Exhibit 6

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 83 PageID #: 1758
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

DAVID KEYZER (SB# 248585)

david@keyzerlaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID KEYZER, P.C.

5170 Golden Foothill Parkway

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

Telephone: (916) 243-5259

Facsimile: (916) 404-0436

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

d/b/a VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE

LEAD CASE

Hon. David O. Carter 

 

NOTICE OF SPECIAL MASTER

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:15781 Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 83 PageID #: 1759
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

 Pursuant to authority provided by the December 3, 2021 Order Appointing Special 

Master (Dkt. No. 260), the Special Master attaches hereto the Special Master Report and 

Recommendation on Claim Construction.

Dated: January 27, 2022 By: /s/ David Keyzer 

David Keyzer

California Bar No. 248585

david@keyzerlaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID KEYZER, P.C.

5170 Golden Foothill Parkway

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

Telephone: (916) 243-5259

Facsimile: (916) 404-0436

Special Master

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:15782 Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 83 PageID #: 1760
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

DAVID KEYZER (SB# 248585)

david@keyzerlaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID KEYZER, P.C.

5170 Golden Foothill Parkway

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

Telephone: (916) 243-5259

Facsimile: (916) 404-0436

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 

d/b/a VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES

Plaintiff,

v.

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. 8:17-CV-00596-DOC-JDE

 LEAD CASE

 Hon. David O. Carter

 SPECIAL MASTER

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

 

The undersigned, having been appointed as a Special Master pursuant to Rule 53 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, submits this Report and Recommendation on 

Claim Construction.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 80 Page ID

#:15783

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 83 PageID #: 1761
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................2

II. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT.....................................................................................3

III. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................6

IV. AGREED TERMS................................................................................................6

V. THE DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 10,594,376 ..........................7

1. “a processor configured to: generate a probing signal for transmission to 

at least a first client device and a second client device” and “wherein one or 

more of the processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna is further 

configured to:”.....................................................................................................7

2. “an 802.11 standard” ....................................................................................32

VI. THE DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,289,939.........................38

3. “wireless input/output (I/O) unit”.................................................................38

4. “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” .....................................44

5. “responsive to . . .” Terms............................................................................59

6. “one other access point,” “the other signal,” “the access point,” and “the 

signal”................................................................................................................66

7. “at least one IEEE 802.11 standard” ............................................................72

VII. THE DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 7,729,728 .......................74

8. “a beam downlink” and “[a]/[the] different beam downlink”......................74

VIII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................80

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies (“Plaintiff” or 

“XR” or “Vivato”) asserts United States Patents No. 7,729,728 (“the ’728 Patent”), 

8,289,939 (“the ’939 Patent”), and 10,594,376 (“the ’376 Patent”) (collectively, “the 

patents-in-suit”) against Defendants D-Link Systems, Inc. (“D-Link”), Belkin 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 80 Page ID

#:15784

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 83 PageID #: 1762
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

International, Inc. (“Belkin”), Aruba Networks, Inc. (“Aruba”), Netgear, Inc. 

(“Netgear”), and Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (“Ubiquiti”) (all, collectively, “Defendants”).

The parties submitted their respective Opening Claim Construction Briefs on 

November 30, 2021 (Dkt. 256, “Pl. CC Opening”; Dkt. 257, “Defs. CC Opening”). The 

parties submitted their respective Responsive Claim Construction Briefs on 

December 23, 2021 (Dkt. 273, “Pl. CC Response”; Dkt. 272, “Defs. CC Response”). 

Also before the Special Master is the parties’ November 30, 2021 Second Amended 

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 255) and the chart titled 

“Disputed Terms for Construction” attached as Exhibit A thereto.

Pursuant to the Court’s December 3, 2021 Order Appointing Special Master 

(Dkt. 260), the Special Master entered orders regarding the proceedings1 and conducted 

a claim construction hearing on January 18, 2022.

Based on the above-cited briefing as well as the oral arguments presented by 

counsel at the January 18, 2022 hearing, the Special Master construes the disputed terms 

as set forth herein.

II. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT

Plaintiff submits: “The asserted patents disclose improvements to wireless 

communication routers and switches such as Wi-Fi/802.11 access stations and access 

1 (See Dkt. 270-1, Dec. 27, 2021 Special Master Order No. SM-2 (setting claim 

construction hearing and regarding conduct of claim construction hearing).)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 80 Page ID

#:15785

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 83 PageID #: 1763
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

points.” (Pl. CC Opening at 1.)

The ’376 Patent, titled “Directed Wireless Communication,” issued on March 17, 

2020, and bears an earliest priority date of November 3, 2003. Plaintiff submits: “The 

’376 Patent focuses on updating the spatial distribution of the beams based on feedback 

information from connected client devices, like laptops and mobile phones.” (Id. at 1.) 

The Abstract of the ’376 Patent states:

Disclosed herein are methods and apparatuses configured to direct wireless 

communication. In some embodiments, a networking apparatus is 

configured to generate a plurality of sequences of symbols for transmission 

to plurality of client devices; transmit the plurality of sequences to the 

plurality of client device via one or more beams focused toward the client 

devices; receive information regarding the one or more beams from the 

client devices; and modify at least one of the one or more beams based on 

the information.

The ’939 Patent, titled “Signal Communication Coordination,” issued on 

October 16, 2021, and bears an earliest priority date of November 4, 2002. Plaintiff 

submits: “The ’939 Patent focuses on adaptive channel assignment to mitigate 

interference where multiple access points are established.” (Id.) The Abstract of the 

’939 Patent states:

An exemplary access station for wireless communications includes: a 

wireless input/output unit that is configured to establish multiple access 

points; and signal transmission/reception coordination logic that is capable 

of ascertaining that an access point of the multiple access points is receiving 

a signal and that is adapted to restrain at least one other access point of the 

multiple access points from transmitting another signal responsive to the 

ascertaining that the access point is receiving the signal. An exemplary 

method includes: monitoring multiple respective indicators acquired from 

multiple respective baseband units; detecting whether at least one respective 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 80 Page ID

#:15786

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 7 of 83 PageID #: 1764
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

indicator of the multiple respective indicators is affirmatively indicating that 

a signal is being received; and if so, providing at least one instruction to at 

least two medium access controllers of multiple respective medium access 

controllers, the at least one instruction restraining the at least two medium 

access controllers from causing a transmission.

The ’728 Patent, titled “Forced Beam Switching in Wireless Communication 

Systems Having Smart Antennas,” issued on June 1, 2010, and bears an earliest priority 

date of November 4, 2002. Plaintiff submits: “The ’728 Patent focuses on associating 

clients with beams based on the current location of the client devices.” (Id.) The 

Abstract of the ’728 Patent states:

Methods and apparatuses are proved which allow a wireless communication 

system using a smart antenna(s) to selectively cause a receiving device to 

switch its operative association from one transmitted beam to another 

available transmitted beam.

Defendants note that Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings conducted by the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (“PTO”) invalidated some of the claims of the ’728 Patent. In the present case, 

Plaintiff asserts claims that were not invalidated in the prior IPR proceedings. 

Defendants submit: “Because the newly asserted ’728 claims are substantively the same 

as claims that were cancelled in the IPR proceedings as obvious, defendants Cisco and 

Aruba requested reexamination of the newly asserted claims, based on the same prior art. 

On November 17, 2021, the USPTO granted Cisco and Aruba’s request and initiated

reexamination proceedings.” (Defs. CC Opening at 1 n.2.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 5 of 80 Page ID

#:15787

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 8 of 83 PageID #: 1765
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The Court has set forth relevant legal principles in, for example, Spigen Korea Co. 

Ltd. v. Lijun Liu, et al., No. 2:16-CV-09185-DOC-DFM, Dkt. 215, 2018 WL 8130608, 

slip op. at 10–11 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018), and Limestone Memory Systems, LLC v. 

Micron Technology, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-00278-DOC-KES, Dkt. 242, 2019 WL 6655273, 

slip op. at 2–8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2019). For example, the Court noted that “[i]t is a 

bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which 

the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Spigen Korea, No. 2:16-CV-09185-DOCDFM, Dkt. 215, slip op. at 10 (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).

IV. AGREED TERMS

In their November 30, 2021 Second Amended Joint Claim Construction and 

Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 255 at 2), the parties submitted the following:

Term Agreed Construction

“transmission peaks . . . within one or

more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals”

(’376 Pat., Cls. 1, 12, 22, 30, 32)

“portions of one or more spatially

distributed patterns of electromagnetic

signals where transmissions of

significant energy are selectively

directed”

“transmission nulls within one or more

spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals”

(’376 Pat., Cls. 1, 8–9, 12, 22, 30, 32)

“portions of the one or more spatially 

distributed patterns of electromagnetic 

signals where transmissions of no or 

insignificant energy are selectively 

directed”

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 6 of 80 Page ID

#:15788

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 9 of 83 PageID #: 1766
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

V. THE DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 10,594,376

1. “a processor configured to: generate a probing signal for transmission to at least 

a first client device and a second client device” and “wherein one or more of the 

processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna is further configured to:”

“a processor configured to: generate a probing signal for transmission to at 

least a first client device and a second client device”

(’376 Patent, Claims 1, 12, 22, 32)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposal

No construction necessary; not governed by 

35 U.S.C. § 112(6).

Alternative proposed construction, should the 

term be treated as means-plus-function:

Function:

generate a probing signal for transmission to at 

least a first client device and a second client 

device

Structure:

Signal Control and Coordination Logic 304 

and/or Multi Beam Controller 816 and/or 

Scanning Receiver 822 and/or MAC Coordinator

Logic 904 and/or Ethernet Switch/Router 908 

and/or col. 15:59–16:43 and/or col. 6:1–7:5, 

and/or baseband 902 and/or 20:30–44 and/or 

22:44–58 and/or 25:29–43 and/or step 1108 in 

col. 23, and equivalents thereof

Governed by 35 U.S.C. 

§ 112, ¶6, and indefinite

Function:

Claims 1, 12, 22, 32:

generate a probing signal 

for transmission to at least a 

first client device and a 

second client device

Structure:

None disclosed

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 7 of 80 Page ID

#:15789

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 10 of 83 PageID #:

1767
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

“wherein one or more of the processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna 

is further configured to:”

(’376 Patent, Claims 1–6, 10, 12–17, 22–29, 32–34)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defs.’ Construction

No construction necessary; not governed by 35 U.S.C. 

§ 112(6).

Alternative proposed construction, should the term be 

treated as means-plus-function:

Function:

the functions identified after the text “one or more of 

the processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna is

further configured to:” that appears in each of claims 1–

6, 10, 12–17, 22–29, 32–34, e.g.,

Claim 1: receive a first feedback information from the 

first client device in response to the transmission of the

probing signal; receive a second feedback information 

from the second client device in response to the

transmission of the probing signal; determine where to 

place transmission peaks and nulls within one or more

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals 

based in part on the first and second feedback

information; transmit the first data stream to the first 

client device via the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals; transmit the second 

data stream to the second client device via the one or 

more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic

signals; wherein transmission of the first data stream 

and transmission of at least part of the second data 

stream occur at the same time; and wherein the one or

more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic 

signals are configured to exhibit a first transmission 

peak at the location of the first client device and a

second transmission peak at a location of the second 

client device.

Indefinite

“wherein . . . the 

processor . . . is further

configured to:” is 

governed by 35 U.S.C.

§112, ¶6, and indefinite

Function:

Claims 1, 12, 22, 32:

“receive a first 

feedback information

from the first client 

device in response to

the transmission of the 

probing signal”

“receive a second 

feedback information

from the second client 

device in response to 

the transmission of the 

probing signal”

“determine where to 

place transmission

peaks and transmission 

nulls within one or 

more spatially 

distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 8 of 80 Page ID

#:15790

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 11 of 83 PageID #:

1768
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Claim 2: determine a first set of weights to apply to the 

one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals.

Claim 3: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a first set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 4: transmit a third data stream to the first client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 5: determine a second set of weights to apply to 

the one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals, wherein the first set of weights 

and the second set of weights are different.

Claim 6: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a second set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals; 

and transmit a third data stream to the second client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 10: support the first and second client devices in 

accordance with an 802.11 standard

Claim 12: receive a first feedback information from the 

first client device; receive a second feedback 

information from the second client device; determine

where to place transmission peaks and nulls within one 

or more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic

signals based in part on the first and second feedback 

information; transmit the first data stream to the first 

client device via the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals; transmit the second 

data stream to the second client device via the one or

based in part on the 

first and the second 

feedback information”

“transmit the first data 

stream to the first client 

device via the one or 

more spatially 

distributed patterns of

electromagnetic 

signals”

“transmit the second 

data stream to the

second client device 

via the one or more

spatially distributed 

patterns of

electromagnetic 

signals”

Claims 2, 13, 23, 33:

“determine a first set of 

weights to apply to the 

one or more spatially 

distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic 

signals”

Claims 3, 14, 25, 34:

“modify the one or 

more spatially

distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals 

based on adjustment of 

a first set of weights to 

manipulate the one or 

more spatially 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 9 of 80 Page ID

#:15791

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 12 of 83 PageID #:

1769
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic 

signals; wherein transmission of the first data stream 

and transmission of at least part of the second data 

stream occur at the same time; and wherein the one or 

more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic

signals are configured to exhibit a first transmission 

peak at the location of the first client device, a second 

transmission peak at a location of the second client

device, and a first transmission null at a location of a 

third device.

Claim 13: determine a first set of weights to apply to the 

one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals.

Claim 14: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a first set of weights to manipulate the one or more

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 15: transmit a third data stream to the first client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 16: determine a second set of weights to apply to 

the one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals, wherein the first set of weights 

and the second set of weights are different.

