” is construed to mean “a switching center

that performs the switching functions needed for operation of the subscriber units in a group 

of cells that the switching center services. The switching center is a network hub that is 

responsible for routing data, including packetized data messages, to and from subscriber 

units. An Internet server—i.e., one that provides for email, social networks, location 

services, search engines, or other Internet-based services—does not fall within the scope of 

the term.”

B. Conditional Terms

1. “transferring . . . if said at least one subscriber unit is unable to communicate 

directly with a local base station repeater cell.”

As used:

A two-way communication system comprising:

. . .

a modem communicatively coupled to said at least one subscriber 

unit and said network hub switching center for transferring 

multiplexed synchronously related digital data messages of 

variable lengths between said at least one subscriber unit and 

 

4 Apple objects to evidence submitted with EON’s reply regarding the NHSCs, including 

dictionary definitions and excerpts of the deposition testimony of Apple’s expert, Dr. Kevin J. 

Negus. Dkt. No. 188. EON argues its reliance on this evidence was appropriate given the 

arguments made by Apple in Apple’s claim construction statement. Dkt. No. 189. In construing 

the term at issue, I have considered but do not rely on EON’s reply evidence. 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 8 of 26
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

said network hub switching center if said at least one subscriber 

unit is unable to communicate directly with a local base station 

repeater cell, said modem also adapted for communicating with 

said local base station repeater cell if communication therebetween 

is not otherwise prevented. 

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“transferring . . . if 

said at least one 

subscriber unit is 

unable to 

communicate directly 

with a local base 

station repeater cell”

(claim 13 of the ‘491 

Patent)

“transferring . . . if 

said local subscriber 

units are unable, for 

some reason other 

than the user 

intentionally disabling 

said unit, to directly 

communicate with 

said local base station 

repeater cell.” The 

method is binary, 

meaning that the 

subscriber unit either 

communicates with 

the local base station 

or the modem, but 

does not communicate 

the same data over 

both paths at the same 

time.

The transferring 

function of the 

modem is conditioned 

on whether the 

subscriber unit is 

unable to directly 

communicate with the 

local base station 

repeater cell.

“transferring . . . if 

said local subscriber 

units are unable, for 

some reason other 

than the user

intentionally disabling 

said unit, to directly 

communicate with 

said local base station 

repeater cell.” The 

system is binary, 

meaning the 

subscriber unit either 

communicates 

directly with the local 

base station repeater 

cell or the modem, but 

not both.

The “transferring 

function” of the 

modem is conditioned 

on whether the 

subscriber unit is 

unable to directly 

communicate with the 

local base station 

repeater cell.

2. “if said subscriber unit” is or is not “receiving signal from said local base station 

repeater cell”

As used:

A method of communicating between a subscriber unit and a 

network hub switching center in a two-communication system 

comprising the steps of:

determining whether a subscriber unit located with a base station 

geographic area associated a said local base station repeater cell is 

receiving a signal from said local base station repeater cell;

if said subscriber unit is receiving a signal from said local base 

station repeater cell, performing the steps of:

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 9 of 26
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

. . .

if said subscriber unit is not receiving a signal from said local base 

station repeater cell, performing the steps of:

. . . .

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“if said subscriber 

unit is receiving a 

signal from said local 

base station repeater 

cell . . .” (claim 17 of 

the ‘491 Patent)

“if said subscriber 

unit is not receiving a 

signal from said local 

base station repeater 

cell . . .” (claim 17 of 

the ‘491 Patent)

The method steps 

listed after “if said 

subscriber unit is not 

receiving a signal 

from said local base 

station repeater cell, 

performing the steps 

of” are not performed 

if the subscriber unit 

is receiving a signal 

from said local base 

station repeater cell. 

Using the modem to 

communicate 

regardless of whether 

there is signal

reception does not fall 

within the scope of 

the claim.

The method is binary, 

meaning that the 

subscriber unit either 

communicates with 

the local base station 

or the modem, but 

does not communicate 

the same data over 

both paths at the same 

time.

The method steps 

listed after “if said 

subscriber unit is not 

receiving a signal 

from said local base

station repeater cell, 

performing the step 

of” are not performed 

if the subscriber unit 

is receiving a signal 

from said local base 

station repeater cell. 

