Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01251/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01251-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Google Inc.
Appellant
Microsoft Corporation
Not party
Motorola Mobility LLC
Not party
SimpleAir, Inc.
Appellee
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
Not party

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SIMPLEAIR, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 

AB,

Defendant

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1251

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:11-cv-00416-JRG, 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIMPLEAIR, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, SONY ERICSSON 

MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC., 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2016
2 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendants

______________________ 

2015-1253

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:11-cv-00587-JRG, 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________ 

Decided: April 1, 2016

______________________ 

 GREGORY DOVEL, Dovel & Luner, LLP, Santa Monica, 

CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

JOHN JEFFREY EICHMANN. 

 CHARLES KRAMER VERHOEVEN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for 

defendant-appellant. Also represented by CARL G.

ANDERSON; DARYL JOSEFFER, King & Spalding LLP, 

Washington, DC; ADAM CONRAD, Charlotte, NC.

______________________ 

Before MOORE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff-Appellee SimpleAir, Inc. (“SimpleAir”) filed 

this patent infringement action against DefendantAppellant Google Inc. (“Google”) in 2011, alleging that 

Google’s Cloud Messenger and Cloud to Device Messenger 

services (collectively, “Google’s Cloud Messenger Services”) infringe independent claim 1 and dependent claims 

2, 3, 7, and 22 (the “asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 

7,035,914 (the “’914 patent”). A jury determined none of 

the asserted claims was invalid, and that Google’s Cloud 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 3

Messenger Services infringed each of the asserted claims. 

A separate damages trial resulted in a jury award of $85 

million to SimpleAir. See J.A. 1. 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Google’s motions for judgment as a 

matter of law (“JMOL”) with respect to invalidity, infringement, and damages. On appeal to this court, Google 

asserts the claim term “a data channel” is indefinite 

under the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 

(2014), or alternatively, that Google does not infringe 

under the correct construction of “a data channel.” Google 

also challenges the district court’s constructions of 

“transmission gateway” and “parsing said data with 

parsers,” its application of the law of joint infringement, 

and the damages award. 

For the reasons set forth below, we determine the district court erred in its constructions of “a data channel” 

and “whether said devices are online or offline from a data 

channel associated with each device,”1 and conclude that 

no reasonable jury could find infringement under the 

correct constructions. We therefore vacate the jury verdicts and associated district court orders and judgments, 

and remand with instructions to enter judgment of noninfringement in favor of Google. 

 

1 Because construction of these terms resolves the 

dispute, we do not reach Google’s assertions of error with 

respect to the terms “transmission gateway” and “wireless 

gateway.” See Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United 

States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1313 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Because 

construction of ‘validating’ resolves this case, we need not 

reach the parties’ arguments with regard to ‘storing.’”). 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2016
4 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

BACKGROUND

The ’914 patent is entitled “A System and Method for 

Transmission of Data” and claims priority to 1996. In the 

“Summary of the Invention” section, the ’914 patent 

explains “the present invention . . . provides a system and 

method for data communication connecting on-line networks with on-line and off-line computers.” ’914 patent 

col. 2 ll. 51–54 (emphasis added); see also id. col. 3 ll. 26–

31 (Information is sent to “connected and non-connected 

computing devices thereby extending the reach of existing 

information sources, such as Internet and on-line services.” (emphasis added)), col. 6 ll. 42–44 (similar). 

Specifically, the invention involves the wireless 

broadcasting of “notification centric information,” id. col. 2 

ll. 55–56, such as a notification alerting a user that an 

email message has been received, id. col. 2 ll. 24–26. 

Figure 1 of the ’914 patent is reproduced below: 

Id. fig.1. As illustrated in Figure 1, the notification 

information may be 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 5

wirelessly broadcast on a nationwide basis to 

wireless receiving devices 32 which are connected 

to personal computers 14 or other computing devices. Upon receipt of the information at the personal computer 14, the user is notified through 

different multimedia viewers 20 that there is an 

incoming message. . . . Included with the broadcast that is wirelessly sent to the user is the Internet address and location of the detail of that 

message. By clicking on a button within the multimedia viewer 20 that notified the user that a 

message came in, the present invention will automatically make a wired connection to the information source 12 utilizing the user’s preferred online browser which will direct the user to the particular location on the Internet service provider

where the user can receive detailed information. 