Claim 17: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a second set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals; 

and transmit a third data stream to the second client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals

Claim 22: receive a first feedback information from the 

first client device, wherein the first feedback 

information comprises one or more of a first amplitude 

distributed patterns of

electromagnetic 

signals”

Claims 4, 15, 26:

“transmit a third data 

stream to the first client 

device via the modified 

one or more spatially 

distributed patterns of

electromagnetic 

signals”

Claims 5, 16, 24, 27:

“determine a second 

set of weights to apply 

to the one or more 

spatially distributed 

patterns of 

electromagnetic

signals, wherein the 

first set of weights and 

the second set of 

weights are different”

Claims 6, 17, 29:

“modify the one or 

more spatially

distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals 

based on adjustment of 

a second set of weights 

to manipulate the one 

or more spatially 

distributed patterns of

electromagnetic 

signals”

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 10 of 80 Page ID

#:15792

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 13 of 83 PageID #:

1770
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

information, a first phase information, a first routing 

information, or a first index to a routing table; receive a 

second feedback information from the second client 

device, wherein the second feedback information 

comprises one or more of a second amplitude 

information, a second phase information, a second

routing information, or a first second to a routing table; 

determine where to place transmission peaks and nulls 

within one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals based in part on the first and 

second feedback information; transmit the first data

stream to the first client device via the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals; 

transmit the second data stream to the second client

device via the one or more spatially distributed patterns 

of electromagnetic signals; wherein transmission of the 

first data stream and transmission of at least part of the 

second data stream occur simultaneously; and wherein 

the one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals are configured to exhibit a first 

transmission peak at the location of the first client 

device and a second transmission peak at a location of

the second client device

Claim 23: determine a first set of weights to apply to the 

one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals.

Claim 24: determine a second set of weights to apply to 

the one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals, wherein the first set of weights 

and the second set of weights are different.

Claim 25: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a second set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 26: transmit a third data stream to the first client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

“transmit a third data 

stream to the second 

client device via the 

modified one or more 

spatially distributed 

patterns of 

electromagnetic 

signals”

Claim 28:

“modify the one or 

more spatially

distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals 

based on adjustment of 

the second set of 

weights to the one or 

more spatially 

distributed patterns of

electromagnetic 

signals”

“transmit a fourth data 

stream to the second 

client device via the 

modified one or more 

spatially distributed 

patterns of 

electromagnetic 

signals”

Structure:

None disclosed

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 11 of 80 Page ID

#:15793

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 14 of 83 PageID #:

1771
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 27: determine a second set of weights to apply to 

the one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals, wherein the first set of weights 

and the second set of weights are different.

Claim 28: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a second set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals; 

and transmit a fourth data stream to the second client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 29: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a second set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals; 

and transmit a third data stream to the second client 

device via the modified one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals.

Claim 32: receive a first feedback information from the 

first client device, wherein the first feedback 

information comprises one or more of a first amplitude 

information, a first phase information, a first routing 

information, or a first index to a routing table; receive a 

second feedback information from the second client 

device, wherein the second feedback information 

comprises one or more of a second amplitude 

information, a second phase information, a second

routing information, or a first second to a routing table; 

determine where to place transmission peaks and nulls 

within one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals based in part on the first and 

second feedback information; transmit the first data

stream to the first client device via the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals; 

transmit the second data stream to the second client

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 12 of 80 Page ID

#:15794

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 15 of 83 PageID #:

1772
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

device via the one or more spatially distributed patterns 

of electromagnetic signals; wherein transmission of the 

first data stream and transmission of at least part of the 

second data stream occur simultaneously; and wherein 

the one or more spatially distributed patterns of

electromagnetic signals are configured to exhibit a first 

transmission peak at the location of the first client 

device and a second transmission peak at a location of

the second client device, and a first transmission null at 

a location of a third device

Claim 33: determine a first set of weights to apply to the 

one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals

Claim 34: modify the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based on adjustment 

of a first set of weights to manipulate the one or more 

spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals

Structure:

Signal Control and Coordination Logic 304 and/or 

Beam-Forming Networks 808 / 810 and/or Scanning 

Receiver 822 and/or MAC Coordinator Logic 904

and/or Scanning Logic 1008 and/or Antenna Array 302 

and/or Transceivers 804 and/or col. 16:36–49 and/or 

col. 6:1–7:5 and/or col. 5:5–67 and/or Multi-Beam 

Controller 822 and/or baseband processor 902 and/or 

20:30–44 and/or 22:44–58 and/or 25:29–43 and/or step

1108 in col. 23, and equivalents thereof

(Dkt. 255-1 at 1–13.)

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot overcome the presumption against meansplus-function treatment for this non-means term. (Pl. CC Opening at 1–2.) Plaintiff 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 13 of 80 Page ID

#:15795

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 16 of 83 PageID #:

1773
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

urges that the context provided by claim language, as well as disclosures in the 

specification, reinforce that the word “processor” connotes structure here. (See id. at 3–

7.) Plaintiff also cites the opinions of its expert. (See id. at 7–8.) Further, Plaintiff 

argues that this analysis is not affected by whether the claimed structure is recited as 

performing novel functions (and, alternatively, Plaintiff submits that a “processor” can 

indeed perform the recited functions). (See id. at 8–10 & 12.) Finally, Plaintiff argues 

that “even if the term ‘processor’ is not sufficiently definite as a term for structure 

viewed in isolation, the inputs, outputs, connections, and operation of the ‘processor’ 

disclosed in the claims do recite sufficient structure.” (Id. at 11.) Alternatively, Plaintiff 

submits that “the ’376 patent specification discloses the corresponding structure of a 

‘baseband processor 902’ as the specific type of processor that performs the claimed 

function of generating a probing signal for transmission to at least a first client device 

and a second client device.” (Id. at 2; see id. at 13–15 (discussing “baseband processor 

902” and “baseband unit 902”).)

Plaintiff presents substantially the same arguments as to “wherein one or more of 

the processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna is further configured to: . . . .” (See 

id. at 15–19.)

Defendants argue that “the term ‘processor’ itself does not inform a POSA as to 

any particular structure for performing the claimed functions.” (Defs. CC Opening at 7.) 

Defendants urge that a “processor” is a generic computing element that interprets and 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 14 of 80 Page ID

#:15796

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 17 of 83 PageID #:

1774
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

executes instructions, and “a processor’s structure is defined by the instructions it 

executes.” (Id. (citation omitted).) Defendants argue that “[t]he fact that a POSA would 

recognize the term ‘processor’ does not mean that a POSA would associate any specific 

structure with the term, much less structure sufficient for performing the claimed 

functions.” (Id.; see id. at 9.) Defendants also argue:

On the one hand, XR contends that the term processor is not in need of 

construction, i.e., a plain and ordinary meaning applies. Yet, on the other 

hand, XR’s expert effectively contends that processor should be construed 

to be a baseband processor, signal processor, or the equivalent. XR’s expert 

appears to take this position because he recognizes that “processor” by itself 

lacks structure and by limiting the scope of processor to certain types of 

processors, he tries to impart structure to the claimed processor. Yet, not 

even XR’s expert could identify any such specific structure; in part, because 

baseband processors and signal processors are wholly distinct processor 

structures that could be implemented in numerous and varying ways.

(Id. at 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 8.) As to the claimed functions, Defendants argue 

that “[b]ecause the ’376 Patent claims require that at least one of processor, transceiver, 

or smart antenna alone performs all the recited functions, the claim must contemplate 

that the processor performs all the recited functions and the specification needs to 

disclose corresponding structure for performing each function.” (Id. at 12.) As to 

corresponding structure, Defendants argue:

XR’s reference to “Structure” (Second Amended JCCS, Ex. A, pp. 1, 13) 

includes a cobbled together list of ten different types of logic, networks, etc. 

and more than three columns of disjointed text from the specification. 

Because XR has not associated any particular structure with each claimed 

function, it is difficult for Defendants to respond. That being said, it is clear 

that none of the “structure” cited by XR is linked to the performance of at 

least the following functions:

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 15 of 80 Page ID

#:15797

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 18 of 83 PageID #:

1775
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. “generate a probing signal for transmission to at least a first 

client device and a second client device”

4./5. “receive a [first/second] feedback information from the 

[first/second] client device in response to the transmission 

of the probing signal”

6. “determine where to place transmission peaks and 

transmission nulls within one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals based in part on the first 

and the second feedback information”

(Id. at 12; see id. at 13–16.)

Plaintiff responds that “‘processor’ refers to the class of structures that covers 

baseband and signal processors, which renders it a sufficiently definite term for 

structure.” (Pl. CC Response at 3.) Plaintiff argues that “[a] POSA knows what a 

processor is, and that does not change simply because the ’376 claims require the 

processor to perform certain operations, such as generate probing signals for 

transmission.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also argues that the claims provide structural 

information about the processor and also explain how the processor interacts with other 

components. (Id. at 2; see id. at 3.) For example, Plaintiff submits “the ’376 Patent 

processor is ‘coupled to’ a ‘transceiver,’ and no one disputes that transceiver is a definite 

structure.” (Id. at 9.) Further, Plaintiff cites Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. 

Prisua Engineering Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (discussing “digital 

processing unit”). (Pl. CC Response at 4.) Finally, Plaintiff argues: “Defendants seek to 

invert the Federal Circuit’s logic. Defendants believe that even if a term recites 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 16 of 80 Page ID

#:15798

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 19 of 83 PageID #:

1776
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

sufficiently definite structure, it still triggers §112(6) if the structure is not widely known 

to be capable of performing the claimed functions. The Federal Circuit held no such 

thing.” (Id. at 9 (discussing Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 972 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

2020)). Alternatively, Plaintiff submits that “Defendants’ expert, Dr. Acampora, never 

disputes Dr. Vojcic’s opinion that a baseband processor is capable of performing the 

claimed function,” and Plaintiff also argues that, even if this term is deemed to be 

means-plus function, “the ’376 Patent discloses ‘baseband processor 902’ / ‘baseband 

unit 902’ as corresponding structure clearly linked to performing the claimed function.” 

(Pl. CC Response at 13; see id. at 13–15.)

Defendants respond that Plaintiff misunderstands the legal standards regarding 

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and Defendants submit that the Northern District of California 

rejected Plaintiff’s approach in XR Commc’ns, LLC v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 18-CV01992-WHO, 2021 WL 3918136 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2021) (“Ruckus”). (Def. CC 

Response at 1.) Defendants urge that “[a]lthough there are cases where courts have 

declined to find that certain ‘processor’ terms are means-plus-function limitations, courts 

have repeatedly found that ‘processor’ terms are means-plus-function limitations when 

(as here) the claim does not specify how the processor operates to perform the recited 

function.” (Id. at 3.) Further, Defendants argue that “the alleged inputs, outputs and 

connections are not described in the claim in a way that would inform a POSITA about 

how the claimed processor performs the claimed functions.” (Id. at 7.) For example, 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 17 of 80 Page ID

#:15799

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 20 of 83 PageID #:

1777
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

more specifically, Defendants argue that “the fact that the processor is connected to a 

transceiver and, presumably outputs something to a transceiver does not inform a 

POSITA as to the structure of the processor that generates probing signals, receives 

feedback, and uses the feedback to determine the placement of peaks, which are among 

the relevant claimed functions.” (Id. at 8.) As to Plaintiff’s alternative proposal, 

Defendants argue that “‘baseband processor’ does not define any particular structure, no 

less a structure for performing the claimed functions, such as generating a probing 

signal, and XR’s only evidence that the baseband processor is even capable of 

performing the recited functions, is its own expert’s ipse dixit.” (Id. at 9.) Defendants 

further argue that “baseband processor 902” is not clearly linked to the claimed 

functions. (See id. at 10–13.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments regarding 

these terms.

(b) Analysis

Title 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) provides: “An element in a claim for a combination may 

be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of 

structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover 

the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and 

equivalents thereof.” “In exchange for using this form of claiming, the patent 

specification must disclose with sufficient particularity the corresponding structure for 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 18 of 80 Page ID

#:15800

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 21 of 83 PageID #:

1778
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

performing the claimed function and clearly link that structure to the function.” Triton 

Tech of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Title 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) does not apply if “the words of the claim are understood 

by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name 

for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

“[T]he failure to use the word ‘means’ . . . creates a rebuttable presumption . . . that 

§ 112[(f)] does not apply.” Id. at 1348 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“When a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the presumption can be overcome and 

§ 112[(f)] will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite 

sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure 

for performing that function.” Id. at 1349 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

The Federal Circuit in Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, sitting en banc, abrogated 

any “strong” presumption against applying 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to terms that do not use 

the word “means” and abrogated prior statements that the presumption “is not readily 

overcome” and cannot be overcome “without a showing that the limitation essentially is 

devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.” 792 F.3d at 1348–49 (citations 

omitted). “Henceforth, we will apply the presumption as we have done prior to Lighting 

World . . . .” Id. (citing Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 

1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In a portion of the decision not considered en banc, Williamson

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 19 of 80 Page ID

#:15801

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 22 of 83 PageID #:

1779
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

affirmed the district court’s finding that the term “distributed learning control module” 

was a means-plus-function term that was indefinite because of lack of corresponding 

structure, and in doing so Williamson stated that “‘module’ is a well-known nonce 

word.” 792 F.3d at 1350.

“In undertaking this analysis we ask if the claim language, read in light of the 

specification, recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid §112[(f)].” Media Rights 

Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see MTD 

Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1341–43 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Claim 1 of the ’376 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):

1. A data-communications networking apparatus, comprising:

a processor configured to:

generate a probing signal for transmission to at least a first 

client device and a second client device;

generate a first data stream for transmission to the first 

client device; and

generate a second data stream for transmission to the 

second client device; and

a transceiver operatively coupled to the processor and configured to:

transmit the probing signal to at least the first client device 

and the second client device via a smart antenna;

wherein the smart antenna is operatively coupled to the 

transceiver and comprises a first antenna element and a 

second antenna element;

wherein one or more of the processor, the transceiver, or the smart 

antenna is further configured to:

receive a first feedback information from the first client 

device in response to the transmission of the probing 

signal;

receive a second feedback information from the second 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 20 of 80 Page ID

#:15802

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 23 of 83 PageID #:

1780
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

client device in response to the transmission of the 

probing signal;

determine where to place transmission peaks and 

transmission nulls within one or more spatially 

distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals based in 

part on the first and the second feedback information;

transmit the first data stream to the first client device via the 

one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals; and

transmit the second data stream to the second client device 

via the one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals;

wherein transmission of the first data stream and 

transmission of at least part of the second data stream 

occur at the same time; and

wherein the one or more spatially distributed patterns of 

electromagnetic signals are configured to exhibit a first 

transmission peak at a location of the first client device 

and a second transmission peak at a location of the 

second client device.