Using the modem to 

communicate 

regardless of whether 

there is signal 

reception does not fall 

within the scope of 

the claim.

The method is binary, 

meaning the 

subscriber unit either 

communicates 

directly with the local 

base station repeater 

cell or the modem, but 

not both.

The Sensus court construed these “conditional if” terms together. Sensus, 62 F. Supp. 3d at 

961-966. Over EON’s objection, Judge Tigar adopted a “binary limitation,” clarifying that the 

claims recite a communication pathway that is an “either/or proposition” id., at 963, 965, and a 

“conditional limitation,” clarifying that the claim scope extends only to situations in which the 

condition of being unable to communicate currently exists. Id. The court also adopted a “user 

intervention” limitation (for claim 13), clarifying that the inability to communicate occurred for 

some reason other than the user intentionally disabling the unit. Id. 964.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 10 of 26
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

Here, with respect to the “transferring ... if” term of claim 13, Apple’s proposal is a 

verbatim adoption of the Sensus construction, with the addition of “but not both” to reflect that the 

binary limitation of the claim does not allow for the subscriber unit to communicate over two

paths at the same time. EON’s proposed addition goes the other way and seeks to add “but does 

not communicate the same data over both paths at the same time.” EON’s proposal would allow 

different data to be sent over both paths at the same time. That would defeat the “binary 

limitation” repeatedly recognized by Judge Tigar and is not appropriate here. Apple’s additional 

language provides additional clarification and is fully consistent with the Sensus construction.

With respect to the method language, as above, Apple’s proposed addition simply makes 

clear that the method is binary and the binary limitation does not allow for the subscriber unit to 

communicate over two paths at the same time. Apple’s clarification, unlike EON’s proposed 

addition, is consistent with the Sensus court’s constructions and will be adopted.

The “transferring if” language from Claim 13 is construed as: “transferring . . . if said 

local subscriber units are unable, for some reason other than the user intentionally disabling 

said unit, to directly communicate with said local base station repeater cell.” The system is 

binary, meaning the subscriber unit either communicates directly with the local base station 

repeater cell or the modem, but not both. The “transferring function” of the modem is 

conditioned on whether the subscriber unit is unable to directly communicate with the local 

base station repeater cell.

The method steps following “if” from Claim 17 are construed as: The method steps listed 

after “if said subscriber unit is not receiving a signal from said local base station repeater 

cell, performing the step of” are not performed if the subscriber unit is receiving a signal 

from said local base station repeater cell. Using the modem to communicate regardless of 

whether there is signal reception does not fall within the scope of the claim. The method is 

binary, meaning the subscriber unit either communicates directly with the local base station 

repeater cell or the modem, but not both.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 11 of 26
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

C. “determining whether a subscriber unit . . . is receiving a signal from said local 

base station repeater cell”

As used:

A method of communicating between a subscriber unit and a 

network hub switching center in a two-communication system 

comprising the steps of:

determining whether a subscriber unit located with a base 

station geographic area associated a said local base station 

repeater cell is receiving a signal from said local base station 

repeater cell;

if said subscriber unit is receiving a signal from said local base 

station repeater cell, performing the steps of:

. . .

if said subscriber unit is not receiving a signal from said local base 

station repeater cell, performing the steps of:

. . . .

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“determining whether 

a subscriber unit 

located with a base 

station geographic 

area associated a said 

local base station 

repeater cell is 

receiving a signal 

from said local base 

station repeater cell” 

(claim 17 of the ‘491 

Patent)

The step of 

determining may be 

performed by the 

subscriber unit or the 

network, but not by 

the human end user of 

the subscriber unit.

The step of 

“determining” is 

performed by the 

subscriber unit, not an 

end user.