Id. col. 5 l. 56–col. 6 l. 4 (emphases added). The “wireless 

broadcast network, includ[es] but [is] not limited to . . . a 

paging network,” “satellite,” and “cellular and other 

developing wireless technologies.” Id. col. 9 ll. 17–21. 

The patent explains that “third party developers can 

write different types of multimedia viewers which can 

easily be downloaded to the user system.” Id. col. 3 ll. 15–

17. The message associated with the notification centric 

information is transmitted “to the user interface alert 

panel causing an animated icon to fly to the alert panel 

notifying a user that a new message has arrived. Upon 

clicking the icon, the appropriate viewer is launched. 

Users can then display the context of the data on their 

computers.” Id. col. 3 ll. 35–39. According to the invention, “users can control which categories of information 

received from the broadcast network are processed and 

which are discarded. For example, if a user were not 

interested in sports, all sports information categories, 

such as baseball, football, golf, etc. can be selected for 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/01/2016
6 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

discarding.” Id. col. 21 ll. 52–57. Users can also select 

specific subcategories, such as “specific teams for sports” 

or specific stock quotes, about which they wish to receive 

information. Id. col. 21 ll. 65–67. 

Figure 11 of the ’914 patent illustrates a user interface that can be used in connection with the invention:

Id. fig.11; see also id. col. 4 ll. 42–44 (describing Figure 

11). The patent explains that “remote control 54 . . . 

provides a user interface for opening, closing and controlling viewers . . . .” Id. col. 29 ll. 2–4. The viewers “are the 

means by which data received from the broadcast network 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 7

is displayed to the user,” and can include “graphics, data, 

sound files, and launch icons.” Id. col. 29 ll. 13–14, 19–20. 

“The remote control 54 is launched through the user 

interface alert panel 50.” Id. col. 29 ll. 9–10. 

The only asserted independent claim of the ’914 patent is claim 1, which recites: 

A method for transmitting data to selected remote 

devices, comprising the steps of: 

transmitting data from an information 

source to a central broadcast server;

preprocessing said data at said central 

broadcast server, further comprising the 

step of:

parsing said data with parsers

corresponding to said central 

broadcast server;

transmitting said data to an information 

gateway for building data blocks and assigning addresses to said data blocks;

transmitting said data blocks from said information gateway to a transmission 

gateway for preparing said data block[s2] 

for transmission to receivers;

transmitting preprocessed data to receivers communicating with said devices; and 

instantaneously notifying said devices of 

receipt of said preprocessed data whether 

 

2 A Certificate of Correction, dated October 14, 

2008, replaced the word “block” with the word “blocks.” 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 7 Filed: 04/01/2016
8 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

said [computing3] devices are online or offline from a data channel associated with 

each device.

Id. col. 33 ll. 16–35 (emphases added). Dependent claims 

2, 3, 7, and 22 are also asserted. The district court considered the terms “parsing said data with parsers,” 

“transmission gateway,” and “data channel,” found them 

sufficiently definite, and construed them. 

A jury found Google infringed the asserted claims as 

construed. Google then moved for JMOL with respect to 

invalidity, non-infringement, and damages, which the 

district court denied. On appeal, Google argues “the term 

‘a data channel’ renders all claims indefinite, or in the 

alternative, under a correct construction Google does not 

infringe.” Appellant’s Br. 22 (capitalization omitted). 

Google also asserts that “under this court’s precedents on 

joint infringement, Google does not infringe as a matter of 

law” because the recited step of “instantaneously notifying” is “performed by transceiver chips within mobile 

devices,” because those transceiver chips are built and 

operated by third parties, and because Google does not 

direct or control others in performing the “instantaneously notifying” step. Id. at 42–43, 50 (capitalization and 

quotation marks omitted). In addition, Google challenges 

the $85 million damages award, claiming it “is ‘grossly 

excessive,’ ‘clearly not supported by the evidence,’ and 

‘based only on speculation or guesswork.’” Id. at 54 

(quoting Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 

1301, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). This court has jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012).