This “processor” term does not use any of the words identified by Williamson as a 

“nonce” word lacking structure, see 792 F.3d at 1350, and although “processor” may 

refer to a broad class of structures, this breadth does not necessarily render the term nonstructural. See Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (as 

to “wireless device means,” “it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance 

or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a 

broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function”) 

(quoting TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). 

Even more recently, the Federal Circuit similarly addressed a “digital processing unit” 

term:

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 21 of 80 Page ID

#:15803

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 24 of 83 PageID #:

1781
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

As used in the claims of the ’591 patent, the term “digital processing unit” 

clearly serves as a stand-in for a “general purpose computer” or a “central 

processing unit,” each of which would be understood as a reference to 

structure in this case, not simply any device that can perform a particular 

function.

Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Ample authority of the Federal Circuit thus supports finding that the term 

“processor” connotes structure. See id.; cf. Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,

379 F.3d 1311, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding that “circuit” terms connoted 

structure). The opinions of Plaintiff’s expert are further persuasive in this regard. (See

Pl. CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 26–32.) This is also consistent 

with disclosures regarding, for example, “baseband processor 902” (see, e.g., ’376 Patent 

at 18:9–24 & 25:29–43), and the recital of the “processor” in relation to other 

components further reinforces the structural nature of the “processor.” (See Pl. CC 

Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 33–40 & 63–69.)

Defendants cite the opinion of their expert that transmit and receive signal 

processors, such as disclosed in the specification, are not structures that a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would understand to be capable of, for example, generating a 

probing signal or “beamforming” (“determin[ing] where to place transmission peaks and 

nulls within one or more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals based in 

part on the first and second feedback information”). (Defs. CC Opening, Ex. 3, Nov. 2, 

2021 Acampora Decl. at ¶¶ 134, 146–49, 165 & 171.) Defendants likewise cite the 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 22 of 80 Page ID

#:15804

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 25 of 83 PageID #:

1782
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

opinion of their expert that the disclosed baseband processors (see, e.g., ’376 Patent at 

Figs. 9 and 13) are not capable of, for example, “generating” a probing signal or 

“determin[ing]” where to place peaks and nulls based on feedback information. (Id. at 

¶¶ 134 & 150.)

Defendants’ arguments in this regard perhaps might bear on issues of enablement 

or written description but do not present any issue for claim construction. Any purported 

inadequately of the particular processors disclosed in the specification is not inconsistent 

with the word “processor” connoting structure for purposes of determining whether 35 

U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies. Plaintiff’s counterarguments regarding the disclosed 

processors (see Pl. CC Response at 5–8) therefore need not be addressed in this analysis.

The Egenera case emphasized by Defendants does not compel otherwise. See 

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In that case, the 

Federal Circuit affirmed a finding that “logic to modify said received messages to 

transmit said modified messages to the external communication network and to the 

external storage network” was a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 

¶ 6. See id. at 1373–75. In particular, the Federal Circuit explained:

On appeal, Egenera, pointing to its expert’s explanation and dictionary 

definitions, argues that “‘logic’ is a common term of art meaning software, 

firmware, circuitry, or [a] combination thereof.” As Cisco argues, “logic” 

as used in the claims means only a “general category of whatever may 

perform” the function. [C]f. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (“‘[M]odule’ is 

simply a generic description for software or hardware that performs a 

specified function.”).

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 23 of 80 Page ID

#:15805

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 26 of 83 PageID #:

1783
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The question is not whether a claim term recites any structure but whether it 

recites sufficient structure—a claim term is subject to § 112(f) if it recites 

“function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.”

Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (emphasis added) (quoting Watts, 232 F.3d at 

880). Egenera does not explain how its “logic”—even assuming it connotes 

some possible structure in the general sense of software, firmware, or 

circuitry—amounts to “sufficient structure for performing [the 

modification] function.” See id. (emphasis added).

Egenera also argues that the “larger claim context” indicates that “logic” is 

structural because the “logic to modify” is part of a supposedly structural 

component—the “control node.” Appellant’s Br. 52; Reply Br. 22. But 

that is not enough. Mere inclusion of a limitation within a structure does 

not automatically render the limitation itself sufficiently structural. And, 

again, the question is not whether “logic” is utterly devoid of structure but 

whether the claim term recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed 

functions.

Id. at 1374 (citations omitted).

In the present case, Defendants emphasize the statements in Egenera regarding 

“whether the claim term recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.” 

Id. Notably, at the outset the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent challenger that the 

“logic” term there at issue referred merely to whatever may perform the recited function: 

“As Cisco argues, ‘logic’ as used in the claims means only a ‘general category of 

whatever may perform’ the function.” Id. The Federal Circuit also then referred to 

“logic” as merely “some possible structure” in the general sense of software, firmware, 

or circuitry, thus reinforcing that “logic” as used in the claims there at issue did not 

connote any particular class of structures.

Thus, Egenera did not set aside the well-established principle that a term can 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 24 of 80 Page ID

#:15806

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 27 of 83 PageID #:

1784
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

connote structure “even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term 

identifies the structures by their function.” Skky, 859 F.3d at 1019; see, e.g., TEK 

Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc., 920 F.3d 777, 786 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“connoting 

precise physical structure is not a necessary condition to avoid § 112, ¶ 6 application”).

As discussed above, in the present case the “processor” terms refer to a class of 

structures. The additional statements in Egenera regarding “sufficient structure for 

performing that function,” Egenera, 972 F.3d at 1374, therefore do not compel setting 

aside the above-discussed authorities finding that a term such as “processor” connotes a 

class of structures such that the presumption against means-plus-function treatment is not 

rebutted.

Also, as to the recited functions that “one or more of the processor, the 

transceiver, or the smart antenna is further configured to” perform, Defendants do not 

persuasively show that the processor, alone, is necessarily configured to perform all of 

these functions. The prosecution history cited by Defendants, which replaced “are 

further configured” with “is further configured,” does not change the proper reading of 

the claims in this regard. (See Def. CC Opening, Ex. 7, June 20, 2018 Office Action 

Response.) Instead, the claim language can be met by “one or more” being so 

configured.

Alternatively and in addition, Plaintiff’s expert persuasively opines that a 

processor in the relevant art would be able to perform the various functions recited by 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 25 of 80 Page ID

#:15807

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 28 of 83 PageID #:

1785
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

the claims, such as generating probing signals and data streams. (See Pl. CC Opening, 

Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 28, 33, 45–56, 58–59, 63–69, 84 & 89.) This 

remains true even if the “processor” must be able to perform all eight of the functions 

identified by Defendants, namely: 

1. “generate a probing signal for transmission to at least a first client device 

and a second client device”;

2. “generate a first data stream for transmission to the first client device”;

3. “generate a second data stream for transmission to the second client 

device”;

4. “receive a first feedback information from the first client device in 

response to the transmission of the probing signal”;

5. “receive a second feedback information from the second client device in 

response to the transmission of the probing signal”;

6. “determine where to place transmission peaks and transmission nulls 

within one or more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals 

based in part on the first and the second feedback information”;

7. “transmit the first data stream to the first client device via the one or 

more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals”; and

8. “transmit the second data stream to the second client device via the one 

or more spatially distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals.”

(Def. CC Opening at 10–11.)

Defendants cite deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, such as that a “general 

purpose computer . . . wouldn’t be the one that processes these wireless signals” (Defs. 

CC Opening, Ex. 5, Nov. 12, 2021 Vojcic dep. at 57:16–58:2), but Defendants have not 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 26 of 80 Page ID

#:15808

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 29 of 83 PageID #:

1786
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

undermined the opinion of Plaintiff’s expert that the word “processor” connotes 

structure. (See id. at 39:1–19 (discussing that “general purpose computer” is different 

from a “processor” in the context of wireless devices); see also id. at 43:9–44:6 & 45:1–

19.) Likewise, Defendants cite testimony by Plaintiff’s expert that multiple different 

types of processors could be used (see id. at 53:11–54:13 & 54:23–55:13), but this is 

consistent with the term “processor” referring to a broad category of structures.

Plaintiff persuasively distinguishes the Parity Networks case, cited by Defendants, 

as involving indefinite functions and as lacking any recital of connections to structural 

components. See Parity Networks LLC v. ZyXEL Commc’ns, Inc., No. SACV 20-697 

JVS (KESx), 2020 WL 8569299, at *10–*11 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020) (“packet 

processor”).

Defendants further cite the Court’s analysis of the term “activation control circuit” 

in Limestone Memory Systems, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-278-

DOC, 2019 WL 6655273, at *18 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2019) (Carter, J.). The Court noted 

that “the Williamson test does not require an absolute lack of structure to invoke Section 

112, ¶ 6.” Id. The Court also noted the opinion of an expert that “an infinite number of 

different logic gate combinations may perform the function,” and the Court found that 

the relevant claim language “says nothing about the structure of the circuit.” Id., at *19.

Limestone itself noted, however, that “courts have analyzed ‘circuit’ claim terms 

on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the term fails to recite sufficiently definite 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 27 of 80 Page ID

#:15809

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 30 of 83 PageID #:

1787
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

structure that performs the claimed function.” Id. (emphasis added). The claim at issue 

in Limestone was Claim 13 of United States Patent No. 6,697,296, which recites:

13. A semiconductor device comprising:

signal input circuitry including an input buffer for buffering a signal 

provided externally and generating an internal signal when the signal input 

circuitry is active;

register circuitry for storing a signal specifying whether control on 

said signal input circuitry by an operation activation signal is valid, said 

operation activating signal indicating whether an external signal is a valid 

signal; and

an activation control circuit for selectively activating said signal 

input circuitry according to said operation activation signal and the signal 

stored in said register circuitry, said activation control circuit selectively 

activating said signal input circuitry according to said operation activation 

signal when the stored signal in said register circuitry indicates that control 

of activation and deactivation on said signal input circuitry by said 

operation activation signal is valid, and holding said signal input circuitry in 

an active state all the times when said stored signal in said register circuitry 

indicates that the control on said signal input circuitry by said operation 

activation signal is invalid.

Limestone found that the term “activation control circuit” failed to connote 

sufficient structure for “selectively activating said signal input circuitry . . .” and 

“holding said signal input circuitry in an active state all the times . . . .” Id., at *18–*20. 

In the present case, the word “processor” refers to a known category of structures, and 

although that category may be broad, “breadth is not indefiniteness.” BASF Corp. v. 

Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Moreover, as noted above, the claim language itself 

“describe[s] how the [‘processor’] interacts with other components . . . in a way that . . . 

inform[s] the structural character of the limitation-in-question.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 28 of 80 Page ID

#:15810

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 31 of 83 PageID #:

1788
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1351.

Plaintiff also persuasively distinguishes the Syneron case. The term at issue in 

Syneron was “processor . . . configured to control RF energy supplied to [an RF / a 

removable] applicator tip.” See Syneron Med. Ltd. v. Invasix, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00143-

DOC-KES, 2018 WL 4696971, at *12–*14 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018). Syneron found 

that this term amounted to a recital of an objective without any recital of inputs, outputs, 

or operations of the recited processor. See id. The “processor” in the present case, 

however, is not a mere “amalgam of elements in the specification.” Id., at *13. Also, 

Syneron involved skin treatments, and the Court noted that “the asserted independent 

claims are broadly directed to devices and methods for ablating the top layer of a 

subject’s skin (the stratus corneum) by applying RF energy (i.e., alternative electrical 

current) to the skin through a plurality of electrodes that are in direct contact with the 

skin.” Id., at *1 (footnote omitted). In light of this, Plaintiff persuasively argued at the 

January 18, 2022 hearing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a greater 

degree of understanding of the context of “processor” in the present case (where the 

“processor” is being used in the context of data communications) as opposed to in 

Syneron (where the “processor” was being used for a skin treatment).

Also, as to the discussion in Syneron regarding the St. Isidore case (see id., at *14 

(discussing St. Isidore Research, LLC v. Comerica Inc., No. 2:15-CV-1390, 2016 WL 

4988246, at *14–*15 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 19, 2016))), the analysis set forth in SyncPoint 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 29 of 80 Page ID

#:15811

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 32 of 83 PageID #:

1789
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., No. 2:15-CV-247, 2016 WL 55118, at *18–*21 

(E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016), is more persuasive as to the particular “processor” terms at 

issue in the present case.

Further, the Synchronoss case cited by Defendants did not involve any “processor” 

terms and is unpersuasive as well. See Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-

CV-00119, 2017 WL 6059302, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017) (Gilliam, J.)

Defendants point out that some of the authority cited by Plaintiff notes that “in 

cases where system or apparatus claims including the term ‘processor’ were found to 

invoke Section 112, paragraph 6, courts have explained that the claimed ‘processor’

failed to convey to the person of skill in the art ‘anything about the internal 

components, structure, or specific operation of the processor.” Techno View IP, Inc. v. 

Facebook Techs., LLC, No. 17-386, 2018 WL 6427874, at *6 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2018) 

(Burke, J.) (citing, e.g., Velocity Patent LLC v. FCA US LLC, No. 13-CV-8419, 2018 

WL 4214161, at *8 & n.16 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 4, 2018) & GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost 

Commcn’s Ltd., No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT, 2016 WL 212676, at *55–*57 (D. Ariz. 