The parties agree that the “determining” cannot be done by a human “user.” The question 

is whether the claim includes determining by the network or is limited to determining by the 

subscriber unit. In Sensus, EON argued – to overcome a prior finding of indefiniteness – that 

various components in the subscriber unit were disclosed as helping gather information about 

signal strength and determining ability to receive a signal. Sensus I, 62 F. Supp. 3d at 950. Apple 

contends that EON wants to walk away from that argument and broaden its position on which

parts of its system are involved in “determining” process. EON argues that the “hand off” 

function described in the ‘101 Patent at 8:31-33, 9:4-11 (“the base station repeater cell 3 may 

initiate the hand-off[;] . . . a signal strength (RSSI) measurement may serve as a criterion for 

handoff, with the cell directing the subscriber into a set-up routine when signals below a threshold, 

-80dBm for example, are encountered.”) is intrinsic evidence showing that the network can be 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 12 of 26
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

involved in the determining step. Mot. 11-12. In opposition Apple points out that the “hand off” 

functionality is expressly described as being performed by the base stations (even if “directed” by 

the cell) and no mention of “network” involvement is found. In reply, EON points again to the 

’101 Patent at 9:7-11, which contemplates the cell playing “some role” in the determining process. 

Id., (“Thus a signal strength (RSSI) measurement may serve as criterion for hand-off, with the cell 

directing the subscriber into a set-up routine when signals below a threshold, —80dBm for 

example, are encountered.”). 

At the claim construction argument, Apple expressed concern that EON’s argument – that 

while the subscriber unit may perform the determining step “other network elements” are not 

necessarily excluded from playing a role – is an attempt to preserve some role for the end “user.” 

Both sides had agreed that any role of a human user has been excluded by Sensus. For purposes of 

claim construction, I do not see a need to resolve whether components other than subscriber units 

are involved in “determining,” as long as it is clear that a human user is not involved in that step.

Therefore, “determining whether a subscriber unit . . . is receiving a signal from said 

local base station repeater cell” is construed as: the step of “determining” can be performed 

by the subscriber unit, but not by the human end user of the subscriber unit.

D. “switching means for selecting a communication path within said network”

As used:

A two-way communication system comprising:

at least one subscriber unit disposed within a predetermined base 

station geographic area, said at least one subscriber unit including 

switching means for selecting a communication path within said 

communication system . . . .

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“switching means for 

selecting a 

communication path 

within said 

communication 

system” (claim 13 of 

the ‘491 Patent)

Function: “selecting a 

communication path”

Structure: electronic 

switch 13 and 

equivalents.

Function: “selecting a 

communication path,” 

which is a fairly 

narrow function akin 

to "toggling," or 

“assuming a 

position.”

Structure: An 

electronic switch 13, 

which merely toggles 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 13 of 26
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

between the two paths 

on the basis of 

determinations 

performed entirely by 

the subscriber unit 

and, as such, there is 

no room left for a 

human user to be part 

of the claimed system.

On EON’s motion for reconsideration, the Sensus court determined that the structure for 

“switching means” (a means-plus-function claim) was adequately supported in the specification by 

Figure 2 in subscriber unit 12, an electronic switch [13], which worked with other specified 

functions in the subscriber unit to perform the function. Sensus I, 62 F. Supp.3d at 950. On 

summary judgment, Judge Tigar concluded based upon his constructions that “if the ‘determining’ 

processes are performed entirely by the subscriber unit, and the ‘electronic switch’ merely toggles 

between the two paths on the basis of those determinations, there is no room left for a human user 

to be part of the claim system.” Sensus II, 36 F. Supp. 3d at 923.

Apple, in its proposed construction, wants me to adopt Judge Tigar’s determination as to 

scope as determined on summary judgment in Sensus, and make clear that the identification of 

structure for switching means in the ’101 Patent leaves no room for human involvement. EON’s 

competing proposal is limited to the identification of the electronic switch [13] and “its 

equivalents.” EON clarified at the hearing that it does not object to the “toggling” language but 

objects to Apple’s proposed “determining” language and exclusion of human involvement. I 

conclude that, at this juncture, it is not necessary to address whether the patent claims leave room 

for human involvement in the selection of a communication path. The use of “toggling” to define 

the terms is sufficient to provide guidance to the jury. I also agree, however, that EON’s “and 

equivalents” language is neither necessary nor appropriate as no other “equivalent” structures have 

been identified.

Therefore, the function is: “selecting a communication path,” which is a fairly narrow 

function akin to “toggling,” or “assuming a position.” The structure is: An electronic switch 

13.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 14 of 26
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

E. “a modem communicatively coupled to said at least one subscriber unit and said 

network hub switching center.”

