IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES INC., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC, and AT&T CORP.

Defendant,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC.

Intervenors.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS.

Defendants,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC.

Intervenors.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00203-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC.

Defendant,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC.

Intervenors.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00204-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC’S

REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 2690
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369 (“’369 PATENT”)........................................................ 1

A. “pre-equalization parameter” terms (’369 patent, claims 1, 13, 21, 32, 33, 

41) .....................................................................................................................1

B. “substantially reciprocal to” (’369 patent, claim 12) ........................................2

C. “a plurality of first device receive antennas” (’369 patent, claim 19) ..............3

II. U.S. Patent No. 8,289,939 (“’939 PATENT”)........................................................ 4

A. “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” (‘939 patent, claims 15, 30)........................4

B. “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” (’939 patent, claims 

15, 30) ...............................................................................................................6

C. “restrain . . . responsive to the ascertaining . . .” (’939 patent claims 15, 

30) .....................................................................................................................9

D. “the access point” (939 patent, claims 20- 21, 33-34) ......................................9

III. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,737,511 (“’511 PATENT”) ............................................... 10

A. “n multiple-input multiple-output transceivers (MIMO)” (’511 patent, cl. 

1, 10)................................................................................................................10

B. “MIMO transmitter . . . ” / “MIMO receiver . . .” (’511 patent, claims 1, 

10, 20) .............................................................................................................10

C. “2nd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Long Term Evolution

(LTE), 3GPP LTE-Advanced, 3GPP LTE-TDD, 3GPP LTE-FDD” (’511 

patent, claims 2, 11) ........................................................................................10

IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,715,235 (The ’235 PATENT).......................................... 10

A. “transceiver” (’235 patent, claims 1, 15, 18, 19) ............................................10

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2691
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,

875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................... 3

Canon, Inc. v. TCL Elecs. Holdings Ltd.,

2020 WL 2098197 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2020).................................................................. 8

Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,

417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 2

Dyfan LLC v. Target Corp.,

28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................... 7, 8

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,

972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................... 7

Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd. V. T-Mobile US, Inc.,

2017 WL 1376436 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2017)................................................................ 6

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,

766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... 3

Skyy, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l.,

859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... 4

Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd.,

844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................... 3

VDPP LLC v. Vizio Inc., 

No. 2021 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2022) ...................................................................................... 7

WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC,

No. 2022-1063, 2023 WL 6889033 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023)........................................ 6

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6......................................................................................................... 4, 6

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 2692
iv

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description Abbreviation

Exhibit 1 U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369 ’369 Patent

Exhibit 2 U.S. Patent No. 8,289,939 ’939 Patent

Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent No. 8,737,511 ’511 Patent

Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 ’235 Patent

Exhibit 5 XR Communications LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc. et al., Lead

Case Nos. 8:17-cv-596-DOC (Carter, J.) (D.I. 312 Order 

Adopting Special Master’s Report and Recommendations 

Regarding Claim Construction [D.I. 280])

CDCA Order 

Adopting 

R&R

Exhibit 6 XR Communications LLC v. D-Link Systems, Inc. et al., Lead

Case Nos. 8:17-cv-596-DOC (Carter, J.) (D.I. 280 Special 

Master’s Report and Recommendations Regarding Claim 

Construction) 

R&R

Exhibit 7 Claim Construction Order, XR Communications LLC v. Cisco 

Systems, Inc. et al., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., 

Microsoft Corporation, Case Nos. 6:21-cv-623, 6:21-cv-626, 

6:21-cv-695 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J)

WDTX Order

Exhibit 8 IPR2024-00314, Petition for Inter Partes Review on U.S. 

Patent No. 7,177,369

’369 IPR 

Petition

Exhibit 9 IPR2024-00314, May 8, 2024 Response to POPR ’369 IPR 

Reply

Exhibit 10 IPR2024-00314, Ex. 2001 (The Authoritative Dictionary of 

IEEE Standards Terms, 7th ed., Dec. 2000) (excerpted).

’369 IPR Ex. 

2001

Exhibit 11 IPR2022-00958, Petition for Inter Parties Review on U.S. 

Patent No. 8,289,939

IPR2022-

00958

Exhibit 12 IPR2024-00314, Decision Denying Institution (July 15, 

2024)

’369 IPR 

Institution 

Decision

Exhibit 13 Excerpts of D.I. 256-5 in XR Communications LLC v. D-Link 

Systems, Inc. et al., Lead Case Nos. 8:17-cv-596-DOC 

(Carter, J.)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 2693
1

I. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,177,369 (“’369 PATENT”)