Jan. 19, 2016)). Also, the parties do not appear to dispute the general proposition cited 

by Defendants that a term being recited in relation to a structure is not necessarily 

sufficient, by itself, to find that the term connotes structure. See MTD Prods., 933 F.3d

at 1344 (discussing “mechanical control assembly” that was recited as “coupled to the 

left and right drive units” in a vehicle).

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 30 of 80 Page ID

#:15812

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 33 of 83 PageID #:

1790
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

On balance, in addition to the above-discussed Federal Circuit authorities, the 

Nomadix, Odyssey Wireless, Quanergy, Align Technology, Fisher-Rosemount, and 

Techno View cases cited by Plaintiff carry persuasive weight in favor of finding that 

“processor” as used in the language here at issue connotes structure. Nomadix, Inc. v. 

Hosp. Core Servs. LLC, No. 14-CV-08256, 2016 WL 344461 at *5–*8 (C.D. Cal. 

Jan. 27, 2016) (Pregerson, J.) (“Here, the claim term ‘processor’ is a structural term that 

cannot be reasonably disputed . . . .”); Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 15-CV1735, 2016 WL 3055900, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (Huff, J.) (citing cases); 

Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., No. 15-CV-05251, 2017 WL 4410174, at 

*16–*19 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2017) (Davila, J.); Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape Inc., No. 17-

1648, 2021 WL 2320139, at *6–*7 (D. Del. Jun. 7, 2021) (Stark, J.); Fisher-Rosemount 

Sys., Inc. et al. v. ABB Ltd. et al., No. 4:18-CV-000178, 2019 WL 6830806, at *16 (S.D. 

Tex. Dec. 12, 2019); Techno View IP, Inc. v. Facebook Techs., LLC, No. 17-386, 2018 

WL 6427874, at *4–*6 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2018) (Burke, J.) (“[F]or the most part, courts 

have ultimately concluded that ‘processor’ terms failed to invoke Section 112,

paragraph 6.”).

Finally, Defendants’ argument that the claims are “not patentable” and that “there 

would be nothing inventive about the claims” (see Defs. CC Opening at 9) appears to 

refer to the standards of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and is not relevant to 

whether the “processor” terms are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 31 of 80 Page ID

#:15813

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 34 of 83 PageID #:

1791
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ argument that this is a 

means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Defendants present no 

alternative proposed construction. The Special Master therefore hereby construes these 

disputed terms as set forth in the following chart:

Term Construction

“a processor configured to: . . .” Plain meaning

“wherein one or more of the 

processor, the transceiver, or the 

smart antenna is further configured 

to: . . .”

Plain meaning

(As discussed above, the claims require 

only that “one or more” “is further 

configured,” not necessarily that each 

and every one of “the processor,” “the 

transceiver,” and “the smart antenna” is 

so configured)

2. “an 802.11 standard”

“802.11 standard”

(’376 Patent, Claims 10, 21)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary Indefinite

(Dkt. 255-1 at 13.)

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff urges that “a POSITA would readily recognize ‘802.11’ to be a familiar 

reference to a family of standards promulgated by the Institute of Electrical and 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 32 of 80 Page ID

#:15814

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 35 of 83 PageID #:

1792
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Electronics Engineers,” and “[t]he claim context also confirms the meaning of the term.” 

(Pl. CC Opening at 19 (citation omitted).) Plaintiff argues that “a POSITA would 

readily understand that the claim term ‘802.11 standard’ refers to the genus of such 

standards, and the relevant claims each require operation in accordance with at least one 

species of that genus.” (Id.)

Defendants argue that “the ’376 and ’939 Patents do not explain what it means to 

‘operate in accordance with’ ‘an’ 802.11 standard,” and “[w]hile both patents use the 

term ‘operate in accordance with,’ they never explain what is necessary to meet that 

phrase.” (Defs. CC Opening at 29.) Defendants also submit that “the specifications do 

not refer to a particular IEEE 802.11 standard as of a particular time . . . .” (Id.)

Plaintiff responds by reiterating its opening arguments, and Plaintiff also submits 

that “‘802.11’ refers to a specific family of wireless networking standards, not to the 

entire universe of wireless networking.” (Pl. CC Response at 20.)

Defendants respond that “a POSITA’s awareness of the IEEE’s standard setting 

process and the existing family of 802.11 standards[] does not render clear the intent 

behind the applicant’s use of ‘802.11 Standard’ in the claim[,] and XR’s ‘a POSITA is 

aware of 802.11’ argument falls apart because both experts recognize the ambiguity of 

that term.” (Defs. CC Response at 22.) Defendants also argue that “[t]he term ‘operate 

in accordance with’ tells a POSITA nothing about which features are to be implemented 

and how any inconsistencies are to be resolved.” (Id. at 23.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 33 of 80 Page ID

#:15815

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 36 of 83 PageID #:

1793
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments regarding 

this term.

(b) Analysis

The Supreme Court of the United States directs 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, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 

898, 901 (2014).

Here, Claims 10 and 21 of the ’376 Patent recite:

10. The data-communications networking apparatus as recited in claim 1, 

wherein the processor, transceiver and smart antenna are part of an access 

point configured to support the first and second client devices in accordance 

with an 802.11 standard, and wherein a position of the access point is fixed.

* * *

21. The data-communications networking apparatus as recited in claim 20, 

configured to support the first and second client devices in accordance with 

an IEEE 802.11 standard.

Although Defendants present evidence that the term “802.11 standard” would be 

understood by a person of skill in the art as potentially referring to various particular 

standards, Nautilus provides additional discussion of the competing considerations 

regarding definiteness:

To determine the proper office of the definiteness command, therefore, we 

must reconcile concerns that tug in opposite directions. Cognizant of the 

competing concerns, we read § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a patent’s claims, 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 34 of 80 Page ID

#:15816

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 37 of 83 PageID #:

1794
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those 

skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while 

recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. The standard we adopt 

accords with opinions of this Court stating that “the certainty which the law 

requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their 

subject-matter.” Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270, 37 

S.Ct. 82, 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916). See also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & 

Smith Co., 317 U.S. [228,] 236, 63 S. Ct. 165 [(1942)] (“claims must be 

reasonably clear-cut”); Markman [v. Westview Instruments, Inc.], 517 U.S. 

[370,] 389, 116 S. Ct. 1384 [(1996)] (claim construction calls for “the 

necessarily sophisticated analysis of the whole document,” and may turn on 

evaluations of expert testimony).

572 U.S. at 910–11.

Here, Plaintiff persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand the scope of the term “802.11 standard” with reasonable certainty, and the 

opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Vojcic, are further persuasive in this regard. (See Pl. 

CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶ 102.) The opinion of Defendants’ 

expert that “[t]here are sometimes incompatibilities among different versions of the 

standard,” and the presence of mandatory features and optional features, does not compel 

otherwise. (Defs. CC Response, Ex. 11, Nov. 9, 2021 Acampora dep. at 29:14–25.) 

Similarly unavailing is Defendants’ reliance on testimony of Plaintiff’s expert that there 

are differences between different versions of 802.11, which is a point not in dispute. 

(See Defs. CC Opening, Ex. 5, Vojcic dep. at 20:20–21:3.) Although the term “802.11” 

refers to a broad category of standards, “breadth is not indefiniteness.” BASF, 875 F.3d 

at 1367 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, even Defendants’ own 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 35 of 80 Page ID

#:15817

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 38 of 83 PageID #:

1795
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

expert testified at length regarding the 802.11 standards during his deposition. (See Pl. 

CC Opening, Ex. 6, Nov. 9, 2021 Acampora dep. at 27:15–35:23.)

Defendants also argue that the phrase “in accordance with” is unclear, questioning 

for example: “Does ‘operating in accordance with’ mean ‘full compliance’ with the 

standard, or compliance with the mandatory provisions of the standard, or something 

else?” (Defs. CC Opening at 29.) Defendants’ argument is akin to an argument that “in 

accordance with” is a term of degree that lacks sufficient objective boundaries. (See

Defs. CC Opening at 28–29 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).)

Defendants did not disclose “in accordance with” as a disputed term. (See Pl. CC 

Resp., Ex. 24, Defs. Am. Proposed Terms for Construction.) At the January 18, 2022 

hearing, Defendants did not appear to rely on the specific phrase “in accordance with” as 

giving rise to indefiniteness (see Jan. 18, 2022 Hr’g Tr. at 159:5–160:19), but to 

whatever extent Defendants’ indefiniteness argument is indeed based on the phrase “in 

accordance with,” any such argument is untimely.

Alternatively, even if Defendants’ apparent argument in this regard were 

considered on the merits, the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert are persuasive that a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonably clear understanding of “in accordance 

with” in the context of the 802.11 standards, particularly in light of the accompanying 

recital of apparatuses that “support the first and second client devices” for 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 36 of 80 Page ID

#:15818

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 39 of 83 PageID #:

1796
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

communication in a data network.

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, Defendants further argued that the literal scope 

of the claim term “802.11 standard” should be limited to the meaning in the art at the 

time of the invention. (See also Defs. CC Opening at 29.) Plaintiff responded that a 

person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that 

the 802.11 standards are subject to ongoing amendments, and Plaintiff reiterated that a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would always know exactly where to look to find those 

amendments.

“A claim cannot have different meanings at different times; its meaning must be 

interpreted as of its effective filing date.” PC Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk 

Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 986 (en banc) 

(“[T]he focus is on the objective test of what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 

the invention would have understood the term to mean.”) (emphasis added), aff’d, 517 

U.S. 370 (1996)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (“the 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”).

These legal principles support Defendant’s position that the literal scope of the 

term “802.11 standard” is limited to such standards that existed at the time of the 

invention.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 37 of 80 Page ID

#:15819

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 40 of 83 PageID #:

1797
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The Special Master therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ indefiniteness 

argument and hereby construes this disputed term as set forth in the following chart:

Term Construction

“an 802.11 standard” “one of the IEEE 802.11 standards 

that existed at the time of the 

invention”

VI. THE DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,289,939

3. “wireless input/output (I/O) unit”

“wireless input/output (I/O) unit”

(’939 Patent, Claims 1–3, 15, 18–19, 30–32)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposal

No construction necessary; not governed by 35 

U.S.C. § 112(6).

Alternative proposed construction, should the 

term be treated as means-plus-function:

Function:

Claims 1, 15, and 30: “establish a plurality of 

access points”

Claims 2, 18, and 31: “establish a plurality of 

co-located access points”

Claims 3, 19, and 32: “operate in accordance 

with at least one IEEE 802.11 standard”

Structure:

“Wireless input/output unit 206 and/or 5:30–

64 and equivalents thereof”

Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 

¶6, and indefinite

Function:

Claims 1, 15, and 30: 

“establish a plurality of access 

points”

Claims 2, 18, and 31: 

“establish a plurality of colocated access points”

Claims 3, 19, and 32: 

“operate in accordance with at 

least one IEEE 802.11 

standard”

Structure:

None disclosed

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 38 of 80 Page ID

#:15820

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 41 of 83 PageID #:

1798
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(Dkt. 255-1 at 14.)

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot overcome the presumption against meansplus-function treatment for this non-means term. (Pl. CC Opening at 20–21.) 

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that “[a] POSITA would readily understand that wireless 

input/output (I/O) unit 206 is a structure clearly linked to the function of establishing 

access points.” (Id. at 23 (citations omitted).)

Defendants argue that “a term may be known to have structure in some contexts, 

but may be a nonce word in other contexts, as dictated by the function to be performed.” 

(Defs. CC Opening at 17 (citation omitted).) Defendants argue that “‘wireless 

input/output (I/O) unit’ is treated as a black box that merely describes a ‘general 

category of whatever may perform’ the function.” (Id. at 18 (citation omitted).) 

Defendants likewise argue that “unit” is a “nonce” term that lacks structural meaning, 

and “the prefix in the claim language, ‘wireless input/output (I/O)’ does not inform a 

POSA what structure performs the recited function, ‘establish a plurality of access 

points.’” (Id. (citations omitted).) As for corresponding structure, Defendants argue that 

“the specification does not disclose the function ‘establish a plurality of access points,’”

and “while the specification refers to a ‘wireless input/output (I/O) unit 206’ in the 

Figure 2, 4, and 6 embodiments, these embodiments do not disclose any structure for 

performing the function ‘establish a plurality of access points.’” (Id. at 20.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 39 of 80 Page ID

#:15821

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 42 of 83 PageID #:

1799
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Plaintiff responds that “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” is not a coined term and 

would connote structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Pl. CC Response at 15.) 

Plaintiff also argues that “because the wireless I/O unit is within a physical structure and 

itself contains physical structures, a POSA would understand that this term refers to a 

physical object generally known in the art, and thus cannot be a means-plus-function 

term.” (Id. at 16.)

Defendants respond that this term “is a ‘nonce’ term that does not convey any 

structure to one of skill in the art,” and Defendants argue that “the specification cannot 

remedy the absence of structure in the claim itself.” (Defs. CC Response at 14.) 

Moreover, Defendants argue, “XR does not dispute that the specification does nothing 

more than repeat the function.” (Id. at 15; see id. at 16.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments regarding 

this term.

(b) Analysis

Claim 1 of the ’939 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):

1. An apparatus comprising:

a wireless input/output (I/O) unit that is configured to establish a 

plurality of access points; and

signal transmission/reception coordination logic that is capable of 

ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access points for received 

signals, that a first access point of the plurality of access points is receiving 

a first signal and that is adapted to restrain at least two other access points 

of the plurality of access points from transmitting signal responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first signal;

wherein the signal transmission/reception coordination logic restrains 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 40 of 80 Page ID

#:15822

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 43 of 83 PageID #:

1800
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

at least one other access point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting the other signal on a first channel responsive to the ascertaining 

that the access point of the plurality of access points is receiving the signal 

on a second different channel.