As used:

A two-way communication system comprising:

. . .

a modem communicatively coupled to said at least one 

subscriber unit and said network hub switching center for 

transferring multiplexed synchronously related digital data messages 

of variable lengths between said at least one subscriber unit and said 

network hub switching center . . . . 

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“a modem 

communicatively 

coupled to said at 

least one subscriber 

unit and said network 

hub switching center”

(claim 13 of the ‘491 

Patent)

“A modem is 

connected to the local 

subscriber unit and 

the network hub 

switching center for 

the purpose of 

communications 

between the two.”

The term “coupled” 

within the context of 

the '491 Patent does 

not require a physical 

connection. Likewise, 

the term “connected” 

in the construction 

does not require a 

physical connection. 

This construction does 

not imply that a 

“connection” must 

occur in a circuit 

switched rather than a 

packet switched 

network.

A modem is 

connected to the local 

subscriber unit and 

the network hub 

switching center for 

the purpose of 

communications 

between the two.”

The term “coupled” 

within the context of 

the '491 patent, 

requires a connection, 

not merely the 

capability of such a 

connection.

The Sensus court construed this term as “a modem is connected to the local subscriber unit 

and the network hub switching center for the purpose of communications between the two.” 62 

F.Supp. 3d at 954-55. In doing so, Judge Tigar agreed with Apple that “[t]he term ‘coupled,’

within the context of the patent, requires a connection, not merely the capability of such a 

connection.” Id. at 954. But Judge Tigar also declined to adopt Apple’s proposed language 

because Apple’s proposal implied “a spatially or geographically specific type of connection that is 

not reflected in the intrinsic record.” Id. at 955. By declining to adopt Apple’s language, Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 15 of 26
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

Tigar also attempted to “assuage” EON’s concern that Apple’s proposed construction implied a 

physical connection (e.g., a wire or cable). Id. As the parties suggest that Judge Tigar’s 

construction should be clarified to explicitly include both of these explanations (connection 

required but it does not have to be a physical connection), those suggestions are adopted.

EON’s attempt to take that construction a step further and discuss the “implications” for 

circuit versus packet switched networks is not necessary.

Therefore, a modem communicatively coupled to said at least one subscriber unit and 

said network hub switching center is construed as: A modem is connected to the local 

subscriber unit and the network hub switching center for the purpose of communications 

between the two.” The term “coupled” within the context of the '491 patent, requires a 

connection, not merely the capability of such a connection. The term “coupled” within the 

context of the ’491 patent, does not require a wired connection.

II. ‘101 PATENT

A. “subscribers with portable subscriber units”

As used:

An interactive video data system comprising:

subscribers with portable subscriber units and facilities for 

communicating from the subscriber units when moved through 

different geographic zones, and

a set of subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities 

comprising digital transducers and means for transmitting digital 

data derived by said transducers.

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“subscribers with 

portable subscriber 

units” (claim 19 of the 

‘101 Patent)

Subscribers can be 

persons, entities, 

organizations, 

corporations, 

companies, 

partnerships, or any 

other association, or 

machine or apparatus 

associated with or 

incorporating a 

subscriber unit.

Persons using the 

portable subscriber 

units.

The parties agree that “subscribers” can be persons using portable subscriber units. 

However, under EON’s definition, a subscriber can also be: (i) an association, such as an 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 16 of 26
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

organization, corporation, or company; or (ii) a machine or apparatus. After reviewing the claims, 

specification, and prosecution history, I find little support for Apple’s contention that subscribers 

must be persons. 

Several passages of the ’101 Patent acknowledge the possibility of subscribers being nonperson entities. For instance, the specification describes a base station as serving “a gridwork of 

receiver sub-cell sites distributed at locations permitting reliable response by subscribers 

transmitting with milliwatt digit signal levels in the FCC authorized 218-219 MHz band.” ’101 

Patent at 4:4-5. The statement suggests that a subscriber is a machine because humans cannot 

transmit signals in the 218-219 MHz band. In addition, the specification describes FIG. 6B as a 

system flow diagram “for transmitted messages between local subscribers[,] the cell data center 

and the satellite connected network of cell sites.” ’101 Patent at 4:46-51. Here again, a 

“subscriber” would seem to be a machine because it exchanges messages with a “cell data center” 

and a “satellite connected network.” In view of the specification, a person having ordinary skill in 

the art would understand the term “subscribers” to include more than simply human persons. 