 

3 A Certificate of Correction, dated October 14, 

2008, deleted the word “computing.” 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 8 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 9

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Legal Standards

We review the grant or denial of a motion for JMOL 

under the law of the regional circuit in which the appeal 

from the district court would usually lie, in this case the 

Fifth Circuit. Summit Tech., Inc. v. Nidek Co., 363 F.3d 

1219, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Fifth Circuit reviews the 

grant or denial of JMOL de novo. Med. Care Am., Inc. v. 

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 

2003). “If there is substantial evidence opposed to 

[JMOL], . . . [it] should be denied.” Id. (first alteration in 

original) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). 

We have interpreted the Fifth Circuit’s standard to mean 

the jury’s determination must be supported by substantial 

evidence. See ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co., 

501 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

The ultimate construction of claim language is a question of law reviewed de novo, based upon underlying 

factual determinations reviewed for clear error. Teva 

Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837–39 

(2015). “[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence 

intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history), the 

judge’s determination [as to claim construction] will 

amount solely to a determination of law, and the Court of 

Appeals will review that construction de novo.” Id. at 841. 

“If, on the other hand, a district court resolves factual 

disputes over evidence extrinsic to the patent, we ‘review 

for clear error those factual findings that underlie a 

district court’s claim construction.’” Cardsoft, LLC v. 

VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(quoting Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 842). “[I]t is not enough that 

the district court may have heard extrinsic evidence 

during a claim construction proceeding—rather, the 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/01/2016
10 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

district court must have actually made a factual finding 

in order to trigger Teva’s deferential review.” Id. 

Where an infringement verdict relies on an incorrect 

claim construction, and no reasonable jury could have 

found infringement under the proper claim construction, 

this court may reverse the district court’s determination 

with respect to JMOL without remand. Finisar Corp. v. 

DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

II. The District Court Erred in Construing “A Data 

Channel”

The final step of independent claim 1 of the ’914 patent recites “instantaneously notifying said [remote] 

devices of receipt of said preprocessed data whether said 

devices are online or offline from a data channel associated with each device.” ’914 patent col. 33 ll. 32–35 (emphasis added). The italicized language was added in a 2004 

amendment (i.e., eight years after the 1996 priority date), 

and the patent’s written description does not include the 

term “data channel.” The written description also contains only one instance of the word “channel[],” see id.

col. 10 l. 19, which, the parties agree, is used in an unrelated context. 

On appeal, Google notes the invention embodied in 

the ’914 patent “is directed to transmitting information to 

a remote computer whether the computer is online or 

offline.” Appellant’s Br. 28. Whether a computer is online 

or offline, Google posits, can be understood by reference to 

Figure 1 of the ’914 patent. Id. at 6. A computer is 

“online,” in Google’s view, when wired connection 24 

connects the computer 14 to information sources 12, and 

offline when it does not. See ’914 patent col. 31 ll. 29–30. 

Google provides the following annotated illustration of its 

interpretation of Figure 1.

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 11

Appellant’s Br. 6. 

To allow the transmission of information when the 

computer is offline, Google continues, the patent discloses 

the use of an alternative communication path through a 

receiver 32, which can be seen at the lower right of Figure 

1. Id. Google provides the following annotated illustration of Figure 1 to illustrate its view of this alternate 

path:

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 11 Filed: 04/01/2016
12 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

Id. at 7. Thus, Google interprets the term “online or 

offline from a data channel associated with each device” of 

claim 1 to refer to the left path (24) in Figure 1, while the 

right path of Figure 1, in which information is transmitted via receiver 32, provides an “alternative path that is 

the crux of the alleged invention.” Id. at 29; see also J.A. 

134 (explaining Google’s interpretation of Figure 1).4 

Google argues that a “[data] channel must be a path 

that does not include the attached receiver,” Appellant’s 

Br. 26–27 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), because the claim recites “notifying said devices . . . 

whether said devices are online or offline from a data 

channel associated with each device,” ’914 patent col. 33 

ll. 32–35 (emphasis added). According to Google, “whatever communication path the devices ‘are online or offline 

from’ must be different from the communication path the 

 

4 The distinction between the two paths described 

in the invention is important, Google explains, “because 

the accused mobile devices use the same path through the 

receiver to receive messages as well as other Internet 

data.” Appellant’s Br. 16–17 (emphasis added).