In some circumstances, the word “unit” might be deemed to be a so-called 

“nonce” word that lacks structural meaning, but here the modifiers impart structural 

meaning to the disputed term. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. Specifically, the 

phrase “wireless input/output (I/O)” on its face connotes structure and is analogous to the 

“wireless device means” term in Skky (cited below).

This reading is reinforced by disclosure in the specification. The Court can 

consider the specification in determining whether a term is a means-plus-function term 

governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6:

[T]he first step in the means-plus-function analysis requires us to determine 

whether the entire claim limitation at issue connotes “sufficiently definite 

structure” to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In so doing, we naturally 

look to the specification, prosecution history, and relevant external evidence 

to construe the limitation. While this inquiry may be similar to looking for 

corresponding structure in the specification, our precedent requires it when 

deciding whether a claim limitation lacking means connotes sufficiently

definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1296–97 (Fed. Cir. 2014), abrogated

on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339 (citations omitted); Media Rights, 800 

F.3d at 1372 (quoted above); see also ZeroClick, 891 F.3d at 1007 (“Th[e] determination 

[of whether a claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6] must be made under the traditional 

claim construction principles, on an element-by-element basis, and in light of evidence 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 41 of 80 Page ID

#:15823

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 44 of 83 PageID #:

1801
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

intrinsic and extrinsic to the asserted patents.”).

The specification refers to a wireless I/O unit as including structures and as being 

part of a structure. See, e.g., ’939 Patent at 4:17–23 (“[a]ccess station 102 includes 

wireless I/O unit 206”; “[w]ireless I/O unit 206 includes an antenna array 208 that is 

implemented as two or more antennas, and optionally as a phased array of antennas”), 

5:30–37 (similar) & 6:60–64 (“Such a wireless I/O unit 206 may also optionally include 

one or more of Ethernet switch/router 602, beamformer 612, and antenna array 208.”). 

This disclosure reinforces the finding, above, that “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” 

connotes structure based on the modifiers “wireless input/output (I/O).” The further 

claim language reciting that the “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” “is configured to 

establish a plurality of access ports” relates to configuration of the structure and does not 

compel means-plus-function treatment for this non-means term.

The term “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” thus connotes structure. The Federal 

Circuit’s analysis of the analogous term “wireless device means” in Skky supports this 

finding, as “it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of 

skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of 

structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function.” Skky, 859 F.3d 

at 1019 (quoting TecSec, 731 F.3d 1347). Although Defendants note that the Federal

Circuit decided the cited TecSec case prior to Williamson, the Federal Circuit decided 

Skky after Williamson, and Skky discusses TecSec together with discussing Williamson. 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 42 of 80 Page ID

#:15824

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 45 of 83 PageID #:

1802
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

See Skky, 859 F.3d at 1020.

Also of note, Skky dealt with a “means” term that was presumed to be a meansplus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and the Federal Circuit found that the 

phrase “wireless device” carried sufficiently strong structural connotations to overcome

the presumption. Id. (“Although the term uses the word ‘means’ and so triggers a 

presumption, the full term recites structure, not functionality.”).

In the present case, the term here at issue does not use the word “means” and is 

therefore presumed not to be a means-plus-function term subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. 

The Federal Circuit’s analysis in Skky thus applies with even greater force in the present 

case, particularly in light of the above-cited disclosure in the specification. See, e.g.,

’939 Patent at 4:17–23. The opinions of Plaintiff’s expert are further persuasive in this 

regard. (See Pl. CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 107–117.) The 

contrary opinions of Defendants’ expert are unpersuasive. (See Defs. CC Opening, 

Ex. 3, Nov. 2, 2021 Acampora Decl. at ¶ 61–66.) Further, as to Defendants’ argument at 

the January 18, 2022 hearing that the specification does not describe how to perform the 

function of establishing a plurality of access points, Defendants’ argument perhaps might 

bear on issues of enablement or written description but does not present any issue for 

claim construction.

Finally, Defendants cite the Ruckus decision by Judge William H. Orrick of the 

Northern District of California. See XR Commc’ns, LLC v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 43 of 80 Page ID

#:15825

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 46 of 83 PageID #:

1803
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

18-CV-01992-WHO, 2021 WL 3918136 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2021). But Judge Orrick’s 

analysis in that case pertained to a “logic” term that is not analogous to the “wireless 

input/output (I/O) unit” term here at issue. See id. (“search receiver logic”). The Federal 

Circuit’s analysis in the Diebold case regarding the term “cheque standby unit,” also 

cited by Defendants, is likewise unpersuasive as to the “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” 

term here at issue. See Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC, 899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

The Special Master therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ argument that 

this is a means-plus-function term, and the Special Master hereby expressly rejects 

Defendants’ argument that this term is indefinite. Defendants submit no alternative 

proposed construction, so the Special Master hereby construes this disputed term as set 

forth in the following chart:

Term Construction

“wireless input/output (I/O) unit” Plain meaning

4. “signal transmission/reception coordination logic”

“signal transmission/reception coordination logic”

(’939 Patent, Claims 1, 7–8, 11–17, 30)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary; not

governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).

Alternative proposed construction,

should the term be treated as meansGoverned by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, and

indefinite

Functions:

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 44 of 80 Page ID

#:15826

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 47 of 83 PageID #:

1804
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

plus-function:

Function:

Claim 1: ascertaining, by monitoring 

the plurality of access points for 

received signals, that a first access 

point of the plurality of access points is 

receiving a first signal” and 

“restrain[ing] at least two other access 

points of the plurality of access points 

from transmitting signal responsive to 

the ascertaining that the first access 

point is receiving the first signal

Claim 1: restrain[ing] at least one other

access point of the plurality of access

points from transmitting the other 

signal on a first channel responsive to 

the ascertaining that the access point of 

the plurality of access points is 

receiving the signal on a second 

different channel

Claim 7: restrain[ing] at least one other

access point of the plurality of access

points while the first access point is

receiving the first signal

Claim 13: affect[ing] a baseband unit

Claim 14: affect[ing] a radio frequency

(RF) part

Claim 15: ascertaining, by monitoring

the plurality of access points for 

received signals, that: a first access 

point of the plurality of access points is 

receiving a first signal on a first 

channel, a second access point of the 

Claim 1:

“ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received 

signals, that a first access point of the 

plurality of access points is receiving a 

first signal” and “restrain[ing] at least 

two other access points of the plurality 

of access points from transmitting signal

responsive to the ascertaining that the

first access point is receiving the first

signal”

Claim 1:

“restrain[ing] at least one other 

access point of the plurality of access 

points from transmitting the other signal 

on a first channel responsive to the

ascertaining that the access point of the

plurality of access points is receiving 

the signal on a second different 

channel”

Claim 7:

“restrain[ing] at least one other 

access point of the plurality of access 

points while the first access point is 

receiving the first signal”

Claim 13:

“affect[ing] a baseband unit” 

Claim 14:

“affect[ing] a radio frequency (RF) 

part”

Claim 15:

“ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received 

signals, that:” (i) “a first access point of 

the plurality of access points is 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 45 of 80 Page ID

#:15827

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 48 of 83 PageID #:

1805
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

plurality of access points is receiving a 

second signal that is ongoing on a 

second channel, restrain[ing] at least a 

third access point of the plurality of 

access points from transmitting a third 

signal on a third channel responsive to 

the ascertaining that the first access 

point is receiving the first signal and 

that the second access point is 

receiving the second signal that is 

ongoing-on the second channel,

wherein the restraining at least the third

access point prevents degradation to 

the first and second signals

Claim 30: ascertaining, by monitoring

the plurality of access points for 

received signals, that a first access 

point of the plurality of access points is 

receiving a first signal on a first 

channel, restrain[ing] at least a second 

access point of the plurality of access 

points from transmitting a second 

signal on a second channel different 

from the first channel responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access point is 

receiving the first signal.

Structure:

Signal transmission/reception

coordination logic 404 and/or MAC

coordinator logic 606 and/or 6:16–38

and/or 6:65–7:20 and/or 9:11–59 

and/or 11:54–12:21 and/or 17:1–32, 

and equivalents thereof

receiving a first signal on a first 

channel,” (ii) “a second access point of 

the plurality of access points is 

receiving a second signal that is 

ongoing on a second channel,”

(iii) “restrain[ing] at least a third access

point of the plurality of access points

from transmitting a third signal on a 

third channel responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access point is 

receiving the first signal and that the 

second access point is receiving the 

second signal that is ongoing-on the 

second channel, wherein the restraining 

at least the third access point prevents 

degradation to the first and second 

signals”

Claim 30:

“ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received 

signals, that a first access point of the 

plurality of access points is receiving a 

first signal on a first channel”

“restrain[ing] at least a second access

point of the plurality of access points

from transmitting a second signal on a

second channel different from the first

channel responsive to the ascertaining

that the first access point is receiving 

the first signal”

Structure:

None (indefinite)

(Dkt. 255-1 at 14–17; see Def. CC Opening at 22–26.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 46 of 80 Page ID

#:15828

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 49 of 83 PageID #:

1806
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot overcome the presumption against meansplus-function treatment for this non-means term. (Pl. CC Opening at 23.) Plaintiff 

submits that “a POSITA recognizes that this claim term refers to a specific class of logic 

(or electronic circuit) contained on a processor within a Wi-Fi router or Wi-Fi switch 

that coordinates signal transmissions and receptions for access points.” (Id. (citation 

omitted).) Plaintiff also argues that “while the specification allows for the signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic to be implemented as hardware, software, 

firmware, or a combination thereof, a POSITA understands that this term recites 

sufficiently definite structure, because it is contained in the physical structure of the 

baseband processing layer of the processor chip in a Wi-Fi router or switch.” (Id. at 24.) 

Further, Plaintiff argues that “the contextual claim language makes clear that ‘signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic’ describes a class of structures, because it is 

‘coupled to’ other elements that are physical structures, like ‘access station,’ ‘wireless 

input/output (I/O) unit,’ baseband processors, and antenna arrays, which, as discussed 

above, are not disputed as physical structures.” (Id. at 25 (citations omitted).) 

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that “the Court should construe this term to have the 

structure of signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 and/or MAC 

coordinator logic 606 as corresponding structure clearly linked to performing the 

claimed functions,” and “the Court may also construe ‘signal transmission/reception

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 47 of 80 Page ID

#:15829

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 50 of 83 PageID #:

1807
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

coordination logic’ to cover a corresponding ‘algorithm’ in the specification.” (Id. at 26 

& 27 (citation omitted).)

Defendants argue that “‘logic’ is a well-known nonce word that does not connote 

sufficiently definite structure and can operate as a substitute for ‘means.’” (Defs. CC 

Opening at 22 (citation omitted).) Defendants also argue that the phrase “signal 

transmission/reception coordination” does not “impart any structure, as it merely 

describes the function of the ‘logic.’” (Id. at 23.) As to the claimed function, 

Defendants argue that “[t]h[e] requirement of restraining transmission on one channel, in 

response to ascertaining reception on a different channel, was the basis for the examiner 

determining the claims were allowable.” (Defs. CC Opening at 25 (citing Ex. 8, July 16, 

2012 Notice of Allowance at 2–5 (pp. 205–08 of Ex. 8)).) As to corresponding structure, 

Defendants argue that “[a]t best, [the specification] restates the claimed functionality, 

without any explanation of how it might be implemented, or what steps it might entail.” 

(Id.) 

Plaintiff responds that “as made clear in the intrinsic evidence of the ’939 Patent 

claims and specification, the signal transmission/reception coordination logic refers to a 

specific class of logic (or electronic circuit) contained in the baseband processing layer 

of the processing chip in a wireless routing device.” (Pl. CC Response at 18 (citing ’939 

Patent at 18:39–44).) Plaintiff thus urges that “a POSA understands that this term recites 

sufficiently definite structure, because it is contained in the physical structure of the 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 48 of 80 Page ID

#:15830

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 51 of 83 PageID #:

1808
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

baseband processing layer of the processor chip in a Wi-Fi router or switch.” (Pl. CC 

Opening at 18.)

Defendant responds that: “The ’939 patent claims do not specify what the ‘signal

transmission/reception coordination logic’ is. Rather, they merely indicate what it

does.” (Defs. CC Response at 17.) Defendants also emphasize authority for the 

proposition that “[m]ere inclusion of a limitation within a structure does not 

automatically render the limitation itself sufficiently structural.” (Id. (quoting Egenera, 

972 F.3d at 1374).) As to corresponding structure, Defendants argue that “none of the[] 

passages or figures [cited by Plaintiff] relate to logic for restraining transmission on a 

different channel than the channel on which a signal is received, other than the cursory 

paragraph of 6:39–53.” (Defs. CC Response at 20.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments regarding 

this term. For example, Plaintiff argued that no authority limits the corresponding 

structure analysis to only the disclosures that expressly refer to the recited function. 

Rather, Plaintiff urged, the analysis can consider additional description of the linked 

structure.

(b) Analysis

Legal principles regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 are set forth above as to the 

“processor” terms in the ’376 Patent.

Here, Claim 1 of the ’939 Patent for example recites (emphasis added):

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 49 of 80 Page ID

#:15831

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 52 of 83 PageID #:

1809
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. An apparatus comprising:

a wireless input/output (I/O) unit that is configured to establish a 

plurality of access points; and

signal transmission/reception coordination logic that is capable of 

ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access points for received 

signals, that a first access point of the plurality of access points is receiving 

a first signal and that is adapted to restrain at least two other access points 

of the plurality of access points from transmitting signal responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first signal;

wherein the signal transmission/reception coordination logic

restrains at least one other access point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting the other signal on a first channel responsive to the ascertaining 

that the access point of the plurality of access points is receiving the signal 

on a second different channel.

In Ruckus, Judge Orrick found the similar term “search receiver logic” in 

Plaintiff’s United States Patent No. 6,611,231 (“the ’231 Patent”) was a means-plusfunction term. See XR Commc’ns, LLC v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 18-CV-01992-

WHO, 2021 WL 3918136 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2021).