EON Ex. F ¶ 29 (“Kesan Declaration”). 

Apple argues that the language of claim 19 limits “subscribers” to persons. Oppo. 19. For 

instance, Apple contends that the word “with” in the phrase “subscribers with portable subscriber 

units” indicates a possessory relationship that would only make sense if “subscribers” were 

persons. Id. But even assuming that the subscriber units are possessed by subscribers, this does 

not preclude EON’s construction. For example, I see no reason why an association or machine 

could not possess a subscriber unit. Apple further argues that because claim 19 recites subscriber 

units that are “moved through different geographic zones,” an animate subscriber must exist to 

move the inanimate subscriber units. Id. But this again improperly reads into the claim 

limitations that do not exist. In sum, the language of claim 19 does not justify limiting 

“subscribers” to persons. See 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]bsent other limiting circumstances, a patentee is entitled to the full breadth 

of claim scope supported by the words of the claims and the written description.” (citations 

omitted)). 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 17 of 26
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

Apple also contends that use of the term “subscribers” in the specification suggests that 

they are human users and not computer components. Oppo. 19. Apple relies on ’101 Patent 5:31-

39 and ‘101 Patent 10:20-28. Id. At best, these passages can be read to suggest that a subscriber 

may, in some cases, be a human person. But neither of these passages suggests that a subscriber 

must be a human person. Apple also argues that the portions of the specification relied on by 

EON use the term “subscriber 4” as a shorthand for a “subscriber unit 4” or a “subscriber video 

station.” Id. 19-20. But even assuming this is true and the relevant passages refer to subscriber 

units, Apple has not identified anywhere in the specification that explicitly limits the term 

“subscriber” to human persons. See Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 

1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Absent a clear disclaimer of particular subject matter, the fact that 

the inventor anticipated that the invention may be used in a particular manner does not limit the 

scope to that narrow context.”).

Apple further contends that EON conceded to Apple’s definition of “subscribers” during 

prosecution. Oppo. 19. Apple relies on EON’s statement during reexamination that “[s]ubscribers 

are users which use the portable subscriber devices.” Apple Ex. 7 at 3. But prosecution history 

disclaimer does not apply where the alleged disavowal is ambiguous, or even amenable to multiple 

reasonable interpretations. Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 

2016) (citations and quotations omitted). EON’s statements do not foreclose a broad reading of 

“subscribers” because organizations and machines can also “use” (in the ordinary meaning of the 

term) portable subscriber devices. Because the relied-upon statement is not an unambiguous 

disavowal, it cannot be used to limit claim scope. 

Accordingly, for the phrase subscribers with portable subscriber units, subscribers are: 

persons, entities, organizations, corporations, companies, partnerships, or any other 

association, or machine or apparatus associated with or incorporating a subscriber unit.

B. “facilities for communicating from the subscriber units when moved through 

different geographic zones”

As used:

An interactive video data system comprising:

subscribers with portable subscriber units and facilities for 

communicating from the subscriber units when moved through 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 18 of 26
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

different geographic zones, and

a set of subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities 

comprising digital transducers and means for transmitting digital 

data derived by said transducers.

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“facilities for 

communicating from 

the subscriber units 

when moved through 

different geographic 

zones” (claim 19 of 

the ‘101 Patent)

Function: 

“communicating from 

the subscriber units 

when moved through 

different geographic 

zones.”

Structure: Subscriber 

units 4, 4', 4'', or 4''' 

(Figs. 1, 2, 6A, 7A, 

9A), including 

software control 

facilities or Software 

Control Data 

Processor 54 and the 

corresponding set-up 

algorithm to the 

extent disclosed in 

Fig. 6B and '101 

Patent 8:15-62, 9:14-

19, and statutory 

equivalents.

Function: 

“communicating from 

the subscriber units 

when moved through 

different geographic 

zones.”

Structure: Subscriber 

units 4, 4', 4'', or 4''' 

(Figs. 1, 2, 6A, 7A, 

9A), including 

software control 

facilities or Software 

Control Data 

Processor 54 and the 

corresponding set-up 

algorithm to the 

extent disclosed in 

Fig. 6B and '101 

Patent 8:15-62, 9:14-

19.