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 12 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 13

receivers use to notify the devices” because, if a path were 

capable of transmitting information to a device, the device 

would not be “offline” from that particular path. Appellant’s Br. 27–28. 

SimpleAir interprets claim 1 differently. Whereas 

Google focuses on the phrase “whether said devices are 

online or offline from a data channel associated with each 

device,” see, e.g., id. at 2, 10, 16, 26, SimpleAir focuses 

attention on “data channel” that appears within this 

phrase, see, e.g., Appellee’s Br. 4, 9, 12, 15, 22. SimpleAir 

asserts “[t]he term ‘data channel’ was a well-understood 

term with different meanings depending on context,” and 

that in the ’914 patent “it was used in the context of 

Internet broadcasting.’” Id. at 10. SimpleAir explains 

that “in the context of Internet broadcasting (which 

borrowed terminology from television broadcasting), ‘data 

channel’ meant a path for viewing a category of information from an online provider.” Id. at 12 (citation omitted). 

SimpleAir thus views “data channel” as analogous to 

a television channel such that users can “‘tune in to the

relevant channel . . . [which is] accessed by specialized 

software on the user’s remote computing device.’” Id.

(quoting J.A. 10207–08 (declaration of SimpleAir expert 

Dr. James Knox)). Under SimpleAir’s interpretation of 

the claim language, the “remote devices” of claim 1 “have 

one or more ‘data channels’ ‘associated with’ [them] (i.e., 

‘associated’ by installed software).” Id. (quoting J.A. 

2272–73 (testimony of Dr. Knox)). SimpleAir supports its 

interpretation by reference to the specification, which 

states that “‘[a] user can register and subscribe to receive 

broadcasts’” of “data feeds,” id. (quoting ’914 patent col. 8 

ll. 31–32, col. 7 ll. 54–56), and asserts that “data feed” is 

another way to convey the concept of “data channel,” id.

at 16–17. As SimpleAir sees it, a “data channel” is “‘not 

merely a connection to the Internet’ but instead a connecCase: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 13 Filed: 04/01/2016
14 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

tion to a ‘category or subcategory of information that is 

provided by an information source.’” Id. at 14–15 (quoting 

J.A. 136–37, 140 (Memorandum Opinion and Order 

Regarding Claim Construction)); see also id. at 18–19 

(asserting that “a device that is merely connected to a 

‘communication channel or path’ (as Google’s first premise 

asserts) is not online to a data channel”). 

SimpleAir disagrees with Google’s assertion that the 

data channel that a device is “online or offline from” must 

refer to the left path (24) in Figure 1. Instead, SimpleAir 

explains that a device could connect to both an information source and a central broadcast server via a receiver (rather than, for example, wired connection 24). It 

offers the following illustration:

Id. at 20. A device could be “offline from a data channel 

associated with each device,” SimpleAir explains, while 

still receiving notifications from a central broadcast 

server:

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 14 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 15

Id. at 21. 

The district court found SimpleAir’s position more 

persuasive and construed “data channel” as “one or more 

communication channels or paths for accessing or viewing 

a category or subcategory of information that is provided 

by an information source over a communications network.” J.A. 137. In concluding that “a data channel is not 

merely a network connection or path between the computing device and the Internet,” J.A. 136, the district court 

relied on discussion of “data feeds” in the written description of U.S. Patent No. 6,021,433 (the “’433 patent”), a 

continuation application of which led to the ’914 patent.5 

It concluded SimpleAir’s positions were supported by the 

specification and claim language. 

The district court construed the larger phrase—

“whether said devices are online or offline from a data 

channel associated with each device”—to mean “whether 

the remote computing devices are or are not connected via 

 

5 The exact language from the ’433 patent relied 

upon by the district court also appears in the ’914 patent. 

See J.A. 136. 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 15 Filed: 04/01/2016
16 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

the Internet or another online service to a data channel

associated with each computing device at the time the 

preprocessed data is received by the receivers.” J.A. 140 

(emphases added). The court explained that “constru[ing] 

the data channel to merely be the device’s connection to 

the Internet” would “render the additional language [i.e., 

‘from a data channel associated with each device’] redundant.” J.A. 139. 