Substantially the same analysis applies here as to the “signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic.” The prefix “signal transmission/reception 

coordination” describes functions and does not connote structure. Cf. Rain Computing, 

Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Nor does the 

prefix ‘user identification’ impart structure because it merely describes the function of 

the module: to identify a user.”).

Also, the recitals of inputs, outputs, connections, and operations (such as 

“monitoring,” “ascertaining,” and “restrain[ing]”) are insufficient to connote or imply

any particular structure for the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic.” Also, 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 50 of 80 Page ID

#:15832

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 53 of 83 PageID #:

1810
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

it is unpersuasive that the claims or the specification may disclose a signal

transmission/reception logic as part of a structure because “[m]ere inclusion of a 

limitation within a structure does not automatically render the limitation itself 

sufficiently structural.” Egenera, 972 F.3d at 1374; see, e.g., ’939 Patent at 5:30–33 

(“signal transmission/reception logic 404” can be included within “wireless I/O unit 

206”).

The opinions of Plaintiff’s expert are likewise unpersuasive. (See Pl. CC 

Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 121 & 124–34.) The dictionary 

definitions of “logic,” such as meaning “functions” or “circuits,” do not compel 

otherwise. (See Pl. CC Opening, Exs. 8 & 17–18.) Plaintiff also cites VR Optics, which 

found that “placement of ‘logic’ alongside and in the same format as . . . other clearly 

structural terms highlights that the . . . patent is using the term logic to connote a known 

structure rather than as a nonce substitute for the word ‘means.’” See VR Optics, LLC v. 

Peloton Interactive, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 394, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). On balance, to 

whatever extent VR Optics is analogous, it is not binding on this Court and is 

unpersuasive, as Judge Orrick also found in Ruckus. See 2021 WL 3918136, at *8 n.4 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2021).

Plaintiff further points out that Judge Orrick cited a definition of “logic” set forth 

in the ’231 Patent itself, which defined “logic” as “hardware, firmware, software, or any 

combination thereof that may be implemented to perform logical operations associated 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 51 of 80 Page ID

#:15833

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 54 of 83 PageID #:

1811
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

with a given task.” Id., at *7. But although the ’939 Patent contains no such definition, 

Judge Orrick did not rely exclusively on this definition of “logic.” Rather, Judge Orrick 

cited this definition of “logic” “[i]n addition” to being persuaded by expert opinion that 

the term “search receiver logic” did not connote any sufficiently definite structure for 

performing the claimed function. See id., at *6–*7. Also, the ’939 Patent discloses, as 

to the “signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404,” that “[s]uch logic may be 

implemented as hardware, software, firmware, some combination thereof, and so forth.” 

’939 Patent at 5:35–37.

The Special Master thus finds that “signal transmission/reception coordination 

logic” is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The parties 

agree upon the claimed functions. (See Dkt. 255, Ex. A at 14–17.) The parties dispute 

whether the specification discloses sufficient corresponding structure.

Plaintiff proposes that the corresponding structure is:

Signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 and/or MAC

coordinator logic 606 and/or 6:16–38 and/or 6:65–7:20 and/or 9:11–59 

and/or 11:54–12:21 and/or 17:1–32, and equivalents thereof.

(Id. at 17.)

The specification discloses, for example:

At block 502, multiple access points are monitored. For example, access 

points 402(1 . . . N) may be monitored by signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 (e.g., to detect signal reception). At block 504, it is 

ascertained that an access point of the multiple monitored access points is 

receiving a signal. For example, it may be ascertained by signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 that an access point 402(1) of 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 52 of 80 Page ID

#:15834

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 55 of 83 PageID #:

1812
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

multiple access points 402(1 . . . N) is receiving a signal via a wireless I/O 

unit 206.

At block 506, the other access points of the multiple monitored access 

points are restrained from transmitting a signal. For example, signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain access points 

402(2 . . . N) from transmitting a signal. In a described implementation, 

signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain access 

points 402(2 . . . N) from transmitting signals until access point 402(1) 

ceases receiving the signal.

With reference again to FIG. 4, one access point 402 (and/or 

communication beam 202) may operate on a different channel from that of 

another access point 402 (and/or communication beam 202). If the different 

channels are adjacent and/or not sufficiently-well defined, it may be 

beneficial to restrain transmission on a first channel with a first access point 

402 even when receiving a wireless communication on a second different 

channel with a second access point 402. In another exemplary 

implementation for different channel situations, signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain transmission on 

one channel on the basis of reception on another channel with an ongoing 

transmission on a third channel to prevent (e.g., inter-modulation) distortion 

to the signals being communicated in the wireless system.

FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary access station 102 that includes multiple 

components such as medium access controllers (MACs) 604, baseband 

(BB) units 608, and MAC coordinator logic 606. As illustrated, access 

station 102 also includes an Ethernet switch and/or router 602, radio 

frequency (RF) parts 610, a beamformer 612, and antenna array 208. A 

wireless I/O unit 206 (e.g., as illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 4) may correspond 

to MACs 604, MAC coordinator logic 606, BB units 608, and RF parts 610.

Such a wireless I/O unit 206 may also optionally include one or more of 

Ethernet switch/router 602, beamformer 612, and antenna array 208.

In a described implementation, antenna array 208 is coupled to beamformer 

612. Beamformer 612 is coupled to multiple RF parts 610(1), 610(2) . . . 

610(N). Respective multiple RF parts 610(1), 610(2) . . . 610(N) are 

coupled to respective is [sic] multiple BB units 608(1), 608(2) . . . 608(N). 

On the other hand, Ethernet switch/router 602 is coupled to multiple MACs 

604(1), 604(2) . . . 604(N). Both of the multiple BB units 608(1, 2 . . . N) 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 53 of 80 Page ID

#:15835

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 56 of 83 PageID #:

1813
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

and the multiple MACs 604(1, 2 . . . N) are coupled to MAC coordinator 

logic 606.

In operation generally, each respective MAC 604(1, 2 . . . N) is associated 

with a respective BB unit 608(1, 2 . . . N). Although not specifically shown 

in FIG. 6, each respective MAC 604 may also be in direct communication 

with each of the respective associated BB units 608. MAC coordinator 

logic 606 is configured to coordinate the activities of the multiple MACs 

604 (e.g., as a multi-MAC controller (MMC)) with regard to at least one 

non-associated respective BB unit 608. For example, MAC coordinator 

logic 606 may forward an instruction to MAC 604(1) responsive, at least 

partly, to an indicator provided from BB unit 608(2). MAC coordinator 

logic 606 may be implemented as hardware, software, firmware, some 

combination thereof, and so forth.

* * *

As noted above, MAC coordinator logic 606 (and signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 (of FIG. 4)) may be modified, 

tweaked, expanded, etc. based on any one or more of many factors. FIG. 8 

illustrates some of these factors. For example, FIG. 8 includes channel 

assignment information 802, receive indicator enable information 804, 

timer logic 816, and scanning logic 812. Channel assignment information 

802, receive indicator enable information 804, timer logic 816, and/or 

scanning logic 812 may be part of MAC coordinator logic 606 or another 

part of access station 102A.

Channel assignment information 802 enables receive indicators (1, 2 . . . 13) 

to be combined by receive indicators combiner 810 on a per-channel basis.

As a result, constructive receive indicators (1, 2 . . . 13) restrain signal 

transmissions from MAC 604/BB unit 608 pairs when a signal reception is 

occurring on the same channel, even if by a different MAC 604/BB unit 608 

pair. A downlinked packet that is transmitted on one channel while an 

uplinked packet is being received on another channel does not usually cause 

the uplinked packet to be thrashed (as long as the two channels are 

sufficiently well-defined or otherwise separated). On the other hand, a 

downlinked packet that is transmitted on a channel while an uplinked packet 

is being received on the same channel does usually cause the uplinked 

packet to be thrashed, even if the transmission and reception occur using 

different communication beams 202 (of FIGS. 2 and 3).

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 54 of 80 Page ID

#:15836

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 57 of 83 PageID #:

1814
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Channel assignment information 802 may be implemented as, for example, 

a vector that relates each MAC 604 and associated BB unit 608 to one of 

two or more channels. Hence, prior to combination using receive indicators 

combiner 810, each respective receive indicator of receive indicators (1, 2 

. . . 13) can be mapped to a channel segmentation or grouping based on a 

wireless communication channel used by a corresponding MAC 604/BB 

unit 608 pair.

’939 Patent at 6:22–7:20 & 11:54–12:21; see also id. at 5:57–6:5, 8:11–59, 9:11–10:60, 

15:66–16:11 & 16:59–32; id. at 18:12–19 (“MAC coordinator logic 606 of FIG. 12 is an 

example of a distributed signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 at a MAC 

level that optionally uses MAC primitives.”) & 18:39–44 (“signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 may be implemented at the baseband layer in a system that 

utilizes off-the-shelf chips in which MAC and baseband functionality are integrated into 

a single chip or chips that may not separately expose desired MAC signal(s) (e.g., MAC 

primitives)”).

These disclosures link the disclosed signal transmission/reception coordination 

logic 404 to the claimed functions here at issue. Despite Defendants’ arguments to the 

contrary, this does not amount to “[s]imply disclosing a black box that performs the 

recited function.” Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (“Simply disclosing a black box that performs the recited function is not a 

sufficient explanation of the algorithm required to render the means-plus-function term 

definite.”) (citation omitted). The opinions of Defendants’ expert are likewise 

unpersuasive. (Defs. CC Opening, Ex. 3, Nov. 2, 2021 Acampora Decl. at ¶¶ 97–112.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 55 of 80 Page ID

#:15837

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 58 of 83 PageID #:

1815
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

As to Claim 1, the specification links the signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 to the claimed functions of “ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received signals, that a first access point of the plurality of 

access points is receiving a first signal,” “restrain[ing] at least two other access points of 

the plurality of access points from transmitting signal responsive to the ascertaining that 

the first access point is receiving the first signal,” and “restrain[ing] at least one other 

access point of the plurality of access points from transmitting the other signal on a first 

channel responsive to the ascertaining that the access point of the plurality of access 

points is receiving the signal on a second different channel.” See ’939 Patent at 6:22–38.

This also applies to Claim 7, which recites “restrain[ing] at least one other access 

point of the plurality of access points from transmitting a downlink signal,” and 

Claim 15, which recites ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access points for 

received signals, that a first access point of the plurality of access points is receiving a 

first signal on a first channel and that a second access point of the plurality of access 

points is receiving a second signal that is ongoing on a second channel, and 

“restrain[ing] at least a third access point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting a third signal on a third channel responsive to the ascertaining that the first 

access point is receiving the first signal and that the second access point is receiving the 

second signal that is ongoing-on the second channel,” and Claim 30, which recites 

“restrain[ing] at least a second access point of the plurality of access points from 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 56 of 80 Page ID

#:15838

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 59 of 83 PageID #:

1816
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

transmitting a second signal on a second channel different from the first channel 

responsive to the ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first signal.”

As to Claims 13 and 14, the specification links the signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 to affecting baseband units (“BB units”) and affecting radio 

frequency (“RF”) parts. See ’939 Patent at 18:25–31 (“Signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 accepts as inputs receive information from multiple RF parts 

610(1, 2 ... N) and produces as outputs combined receive information for multiple

respective BB units 608(1, 2 ... K). Respective BB units 608(1, 2 ... K) provide MAC 

primitives to respective MACs 604(1, 2 , , , K) based on the combined receive 

information.”).

As to Plaintiff’s proposal that “MAC coordinator logic 606” is an alternative 

corresponding structure, Plaintiff does not persuasively show that this structure is 

“clearly link[ed]” to the above-noted claimed functions. Triton, 753 F.3d at 1378.

The Special Master therefore hereby construes this disputed term as set forth in 

the following chart:

Term Construction

“signal 

transmission/reception 

coordination logic”

Means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. 

§ 112, ¶ 6

Function:

Claim 1: “ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality 

of access points for received signals, that a first access 

point of the plurality of access points is receiving a 

first signal” and “restrain[ing] at least two other access 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 57 of 80 Page ID

#:15839

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 60 of 83 PageID #:

1817
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

points of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting signal responsive to the ascertaining that 

the first access point is receiving the first signal”

Claim 1: “restrain[ing] at least one other access 

point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting the other signal on a first channel 

responsive to the ascertaining that the access point of 

the plurality of access points is receiving the signal on 

a second different channel”

Claim 7: “restrain[ing] at least one other access 

point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting a downlink signal”

Claim 13: “affect[ing] a baseband unit” 

Claim 14: “affect[ing] a radio frequency (RF) part”

Claim 15: “ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received signals, that:” 

(i) “a first access point of the plurality of access points 

is receiving a first signal on a first channel,” (ii) “a 

second access point of the plurality of access points is 

receiving a second signal that is ongoing on a second 

channel,” (iii) “restrain[ing] at least a third access 

point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting a third signal on a third channel 

responsive to the ascertaining that the first access point 

is receiving the first signal and that the second access 

point is receiving the second signal that is ongoing-on 

the second channel, wherein the restraining at least the 

third access point prevents degradation to the first and 

second signals”

Claim 30: “ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received signals, that a 

first access point of the plurality of access points is 

receiving a first signal on a first channel” and 

“restrain[ing] at least a second access point of the 

plurality of access points from transmitting a second 

signal on a second channel different from the first 

channel responsive to the ascertaining that the first 

access point is receiving the first signal”

Structure:

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 58 of 80 Page ID

#:15840

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 61 of 83 PageID #:

1818
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

“signal transmission/reception coordination 

logic 404 (with the characteristics and 

configuration set forth for the signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 in 

the ’939 Patent), and equivalents thereof”

5. “responsive to . . .” Terms

“responsive to the ascertaining that the access point of the

plurality of access points is receiving the signal on a second different 

channel”

(’939 Patent, Claim 1)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. “while the access point of the plurality 

of access points is ascertained to be

receiving the signal on a second

different channel”

“responsive to the ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first 

signal and that the second access point is receiving the second signal that is 

ongoing-on the second channel”

(’939 Patent, Claim 15)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. “while the first access point is

ascertained to be receiving the first

signal and the second access point is

ascertained to be receiving the second

signal that is ongoing-on the second

channel”

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 59 of 80 Page ID

#:15841

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 62 of 83 PageID #:

1819
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

“responsive to the ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first 

signal”

(’939 Patent, Claim 30)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. “while the first access point is

ascertained to be receiving the first

signal”

(Dkt. 255-1 at 17–18.)