A. “pre-equalization parameter” terms (’369 patent, claims 1, 13, 21, 32, 33, 41)

All parties agree that the term “pre-equalization parameter” carries its plain and ordinary 

meaning. To reduce disputes, Plaintiff is amenable to the plain meaning adopted by the Board in 

its Decision Denying Institution in IPR2024-00314 (’369 patent). The Board found that the plain 

meaning of “pre-equalization parameter” encompasses at least “a parameter used for preequalization, that is, to account for properties of a propagation path between a transmitter and a 

receiving device.” Ex. 12 (’369 IPR ID) at 14-15; see id. 25 (“first and foremost, independent 

claim 1 requires the application of a pre-equalization parameter” and the Petition fails to show 

how “Wong’s total power minimization process performs pre-equalization, so as to modify the 

transmission signal to account for the properties of the propagation paths between the base station 

and the receiver.”) (emphasis original). Plaintiff believes the Board’s understanding is consistent 

with Plaintiff’s plain meaning and thus proposes it in the alternative.

Defendants’ proposal is simply: “plain and ordinary meaning” / no further construction 

necessary. Thus, Defendants fail to present any dispute over claim scope for the Court to resolve, 

and their claim construction arguments are largely irrelevant. But to the extent Defendants imply 

that “pre-equalization parameter” means the same thing as “parameter,” that is legal error and 

should be rejected. For example, Defendants argue that “pre-equalization” is fully captured by the

language in [1c] relating to “setting different transmission power levels” of OFDM tones (i.e. the 

language after the “where said modifying includes...” clause) and nothing more. Dkt. 86 at 1.

This fails. There is no support in the intrinsic record for treating the term as superfluous of 

other claim language. Defendants’ argument reads “pre-equalization” out of the phrase “preequalization parameter.” The Board correctly found that “pre-equalization parameter” requires “a 

parameter used for pre-equalization”—not just any parameter. Ex. 12 at 14-15. To give meaning

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 2694
2

to the phrase, the Board clarified that it at least requires a “parameter used for pre-equalization, 

that is, to account for properties of a propagation path between a transmitter and a receiving 

device.” Ex. 12 at 14-15. This is correct and should be adopted here.

Defendants also have no answer to the IEEE Dictionary definition for “pre-equalization,”

which further shows that the Board’s interpretation of pre-equalization is consistent with its plain 

meaning. Ex. 10 (IEEE Dict., 7th ed., Dec. 2000) (defining pre-equalization (or pre-emphasis) as 

“[a] process in a system designed to emphasize the magnitude of some frequency components with 

respect to the magnitude of others, to reduce adverse effects, such as noise, in subsequent parts of 

the system.”) (emphasis added). Although the Board declined to adopt the IEEE definition as the 

construction, the definition confirms that “pre-equalization” has a specific, technical meaning to 

POSITAs and should not be read out of the claims.

B. “substantially reciprocal to” (’369 patent, claim 12)

Defendants don’t dispute that “reciprocity” is a well-known property used to describe a 

wireless channel such as in Time Division Duplex (TDD) systems. Ex. 1 (’369 Patent), 7:21-34. 

Defendants nonetheless argue that “substantially reciprocal” is a term of degree and that “the 

district court must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for 

measuring that degree.” Dkt. 86 at 4, citing Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 

1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But Defendants have no meaningful rebuttal to the standard set forth 

in the ’369 patent specification, which defines “substantially reciprocal” as reciprocal for “a given 

moment in time between a base station device and a consumer premise equipment device.” Ex. 1 

(’369 Patent), 2:13-16. The ’369 patent also confirms that reciprocity is an assumption about the 

channel that POSITAs make about Time Division Duplex (TDD) systems for certain durations of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 2695
3

time. Ex. 1 (’369 Patent), 10:61-11:5 (“[i]f TDD is used, then the channel can be assumed to be 

reciprocal for durations (coherence time) of approximately 10 ms.”).

In response, Defendants argue that the term is indefinite because these excerpts in the 

specification don’t say precisely how long reciprocity must exist to qualify as “substantially 

reciprocal.” Dkt. 86 at 5. Defendants are wrong on the facts and on the law. The ’369 patent 

specification does say how long reciprocity must exist by explaining that reciprocity must exist for 

a “moment in time” for the channel to qualify as “substantially reciprocal.” Ex. 1 (’369 Patent), 

2:13-16. Even if this term is broad (in isolation), that is not a basis for indefiniteness. See BASF 

Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (legal error to infer 

indefiniteness because “breadth is not indefiniteness”). 

Further, even if Defendants could to some alleged ambiguity at the margins, that would not 

show indefiniteness either. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[b]ecause language is limited, 

we have rejected the proposition that claims involving terms of degree are inherently indefinite.” 

Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Thus, ‘a patentee 

need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness 

requirement.’” Id. “Claim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite where 

it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” 

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

C. “a plurality of first device receive antennas” (’369 patent, claim 19)

Defendants have withdrawn their proposed construction, so the Court does not need to 

construe this term. See Dkt. 86 at 5 (“Based on XR’s position that the first device is the transmitting 

device (Op. Br. at 9), Defendants withdraw their proposed construction and agree that no further 

construction is necessary.”).