The district court’s construction is incorrect. It is true 

that “interpretations that render some portion of the 

claim language superfluous are disfavored.” Power Mosfet 

Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004); see also Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 

395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is 

preferred over one that does not do so.” (citations omitted)). The preference for giving meaning to all terms, 

however, is not an inflexible rule that supersedes all other 

principles of claim construction. See Power Mosfet, 378 

F.3d at 1410. 

As we have explained, “[c]laims must always be read 

in light of the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 

F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re 

Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 300 (CCPA 1982)); see also id. (“The 

specification is . . . the primary basis for construing the 

claims.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

In addition, claims must be given meaning consistent 

with how they would have been understood at the time of 

invention by a person having ordinary skill in the art

(“PHOSITA”). Id. at 1313 (citing Innova/Pure Water, Inc. 

v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 

(Fed. Cir. 2004)). “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.” Id. “The construction that 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 16 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 17

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.” Id. at 1316 

(quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,

158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

The patent explains that, at the time of invention (i.e., 

1996), computer users could connect to information 

sources such as the Internet using a modem. ’914 patent 

col. 3 ll. 30–31, col. 7 ll. 27–28. Modems were known to 

enable communication over telephone lines. Id. col. 10 

ll. 55–56, col. 11 l. 9. Referring to drawing numbers that 

are used in Figure 1, the written description explains that 

the invention allows for “information . . . from information 

sources 12” to be “transmitted wirelessly . . . to personal 

computers 14” and “can also be sent simultaneously via a 

wired connection to the same personal computers 14 . . . 

having Internet/World Wide Web access (direct or via online service providing Internet and Web access).” Id.

col. 20 ll. 53–62; see also id. col. 3 ll. 59–67 (providing, in 

the Summary of the Invention section, identical language 

but without reference to drawing numbers). 

By transmitting information wirelessly via the central 

broadcast server, id. col. 6 ll. 40–41, “the present invention” enables “remote computer 14 [to] receive information 

instantly—even while it is off-line (i.e., not connected to 

the Internet or some other on-line service),” id. col. 7 ll. 4–

7 (emphases added). “Thus, a user has the ability to 

receive ‘on-line’ information even when the user is ‘offline.’” Id. col. 7 ll. 7–9. Once the notification information 

is received, the user can then “instantaneously retrieve 

further detailed information,” id. col. 2 ll. 57–58, facilitated by “[w]irelessly broadcasted URL’s [sic], associated 

with the data, [that] are embedded in data packets and 

provide an automated wired or wireless connection back 

to the information source for obtaining detailed data,” id.

col. 3 ll. 1–5; see also id. col. 6 ll. 55–59 (referring to 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 17 Filed: 04/01/2016
18 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

“(URL’s) 22,” which are situated on path 24 in Figure 1). 

The patent explains that connection 24 may be “wired or 

wireless” and may be “either through a modem, TC[P]/IP 

or LAN-type connection.” Id. col. 31 ll. 36–37. 

In light of this context, a PHOSITA at the time of invention would understand that a key aspect of the invention is the ability of a remote device to receive 

notifications even when it is not connected to the Internet 

by traditional means. See also id. col. 2 ll. 51–54 (“[T]he 

present invention . . . provides a system and method for 

data communication connecting on-line networks with online and off-line computers.” (emphases added)). Therefore, the claim term “whether said devices are online or 

offline from a data channel associated with each device” is 

properly construed to mean “whether said devices are or 

are not connected to the Internet (or some other online 

service) via a data channel associated with each device.” 

Moreover, it is evident that the invention contemplates the use of two distinct paths, such that the data 

channel from which the device is offline must be different 

from the communication path used to receive notifications. See, e.g., id. fig.1; id. col. 2 ll. 28–40 (“[E]xisting 

wireless broadcast networks suffer from inevitable [data] 

degradation.”), col. 2 ll. 43–46 (indicating the invention 

addresses data degradation by “combin[ing] the benefits 

of . . . wireless and wired on-line services”). Thus, “data 

channel” is properly construed to mean “any path between 

the remote computing device and the Internet (or some 

other online service) that does not include the attached 

receiver.” 