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ proposed constructions are unnecessary 

exercises in inserting or rearranging claim terms and should be rejected.” (Pl. CC 

Opening at 27.) Also, as to Defendants’ proposal of “while,” Plaintiff argues that 

“Defendants identify no lexicography or disclaimer indicating that the separate steps of 

ascertaining and restraining must occur simultaneously.” (Id. at 28.) Plaintiff urges that 

“[i]f the drafter had intended the independent claims to include a ‘while’ limitation, the

claims would have included such a limitation.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff argues that 

“Defendants’ rewriting suggests that each phrase might have a new ascertainment 

separate from the already-claimed ascertaining, injecting potential uncertainty.” (Id.)

Defendants argue that “[t]his phrase, which appears in some form in each 

independent claim of the ’939 Patent, specifies when the claimed ‘restraining’ is to take 

place,” and “Defendants’ construction clarifies that the claimed restraining takes place in 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 60 of 80 Page ID

#:15842

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 63 of 83 PageID #:

1820
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

real time.” (Defs. CC Opening at 26.) “That is,” Defendants argue, “one access point is 

restrained from transmitting while another access point is ascertained to be receiving, in 

order to mitigate interference . . . .” (Id.) As to the recital in dependent Claim 8 that the 

logic “restrains . . . while the first access point is receiving the first signal,” Defendants 

argue that “a close look at the prosecution history shows that any redundancy between 

claims 1 and 8 was likely unintentional.” (Id. at 28.)

Plaintiff responds that “Defendants seek to introduce a new requirement that the 

restraining must occur ‘while [the access point] is receiving [the signal],’ which is not in 

the claim at all,” and “[t]he plain meaning of ‘responsive to’ invokes cause and effect—it 

does not mean ‘while,’ ‘during’ or ‘simultaneous with.’” (Pl. CC Response at 21.)

Defendants respond: “Defendants’ proposed construction of the ‘responsive . . .’ 

terms clarifies that the claimed restraining takes place in real time. The construction is 

supported by: the claim language which states that the ‘restraining’ is done ‘responsive 

to the ascertaining that the [access point] is receiving’ a signal, the specification that 

consistently describes the restraining taking place while the signal is being received, and 

the patent’s objective of avoiding interference between downlink signal transmissions 

and uplink signal receptions. Defs. Op. Br. at 26–28.” (Defs. CC Response at 23.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties submitted this term on the briefing 

without oral argument.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 61 of 80 Page ID

#:15843

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 64 of 83 PageID #:

1821
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(b) Analysis

Claim 1 of the ’939 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):

1. An apparatus comprising:

a wireless input/output (I/O) unit that is configured to establish a 

plurality of access points; and

signal transmission/reception coordination logic that is capable of 

ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access points for received 

signals, that a first access point of the plurality of access points is receiving 

a first signal and that is adapted to restrain at least two other access points 

of the plurality of access points from transmitting signal responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first signal;

wherein the signal transmission/reception coordination logic restrains 

at least one other access point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting the other signal on a first channel responsive to the ascertaining 

that the access point of the plurality of access points is receiving the signal 

on a second different channel.

Plaintiff’s expert submits that “it is the interference between transmissions, not 

between access points, that requires the step of restraining at least one other access point 

of the plurality of access points from transmitting.” (See Pl. CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 

2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶ 140.) The specification discloses:

Generally, signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 coordinates 

uplink signal receptions and downlink signal transmissions across different 

access points 402 so as to avoid or at least reduce the frequency at which 

downlink signals are transmitted at a first access point 402(y) while uplink 

signals are being received at a second access point 402(x).

* * *

[A]n incoming packet reception via a communication beam 202(x) can be 

rendered unsuccessful by an outgoing packet transmission via a 

communication beam 202(y) that occurs on the same channel (or adjacent 

or otherwise sufficiently proximate channels with imprecise channel 

boundaries) and is temporally overlapping.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 62 of 80 Page ID

#:15844

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 65 of 83 PageID #:

1822
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

 

’939 Patent at 5:58–64 & 9:4–10 (emphasis added); see id. at 6:35–46 (“If the different 

channels are adjacent and/or not sufficiently-well defined, it may be beneficial to restrain 

transmission on a first channel with a first access point 402 even when receiving a 

wireless communication on a second different channel with a second access point 402.”); 

see also id. at 11:39–42 & 12:4–13.

But although the specification uses the word “while,” Defendants do not 

persuasively show that “responsive to” means “while.” That is, Defendants have not 

demonstrated that one action being “responsive to” another action necessarily requires 

the actions to be contemporaneous. To whatever extent the above-cited disclosures set 

forth such operation, this is a specific feature of particular disclosed embodiments that 

should not be imported into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. Indeed, the 

claim language itself recites “is receiving,” and one of the above-reproduced disclosures 

refers to transmissions that are “temporally overlapping,” which further weighs against 

limiting “responsive to” to meaning “while.” ’939 Patent at 9:4–10. As to Defendants’ 

arguments that “responsive to” must mean “while” in order to be consistent with the

purpose of the claimed invention, “[t]he court’s task is not to limit claim language to 

exclude particular devices because they do not serve a perceived ‘purpose’ of the 

invention.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Also, Defendants argue that “the claims use the present progressive tense (‘is 

receiving’) to indicate that the reception of a signal is a presently occurring action” (Def. 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 63 of 80 Page ID

#:15845

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 66 of 83 PageID #:

1823
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

CC Opening at 26), but Defendants do not show how this necessarily requires the 

“restrain[ing]” to be contemporaneous with the “ascertaining.”

The doctrine of claim differentiation reinforces this conclusion. Dependent 

Claim 8 recites (emphasis added): 

8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic restrains at least one other access point of the plurality of 

access points while the first access point is receiving the first signal.

Dependent Claim 8 thus includes the “while” limitation that Defendants propose 

including in the independent claim. The doctrine of claim differentiation therefore

weighs further against Defendants’ proposed construction. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. 

Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Claim differentiation, 

while often argued to be controlling when it does not apply, is clearly applicable when 

there is a dispute over whether a limitation found in a dependent claim should be read 

into an independent claim, and that limitation is the only meaningful difference between 

the two claims.”).

Finally, Defendants cite the original patent application and the prosecution history, 

arguing that “[t]he scope of claim 1 was only narrowed more than eight years later when 

the ‘wherein . . . on a second different channel’ term was added to the claim with the 

examiner’s amendment included in the Notice of Allowance, suggesting that any 

redundancy was likely an unintentional byproduct of the last-minute amendment.” (Def. 

CC Opening at 28 (discussing Ex. 8, Application at 40–66 (pp. 42–68 of 211 of Ex. 8); 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 64 of 80 Page ID

#:15846

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 67 of 83 PageID #:

1824
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

discussing id., July 16, 2012 Notice of Allowance at 2–6 (pp. 205–209 of 211 of Ex. 8).) 

Plaintiff points out, however, that the distinct usage of “responsive to” in some claims 

and “while” in certain dependent claims is apparent in the original claims of the patent 

application. (See id., Application at pp. 42, 44, 45–46 (pp. 44, 46 & 47–48 of 211 of 

Ex. 8) (application claims 9, 20, 27, and 31). Defendants identify no definitive 

statements in the prosecution history that would warrant limiting “responsive to” to 

mean “while.” See Omega Eng’g Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) (“As a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the 

public notice function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public’s reliance on 

definitive statements made during prosecution.”).

The Special Master therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed 

constructions, and no further construction is necessary. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. 

Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict 

courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a 

patent’s asserted claims.”); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 

1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Unlike O2 Micro, where the court failed to resolve the 

parties’ quarrel, the district court rejected Defendants’ construction.”); Bayer Healthcare 

LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 977–79 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The Court therefore hereby construes “responsive to” to have its plain meaning.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 65 of 80 Page ID

#:15847

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 68 of 83 PageID #:

1825
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

6. “one other access point,” “the other signal,” “the access point,” and “the signal”

“one other access point”

(’939 Patent, Claims 1, 7–8)

“the other signal”

(’939 Patent, Claim 1)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. Indefinite

“the access point”

(’939 Patent, Claims 1, 4–5, 33–34)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“the first access point” Indefinite

“the signal”

(’939 Patent, Claim 1)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“the first signal” Indefinite

(Dkt. 255-1 at 18.)

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that “the claim context confirms the scope of ‘one other access

point.’” (Pl. CC Opening at 29.) Plaintiff argues that “there is no confusion what ‘the 

other signal’ means,” “[f]or example, there is not a different ‘other signal’ in claim 1 that 

the term could refer back to.” (Id. at 29–30.) Plaintiff further argues that “[t]he claim 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 66 of 80 Page ID

#:15848

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 69 of 83 PageID #:

1826
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

context makes clear that ‘the access point’ in each of these claims refers to the access 

point that ‘is receiving the signal’ in independent claims 1 and 23, paralleled in 

dependent [claims] 4–5 and 33–34 by the further description of ‘the signal received by 

the access point.’” (Id. at 30.)

Defendants argue: “Without proper antecedent basis, there are multiple possible 

interpretations of the claims. Vivato attempts to rewrite the claims now tellingly picking 

the interpretations that most comport with its infringement theories. This is improper 

and XR should not be permitted to rewrite them now.” (Defs. CC Opening at 30.)

Plaintiff responds: “As supported by the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Vojcic 

[(Plaintiff’s expert)], each of these terms, when read in context and in light of the 

specification, has a clear meaning, and is thus not indefinite.” (Pl. CC Response at 23.)

Defendants respond: “XR is asking the Court to put itself in the shoes of the 

examiner to determine what the examiner thought the invention was when they revised 

the claim language. Without proper antecedent basis—which all agree does not exist—a 

POSITA could not determine which of the possible ‘signals’ or ‘access points’ to which 

the claims are referring. The claims are therefore indefinite.” (Defs. CC Response 

at 25.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties submitted this term on the briefing 

without oral argument.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 67 of 80 Page ID

#:15849

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 70 of 83 PageID #:

1827
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(b) Analysis

The specification provides various disclosures regarding access points and signals, 

such as the following:

When an access point 402(w) is ascertained to be receiving a signal, signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 is capable of restraining (e.g., 

limiting, preventing, delaying, etc.) the transmission of signals on the other 

access points 402(1 . . . w-1, w+1 . . . N). It should be noted that “w” can 

be equal to 1 or N and that the other access points 402 reduce to access 

points 402(2 . . . N) and 402(1 . . . N-1), respectively.

Exemplary techniques for ascertaining whether a signal is being received

and for restraining the transmission of signals are described further below. 

The monitoring, ascertaining, and restraining of signals can be based on 

and/or responsive to a myriad of factors. For example, the signals can be 

coordinated (e.g., analyzed and controlled) based on a per-channel basis. 

Such exemplary factors are also described further below.

FIG. 5 is a flow diagram 500 that illustrates an exemplary method for using 

an access station having signal transmission/reception coordination logic for 

multiple access points. Flow diagram 500 includes three (3) blocks 502-

506. The actions of flow diagram 500 may be performed, for example, by 

an access station (e.g., an access station 102 of FIG. 4).

At block 502, multiple access points are monitored. For example, access 

points 402(1 . . . N) may be monitored by signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 (e.g., to detect signal reception). At block 504, it is 

ascertained that an access point of the multiple monitored access points is 

receiving a signal. For example, it may be ascertained by signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 that an access point 402(1) of 

multiple access points 402(1 . . . N) is receiving a signal via a wireless I/O 

unit 206.

At block 506, the other access points of the multiple monitored access 

points are restrained from transmitting a signal. For example, signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain access points 

402(2 . . . N) from transmitting a signal. In a described implementation, 

signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain access 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 68 of 80 Page ID

#:15850

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 71 of 83 PageID #:

1828
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

points 402(2 . . . N) from transmitting signals until access point 402(1) 

ceases receiving the signal.

With reference again to FIG. 4, one access point 402 (and/or 

communication beam 202) may operate on a different channel from that of 

another access point 402 (and/or communication beam 202). If the different 

channels are adjacent and/or not sufficiently-well defined, it may be 

beneficial to restrain transmission on a first channel with a first access point 

402 even when receiving a wireless communication on a second different 

channel with a second access point 402. In another exemplary 

implementation for different channel situations, signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 may restrain transmission on 

one channel on the basis of reception on another channel with an ongoing 

transmission on a third channel to prevent (e.g., inter-modulation) distortion 

to the signals being communicated in the wireless system.

’939 Patent at 6:1–53.

Claim 1 of the ’939 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):

1. An apparatus comprising:

a wireless input/output (I/O) unit that is configured to establish a 

plurality of access points; and

signal transmission/reception coordination logic that is capable of 

ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access points for received 

signals, that a first access point of the plurality of access points is receiving 

a first signal and that is adapted to restrain at least two other access points 

of the plurality of access points from transmitting signal responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access point is receiving the first signal;

wherein the signal transmission/reception coordination logic restrains 

at least one other access point of the plurality of access points from 

transmitting the other signal on a first channel responsive to the 

ascertaining that the access point of the plurality of access points is 

receiving the signal on a second different channel.