The debate here is over EON’s proposed inclusion of “and statutory equivalents.” While 

“a determination of corresponding structure is a determination of the meaning of the ‘means’ term 

in the claim and is thus [] a matter of claim construction,” Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts v. 

Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.2d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “‘the scope of literally infringing 

‘equivalents’ under § 112[f] is a factual determination’ best reserved for a later stage of the 

litigation.’” Northpeak Wireless LLC v. 3Com Corp., No. 09-cv-00602-SI, 2015 WL 5117020, at 

*7 fn. 6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015) (citing Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 

1575 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

I agree with Apple. The purpose of claim construction is to identify the structures; what 

may be equivalent to those structures is a fact question for the jury.

Therefore, the function is: “communicating from the subscriber units when moved 

through different geographic zones.” The structure is: Subscriber units 4, 4', 4'', or 4''' (Figs. 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 19 of 26
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

1, 2, 6A, 7A, 9A), including software control facilities or Software Control Data Processor 54 

and the corresponding set-up algorithm to the extent disclosed in Fig. 6B and '101 Patent 

8:15-62, 9:14-19.

C. “subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities . . . digital transducers” 

and “digital transducers”

As used:

An interactive video data system comprising:

subscribers with portable subscriber units and facilities for 

communicating from the subscriber units when moved through 

different geographic zones, and

a set of subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities 

comprising digital transducers and means for transmitting 

digital data derived by said transducers.

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“subscriber units 

limited to digital 

processing facilities 

comprising digital 

transducers and means 

for transmitting digital 

data derived by said 

transducers” (claim 19

of the ‘101 Patent)

No construction 

necessary; plain and 

ordinary meaning as 

explained in EON v. 

Landis+Gyr Inc., No. 

6:11-cv-317, Dkt. No. 

249 (EDTX).

Subscriber units 

restricted to digital 

processing facilities, 

and not including 

components operating 

in analog. The digital 

processing facilities 

include digital 

transducers and means 

for transmitting digital 

data derived by said 

transducers.

Apple’s construction of this term generally tracks the claim language but explicitly 

excludes the subscriber units from “including components operating in analog.” EON contends 

that no construction is needed, or alternatively, that the term should take its plain and ordinary 

meaning as explained in Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Landis±Gyr Inc., No. 6:11-CV-0015-

LED-JDL, 2012 WL 5874625, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2012) (“Landis”) rev’d on other grounds,

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

This claim construction dispute warrants resolution. “When the parties raise an actual 

dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court . . . must resolve that dispute.” O2 

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

actual dispute exists as to whether “digital processing facilities” can or cannot include 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 20 of 26
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

“components operating in analog.” Leaving this question unanswered would impermissibly 

delegate the task of determining claim scope to the jury.5 

I conclude that “components operating in analog” should not be excluded from the recited 

“digital processing facilities.” Apple contends that the claim’s phrase “limited to digital 

processing facilities” inherently cannot include analog processing. Oppo. 22. This exclusion of 

analog processing might have been compelling if the subscriber units were simply “limited to 

digital processing.” However, claim 19 recites “digital processing facilities” (emphasis added). 

Apple has provided no authority for the contention that digital processing facilities cannot include 

any analog components whatsoever. For example, Apple does not identify any passage of the 

specification that clearly excludes analog components from the digital processing facilities. 

SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (in order for the specification to narrow the scope of a claim, the specification must “make[]

clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.”). Absent such a showing, to the 

term “digital processing facilities” is entitled to its full breath. See 3M Innovative Properties, 725 

F.3d at 1333. 

Therefore, “subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities comprising digital 

transducers and means for transmitting digital data derived by said transducers” are defined 

as: “Subscriber units restricted to digital processing facilities, which may include 

components operating in analog. The digital processing facilities include digital transducers

and means for transmitting digital data derived by said transducers.”