The references in the ’914 patent to “data feeds” do 

not suggest a different construction. The district court 

and SimpleAir would equate “data feeds” with “data 

channel[s],” but this interpretation is implausible. See 

J.A. 136; Appellee’s Br. 12, 16. The written description 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 18 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 19

shows the “data feeds” as being provided from information 

sources 12 to central broadcast server 34. ’914 patent 

fig.1, col. 6 l. 18; see also id. col. 3 ll. 26–30 (using similar 

language but without including drawing numbers), col. 6 

ll. 38–44 (“[D]ata parsed from . . . data feeds 16 from 

existing information sources 12 is wirelessly transmitted

by the central broadcast server 34 . . . to . . . nonconnected computing devices 14.”), col. 7 ll. 54–57 

(“[I]nformation sources 12, such as the Internet, . . . 

provide data feeds . . . to a network of servers 33 in the 

central broadcast server 34.”), col. 8 ll. 5–6 (“[I]nformation

sources 12 provide data feeds to the central broadcast 

server 34.”). 

Each of these cited portions of the written description 

shows that the data feeds are provided to the central 

broadcast server, not directly to the remote device. The 

term “data feeds” is therefore properly understood to refer 

to the first step of claim 1, i.e., “transmitting data from an 

information source to a central broadcast server,” not the 

final step, which includes the “data channel” term. Id.

col. 33 ll. 18–19, 32–35. 

Moreover, when the patentee amended the patent in 

2004, it chose to use the term “data channel,” which does 

not appear in the patent’s written description, rather than 

the term “data feed,” which does. The term “data feed” is 

also used in certain dependent claims. See id. col. 37 

ll. 59–63. The choice to use “data channel” in claim 1 

rather than “data feed,” notwithstanding use of the latter 

elsewhere in the patent, lends further support to our 

conclusion that “data feed” does not carry the same meaning as “data channel.” See Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of 

Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have 

different meanings.” (citation omitted)). 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 19 Filed: 04/01/2016
20 SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB

In light of the foregoing, we reverse the district court’s 

constructions of “data channel” and “whether said computing devices are online or offline from a data channel 

associated with each device.” Google asserts that if these 

terms are construed such that “data channel” is “a path 

different from a path through the receiver,” Google does 

not infringe because its “accused system sends messages 

over the same communication path as other Internet 

data—it does not use a separate path.” Appellant’s Br. 

27, 30; see also id. at 30 (“SimpleAir cannot show infringement because the accused products receive Internet 

data exclusively via the receiver.”). SimpleAir does not 

contest this assertion on appeal. In light of Google’s 

uncontested assertion, we conclude “no reasonable jury 

could have found infringement under the proper claim 

construction,” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1333, and remand to 

the district court with instructions to enter judgment of 

no infringement.

III. Indefiniteness

The Supreme Court has instructed that “a patent is 

invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the 

specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution 

history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those 

skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124. Google asserts “the term ‘a data

channel’ renders all claims indefinite” under Nautilus 

because “the patent does not explain what ‘offline from a 

data channel’ means.” Appellant’s Br. 22–23 (capitalization omitted). It further notes that “the claim construction order relied on specification passages that do not 

speak to the meaning of ‘data channel.’” Id. at 24 (capitalization omitted). We have already discussed these asserted omissions and explained why a PHOSITA, reading the 

claims in light of the specification, would be reasonably 

certain as to the scope of the invention. The challenged 

claim language (“whether said devices are online or offline 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 20 Filed: 04/01/2016
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMC’NS AB 21

from a data channel associated with each device”) is 

sufficiently definite under the Nautilus standard.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we: (1) reverse the district court’s 

constructions of “data channel” and “whether said computing devices are online or offline from a data channel 

associated with each device”; (2) vacate the jury verdicts 

and associated orders and judgments of the district court 

that are based upon its incorrect constructions; and 

(3) remand with instructions to enter judgment of noninfringement in favor of Google.

REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

Appellee shall pay court costs to appellant. 

Case: 15-1251 Document: 70-2 Page: 21 Filed: 04/01/2016