The recital of a “first access point,” “two other access points,” and “at least one 

other access point” does not give rise to any ambiguity. The opinions of Plaintiff’s 

expert are further persuasive in this regard. (See Pl. CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 69 of 80 Page ID

#:15851

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 72 of 83 PageID #:

1829
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Vojcic Decl. at ¶ 146.) Also, above-reproduced Claim 1 of the ’939 Patent imposes no 

restriction as to whether “at least one other access point” is one of the “two other access 

points.” (See id. at ¶ 150.) The Special Master hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ 

indefiniteness arguments as to “one other access point.” Defendants present no 

alternative proposed construction for this term, so the Special Master construes this term 

to have its plain meaning. This same analysis also applies to Claims 7 and 8, which 

depend from Claim 1.

Also, although “the access point” lacks any explicit antecedent basis, the implicit 

antecedent basis is reasonably clear because “the ascertaining” refers back to the 

“ascertaining” and “receiving” that are recited as to “a first access point.” Thus, the 

claim is reasonably clear that “the access point” refers back to “a first access point.” See 

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(holding that “an anode gel comprised of zinc as the active anode component” provided 

implicit antecedent basis for “said zinc anode”). This analysis applies to abovereproduced Claim 1 as well as Claims 4–5, which depend from Claim 1, and Claims 33 

and 34, which depend from Claim 30.

As to the recital of “the signal” near the end of above-reproduced Claim 1 of the 

’939 Patent, however, the claim fails to provide sufficiently clear antecedent basis, and 

the term is therefore ambiguous. Plaintiff cites the general principle that a phrase 

introduced by “the” does not require explicit antecedent basis if a person of ordinary 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 70 of 80 Page ID

#:15852

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 73 of 83 PageID #:

1830
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

skill in the art would understand the claim in light of the specification. See, e.g., In re 

Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1268–69 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

On balance, however, the claim language is unclear as to whether “the signal” 

refers to “the first signal,” “the other signal,” or some other signal. This ambiguity gives 

rise to indefiniteness. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 

1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a claim could be indefinite if a term does not have proper 

antecedent basis where such basis is not otherwise present by implication or the meaning 

is not reasonably ascertainable”) (citation omitted). That is, this claim “fail[s] to inform, 

with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” 

Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. The opinions of Plaintiff’s expert to the contrary are 

unpersuasive. (See Pl. CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 159–63.)

In addition, “the other signal” is itself unclear because the claim provides no 

antecedent basis. Perhaps a person of ordinary skill in the art could infer that “the other 

signal” is a signal other than “the first signal,” but this is not sufficiently clear on the 

face of the claim, and Plaintiff does not persuasively show that the proper interpretation 

would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Plaintiff’s expert opines that 

a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “the other signal” corresponds 

to a signal that the “other access point” is restrained from transmitting (see Pl. CC 

Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶¶ 155–56), but this interpretation lacks 

sufficient support in the claim language and does not overcome the lack of any 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 71 of 80 Page ID

#:15853

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 74 of 83 PageID #:

1831
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

reasonably clear antecedent basis for “the other signal.” 

The Special Master therefore finds that, based on lack of any reasonably clear 

antecedent basis for “the signal” and “the other signal,” Claim 1 of the ’939 Patent is 

indefinite.

The Special Master therefore hereby construes these disputed terms as set forth in 

the following chart:

Term Construction

“one other access point” Plain meaning

“the access point” The term “the access point” refers 

back to “a first access point” for 

antecedent basis.

“the other signal”

“the signal”

Indefinite

7. “at least one IEEE 802.11 standard”

“IEEE 802.11 standard”

(’939 Patent, Claims 3, 19, 32)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. Indefinite

(Dkt. 255-1 at 19.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 72 of 80 Page ID

#:15854

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 75 of 83 PageID #:

1832
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff refers to its arguments as to the similar term “802.11 standard” in the 

’376 Patent, which is discussed above. (Pl. CC Opening at 31.)

Defendants argue that “the ’376 and ’939 Patents do not explain what it means to 

‘operate in accordance with’ ‘an’ 802.11 standard,” and “[w]hile both patents use the 

term ‘operate in accordance with,’ they never explain what is necessary to meet that 

phrase.” (Defs. CC Opening at 29.) Defendants also submit that “the specifications do 

not refer to a particular IEEE 802.11 standard as of a particular time . . . .” (Id.)

Plaintiff responds, in full: “This term is addressed in section I.D above. Like the 

’376 patent, the ’939 patent describes and gives examples of the 802.11 standard. See

’939 Patent at 1:41–46 (Wireless LANs “may operate in accordance with IEEE 802.11 

(e.g., 802.11(a), (b), (e), (g), (k), (n), etc.) or other wireless network standards.”). And 

like for the ’376 patent, Defendants provide no evidence that a POSA would encounter 

this term and not be able to understand its scope with reasonable certainty.” (Pl. CC 

Response at 24.)

Defendants respond as to this term together with the substantially same term in the 

’376 Patent. (See Defs. CC Response at 22–23.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments regarding 

this term.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 73 of 80 Page ID

#:15855

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 76 of 83 PageID #:

1833
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(b) Analysis

For the same reasons discussed above as to the term “an 802.11 standard” in the 

’376 Patent, the Special Master hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ indefiniteness 

argument. See, e.g., ’939 Patent at 1:41–46 (“may operate in accordance with IEEE 

802.11”). The Special Master likewise construes this disputed term as set forth in the 

following chart:

Term Construction

“at least one IEEE 802.11 standard” “at least one of the IEEE 802.11 

standards that existed at the time of 

the invention”

VII. THE DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 7,729,728

8. “a beam downlink” and “[a]/[the] different beam downlink”

“a beam downlink”

(’728 Patent, Claims 1, 7)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. “a first available beam transmitted by

said phased array antenna”

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 74 of 80 Page ID

#:15856

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 77 of 83 PageID #:

1834
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

“[a]/[the] different beam downlink”

(’728 Patent, Claims 1, 7)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary. “[a/the] second available beam

transmitted by said phased array

antenna”

(Dkt. 255-1 at 19.)

(a) The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants cannot show any lexicography or disclaimer that 

the word ‘downlink’ should be redefined and limited as they propose.” (Pl. CC Opening 

at 31.) For example, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ insertion of ‘available’ appears to 

be mere surplusage” in light of other claim language. (Id. at 32.) Plaintiff also argues 

that “the specification never uses Defendants’ phrase ‘transmitted by’ in connection with 

the phased array antenna transmitting anything.” (Id.)

Defendants argue that “[f]or the receiving device to be able to associate with one 

or the other beam downlinks, the beams must be transmitted by the phased array antenna 

and therefore available for such association,” and “[t]he specification confirms that the 

claimed beams must be ‘available’ beams.” (Defs. CC Opening at 32.) Defendants urge 

that “[t]o assess the strength of the beams and, therefore conduct the switching

determination, the beams must be transmitted and available, otherwise, they could not 

have been measured.” (Id.)

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 75 of 80 Page ID

#:15857

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 78 of 83 PageID #:

1835
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Plaintiff responds that “[t]he claims mean what they say, and there is no reason to 

add incorrect or (at best) redundant words to the claim.” (Pl. CC Response at 25.) 

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ proposed construction[s] are either literally duplicative 

of existing claim language or an improper attempt to limit the claims to one disclosed 

embodiment, and not even a preferred embodiment.” (Id.)

Defendants respond that “XR agrees that Defendants’ constructions of these terms 

are consistent with the specification,” and Defendants argue that construction would not 

be redundant but rather would clarify these claim terms for the jury. (Defs. CC 

Response at 25.)

At the January 18, 2022 hearing, the parties submitted these terms on the briefing 

without oral argument.

(b) Analysis

These disputed terms appear in Claims 1 and 7 of the ’728 Patent, which recite 

(emphasis added):

1. A method for use in a wireless communication system, the method 

comprising:

selectively allowing a receiving device to operatively associate with 

a beam downlink transmittable to the receiving device via a phased array 

antenna of an access point;

receiving an uplink transmission from the receiving device through 

the phased array antenna;

determining from the uplink transmission if the receiving device 

should operatively associate with a different beam downlink transmittable 

via the phased array antenna;

allowing the receiving device to operatively associate with the 

different beam downlink if determining that the receiving device should 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 76 of 80 Page ID

#:15858

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 79 of 83 PageID #:

1836
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

operatively associate with the different beam downlink;

actively probing the receiving device by generating a signal to initiate 

that the phased array antenna transmit at least one downlink transmittable 

message over the different beam downlink, and gathering signal parameter 

information from uplink transmittable messages received from the receiving 

device through the phased array antenna.

* * *

7. A method for use in a wireless communication system, the method 

comprising:

selectively allowing a receiving device to operatively associate with a 

beam downlink transmittable to the receiving device via a phased array 

antenna of an access point;

receiving an uplink transmission from the receiving device through 

the phased array antenna;

determining from the uplink transmission if the receiving device 

should operatively associate with a different beam downlink transmittable 

via the phased array antenna;

forcing the receiving device to operatively associate with the different 

beam downlink if determining that the receiving device should be 

operatively associated with the different beam downlink;

transmitting at least one probe message to the receiving device over 

the different beam downlink;

receiving at least one uplink transmitted probe response message 

from the receiving device through the phased array antenna; and

gathering signal parameter information from the uplink transmitted 

probe response message.

As a threshold matter, Defendants’ proposal of “transmitted by said phased array 

antenna” is redundant or potentially inconsistent with other claim language, such as the 

phrase “transmittable to the receiving device via a phased array antenna of an access 

point” in the above-reproduced claims.

As to Defendants’ proposal of “available,” the Background section of the 

specification discloses “re-associat[ing]” with a different “beam” (emphasis added):

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 77 of 80 Page ID

#:15859

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 80 of 83 PageID #:

1837
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

[F]or wireless communication systems that use smart antennas that produce 

significantly more narrow and directed beams, the receiving device may not 

always be able to determine when it should switch its association from one 

beam to another beam. One potential reason for this is that the receiving 

device may have moved into an area that is covered by a side lobe of the 

main intended beam. While the receiving device and access point may be 

able to continue to communicate via a side lobe in certain situations, it will 

usually be more preferable for the receiving device to re-associate with 

another intended main beam that provides coverage to the new location of 

the receiving device.

’728 Patent at 2:28–39 (emphasis added). The Summary section of the specification 

then states:

Methods and apparatuses are proved [sic, provided] which allow a wireless 

communication system using a smart antenna(s) to selectively cause a 

receiving device to switch its operative association from one transmitted 

beam to another available transmitted beam.

Id. at 2:54–58 (emphasis added). The Detailed Description further states:

In act 208, the client device is forced or otherwise made to associate with a 

different main beam. For example, in certain implementations beam 

switching logic 110 may be configured to temporarily halt transmission of 

at least the main beam 116 to which client device 104 is currently 

associated with. The resulting loss of signal in this case will require 

communication logic 118 to attempt to associate with an available main 

beam. This act of “shutting off” a beam may not provide the best solution, 

however, in some configurations.

Another technique that can be employed to achieve act 208 is to configure 

beam switching logic 110 to cause transceiver 112 send some form of 

disassociate information to client device 104 over the current associated 

main beam. In response to receiving the disassociate information (possibly 

via a side lobe), communication logic 118 will initiate a new association 

process. To prevent communication logic 118 from simply trying to reassociate with the same main beam again, beam switching logic 110 may 

also be configured to selectively disallow the attempted re-association 

request.

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 78 of 80 Page ID

#:15860

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 81 of 83 PageID #:

1838
SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Id. at 7:44–63 (emphasis added); see id. at 6:24–46; see also id. at Abstract (“using a 

smart antenna(s) to selectively cause a receiving device to switch its operative 

association from one transmitted beam to another available transmitted beam”) 

(emphasis added); id. at 1:19–24 (similar).

Defendants cite the opinion of Plaintiff’s expert that “a POSITA would understand 

‘available’ to mean that the beam is one that a receiving device is allowed to operatively 

associate with,” but Plaintiff’s expert also opines: “That requirement is already stated in 

the existing claim language. Adding the word ‘available’ to the claim term, as 

Defendants request, does not add any meaning to the claim that was not already there.” 

(Pl. CC Opening, Ex. 4, Nov. 2, 2021 Vojcic Decl. at ¶ 193.) The opinion of Plaintiff’s 

expert is persuasive in this regard. Although the above-cited disclosures, such as 

regarding “selectively disallow[ing] the attempted re-association request” (id. at 7:63), 

appear to be consistent with Defendants’ proposal of an “available” beam, Defendants’ 

proposal of “available” is descriptive of other language set forth in the claims, such as 

“allowing” (Claim 1) or “forcing” (Claim 7) in the above-reproduced claims.

The Special Master therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed 

constructions, and no further construction is necessary. See O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362 

(“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation 

present in a patent’s asserted claims.”); see also Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1207 (“Unlike O2 

Micro, where the court failed to resolve the parties’ quarrel, the district court rejected 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 79 of 80 Page ID

#:15861

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 82 of 83 PageID #:

1839
Defendants' construction."); Bayer, 989 F.3d at 977- 79. The authority cited by 

2 Defendants, that " [i]t is critical for trial courts to set forth an express construction of the 

3 material claim terms in dispute, in part because the claim construction becomes the basis 

4 ofthejmy instructions," AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal JG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1247 

5 (Fed. Cir. 2001), is unpersuasive in light of the above-cited more recent authorities. 

6 The Special Master therefore hereby construes these disputed terms as follows: 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

--

Term Construction 

"a beam downlink" Plain meaning 

"[a]/[the] different beam downlink" 

VIll. CONCLUSION 

The Special Master hereby construes the d_isputed terms as set forth above. 

Date: 

Special Master 

SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 80 

Case 8:17-cv-00596-DOC-JDE Document 280-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 80 of 80 Page ID

#:15862

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 81-7 Filed 07/15/24 Page 83 of 83 PageID #:

1840