D. Digital Transducers

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“digital transducers”

(claim 19 of the ‘101 

Patent)

A device that 

measures physical 

quantities and 

A device that 

measures physical 

quantities and 

 

5

See Silver Springs, 815 F.3d at 1319 (holding that the district court’s decision not to construe two 

claim terms was legal error because doing so failed to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the 

scope of the terms). Notably, Silver Springs reversed the Landis court’s decision to give two 

terms (neither of which is at issue in the present case) their “plain and ordinary meaning.” The 

terms at issue in this case were not construed by Silver Springs.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 21 of 26
22

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

transmits the 

information as coded 

digital signals rather 

than as continuously 

varying current or 

voltages, i.e., analog 

signals. 

A “digital 

transducer,” as used in 

the claims does not 

preclude a transducer 

that measures 

quantities in analog 

format, and then 

converts those analog 

signals to digital 

signals for 

transmission.

transmits the 

information as coded 

digital signals rather 

than as continuously 

varying currents or 

voltages.

The parties both adopt the basic definition of “digital transducer” provided in the McGrawHill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms Fourth Edition. Nagdev Ex. 6 at 5 [Dkt. No. 

186-7]. Apple’s proposed construction matches the dictionary definition, whereas EON’s 

proposed construction includes additional description, matching the construction provided in 

Landis, 2012 WL 5874625, at *9. 

Ultimately, I find little practical difference between the parties’ proposed constructions. At 

bottom, both Apple and EON agree that a transducer is an apparatus that measures some physical 

quantity and outputs a digital signal. None of the additional verbiage in EON’s proposed 

construction significantly changes the meaning of the McGraw definition. For instance, the phrase 

“i.e., analog signals” serves to define “analog signals” as “continuously varying current or 

voltages” but does not appear to modify the definition of the “device” itself. The additional 

sentence “[a] “digital transducer” . . . transmission” is only meaningful insofar as it clarifies that

an analog signal is a “physical quantit[y]” that can be measured by a transducer, but this is not 

inconsistent with Apple’s construction. Given the essentially identical meanings adopted by the 

parties, I conclude that EON’s much longer construction would only serve to confuse the jury. 

See Control Res., Inc. v. Delta Elecs., Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 121, 127 (D. Mass. 2001) (“In the end, 

claim construction must result in a phraseology that can be taught to a jury of lay people.”).

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 22 of 26
23

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

Accordingly, a “digital transducer” is defined as: “A device that measures physical 

quantities, which may include analog signals, and transmits the information as coded digital 

signals rather than as continuously varying currents or voltages.”

E. “means for transmitting digital data derived by said transducers.”

As used:

An interactive video data system comprising:

subscribers with portable subscriber units and facilities for 

communicating from the subscriber units when moved through 

different geographic zones, and

a set of subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities 

comprising digital transducers and means for transmitting digital 

data derived by said transducers.

Patent/Term EON’s Proposal Apple’s Proposal

“means for 

transmitting digital 

data derived by said 

transducers” (claim 19 

of the ‘101 Patent)

Function: transmitting 

digital data derived by 

said transducers.

Structure: transceiver 

50 (FIG. 9A) as 

described at '101 

Patent 10:9-13 and 

transceiver 4 (FIG. 2) 

as described at '101 

Patent 5:59-66, and 

statutory equivalents.

Function: 

“transmitting digital 

data derived by said 

transducers”

Structure: Transceiver 

50 (FIG. 9A) as 

described at '101 

Patent 10:9-13, which 

states that “[t]he

transceiver 50 permits 

two way wireless 

communications in 

the 218-219 MHz 

bands set forth in FIG. 

8, and compatible 

with the functions 

hereinbefore set forth 

such as in connection 

with FIG. 6A,” and 

transceiver 4 (FIG. 2) 

as described at '101 

Patent 5:59-66, which 

states “[t]ransceiving 

subscriber units X 4, 

4', etc. located within 

the subdivided 

response zones 22 

communicate with the 

local remote receivers 

20 over a significantly 

reduced transmission 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 23 of 26
24

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

path distance within 

the subdivided 

response areas 22, as 

compared with direct 

transmission from a 

local base station 

repeater cell [to] 

transceiving 

subscriber units X 4, 

4'.”

The parties dispute whether “and statutory equivalents” should be included in the 

definition. As I held earlier in this Order, it should not. The only other dispute is over Apple’s 

inclusion of the descriptions of the structures that both sides agree disclose the means in this 

means-plus-function claim. Apple argues that including this descriptive language (quoted directly 

from the patent) is necessary to prevent EON from arguing that the frequency limitations in those 

disclosed structures should not apply. Apple Br. at 25. However, the identification of the 

structures by reference to specific portions of the patent suffices at this juncture.

Therefore, the function is: transmitting digital data derived by said transducers. The 

structure is: transceiver 50 (FIG. 9A) as described at '101 Patent 10:9-13 and transceiver 4 

(FIG. 2) as described at '101 Patent 5:59-66.

CONCLUSION

The terms are construed as follows:

‘491 Patent

“network hub switching center” is construed to mean “a switching center that 

performs the switching functions needed for operation of the subscriber units in a group of 

cells that the switching center services. The switching center is a network hub that is 

responsible for routing data, including packetized data messages, to and from subscriber 

units. An Internet server—i.e., one that provides for email, social networks, location 

services, search engines, or other Internet-based services—does not fall within the scope of 

the term.”

The “transferring if” language from Claim 13 is construed as: “transferring . . . if said 

local subscriber units are unable, for some reason other than the user intentionally disabling 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 24 of 26
25

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

said unit, to directly communicate with said local base station repeater cell.” The system is 

binary, meaning the subscriber unit either communicates directly with the local base station 

repeater cell or the modem, but not both. The “transferring function” of the modem is 

conditioned on whether the subscriber unit is unable to directly communicate with the local 

base station repeater cell.

The method steps following “if” from Claim 17 are construed as: The method steps listed 

after “if said subscriber unit is not receiving a signal from said local base station repeater 

cell, performing the step of” are not performed if the subscriber unit is receiving a signal 

from said local base station repeater cell. Using the modem to communicate regardless of 

whether there is signal reception does not fall within the scope of the claim. The method is 

binary, meaning the subscriber unit either communicates directly with the local base station 

repeater cell or the modem, but not both.

“determining whether a subscriber unit . . . is receiving a signal from said local base 

station repeater cell” is construed as: the step of “determining” can be performed by the 

subscriber unit, but not by the human end user of the subscriber unit.

For “switching means for selecting a communication path within said network,” the 

function is: “selecting a communication path,” which is a fairly narrow function akin to 

“toggling,” or “assuming a position.” The structure is: An electronic switch 13.

“a modem communicatively coupled to said at least one subscriber unit and said 

network hub switching center” is construed as: A modem is connected to the local subscriber 

unit and the network hub switching center for the purpose of communications between the 

two.” The term “coupled” within the context of the '491 patent, requires a connection, not 

merely the capability of such a connection. The term “coupled” within the context of the 

’491 patent, does not require a wired connection.

‘101 Patent

For the phrase “subscribers with portable subscriber units,” subscribers are: persons, 

entities, organizations, corporations, companies, partnerships, or any other association, or 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 25 of 26
26

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

machine or apparatus associated with or incorporating a subscriber unit.

For “facilities for communicating from the subscriber units when moved through 

different geographic zones,” the function is: “communicating from the subscriber units when 

moved through different geographic zones.” The structure is: Subscriber units 4, 4', 4'', or 

4''' (Figs. 1, 2, 6A, 7A, 9A), including software control facilities or Software Control Data 

Processor 54 and the corresponding set-up algorithm to the extent disclosed in Fig. 6B and 

'101 Patent 8:15-62, 9:14-19.

“subscriber units limited to digital processing facilities comprising digital transducers 

and means for transmitting digital data derived by said transducers” are defined as: 

“Subscriber units restricted to digital processing facilities, which may include components 

operating in analog. The digital processing facilities include digital transducers and means 

for transmitting digital data derived by said transducers.”

A “digital transducer” is defined as: “A device that measures physical quantities, 

which may include analog signals, and transmits the information as coded digital signals 

rather than as continuously varying currents or voltages.”

For the “means for transmitting digital data derived by said transducers,” the function

is: transmitting digital data derived by said transducers. The structure is: transceiver 50 

(FIG. 9A) as described at '101 Patent 10:9-13 and transceiver 4 (FIG. 2) as described at '101 

Patent 5:59-66.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 208 Filed 09/22/16 Page 26 of 26