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 2696
4

II. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,289,939 (“’939 PATENT”)

A. “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” (‘939 patent, claims 15, 30)

Defendants fail to show that the Central District of California (CDCA) misapplied the law 

in construing this term as not means-plus-function. Judge Carter’s Order (Ex. 5, D.I. 312) adopting

Special Master Keyzer’s R&R (Ex. 6) provides detailed reasons why 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 doesn’t

apply. See Ex. 5, 6-8; Ex. 6, 40-43 (citing Ex. 13). The CDCA correctly applied the law in holding 

that the analysis of “wireless device means” in Skyy, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) applies to this term “with even greater force in the present case, particularly in light of 

the above-cited disclosure in the specification [at 4:17-23].” Ex. 6 at 43. The CDCA also credited

expert testimony that “wireless I/O unit” is a known structure. Id. (citing Ex. 13). 

In disputing the CDCA’s construction, Defendants feign ignorance about clear disclosures 

in the ’939 patent teaching what the “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” is and how it performs the 

function “establish a plurality of access points.” Those disclosures show that in preferred 

embodiments of the ’939 patent, the wireless I/O unit is the structure in a wireless access station 

with the beamformer and antenna array that forms a plurality of beams and that configures each 

beam as an access point that a device connects to for accessing the network. ’939 patent, 4:17-52, 

5:30-48, 6:54-7:6, 7:58-8:16. Defendants fail to meaningfully engage with these disclosures. Dkt. 

86 at 7-14. For example, Defendants don’t dispute that Figure 4 depicts the wireless I/O unit 

establishing a plurality of access points, but they argue they do not know what this means. Id. But 

the specification clearly teaches what this means. It says in the context of Figure 4 that “each 

access point of the multiple access points 402 may correspond to, for example, an individual access 

point in accordance with an IEEE 802.11-based standard.” ’939 patent, 5:38-47. 

The specification also clarifies that the wireless I/O unit configures each beam as an access 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 2697
5

point that a device connects to for accessing the network. ’939 patent, 5:38-47. As the specification 

explains, the “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” is the structure in “access station 102” that

comprises the “antenna array 208” and a “beamformer,” where the “beamformer along with 

antenna array 208” produces “multiple communication beams 202.” ’939 patent, 4:17-52.

The “wireless input/output (I/O) unit” also preferably includes a separate radio for each 

beam, which corresponds to a “MAC 604,” “BB unit 608,” and “RF part 610.” ’939 patent, 6:54-

7:6. Each radio can be implemented on an individual electronic card. ’939 patent, 7:58-8:16. This 

allows each radio and each beam to form an access point that devices can connect to.’939 patent, 

7:58-8:16 (“...RF part 610, along with at least part of beamformer 612 and/or antenna array 208, 

and each respective communication beam 202 may also correspond to the different respective 

access points 402.”); see cl. 9 (“wherein each access point of the plurality of access points 

corresponds to a communication beam of a plurality of communication beams that emanate from 

the access station.”); cl. 10 (“wherein each access point...is associated with a medium access 

controller/baseband unit pair.”). 

Indeed, Figure 2 shows the “wireless (I/O) unit 206” establishing a plurality of “beams 

202(1), 202(2) . . . 202(N).” ’939 patent, 4:44-52. And Figure 4 shows the same “wireless I/O unit 

206” establishing access points “402(1), 402(2) . . . 402(N)” on each beam. ’939 patent, 5:30-47 

(“each respective access point 402 of the multiple access points 402 may correspond to, for 

example, a respective communication beam 202 of multiple communication beams 202 (as shown 

in FIGs. 2 and 3).”). Figures 2 and 4 are reproduced below:

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 2698
6

 

Such detailed disclosures in the specification render this case analogous to this Court’s 

decision in Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd. V. T-Mobile US, Inc., 2017 WL 1376436 at *15-17 (E.D. Tex. 

Apr. 15, 2017), which held that the terms “receiving unit” and “sending unit” are not 112(6) 

because “a POSA would understand the necessary structure of the unit terms from the specification 

and also that the claim language described the inputs and outputs of the components.” Dkt. 86 at 

10, n. 4. Defendants cannot distinguish Huawei and acknowledge that the term “unit” does not 

automatically confer means-plus-function status on the claim term at issue. Dkt. 86 at 10, n. 4. 

Thus, Defendants have failed to present a compelling reason to depart from the California Court’s 

construction that this term is not means-plus-function.

B. “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” (’939 patent, claims 15, 30)

It is well-established that claim terms referring to code, applications, processors, memory, 

circuitry, or chips are well understood as structural terms by persons of ordinary skill in the art. 

WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1063, 2023 WL 6889033, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 

19, 2023) (reversing the district court’s finding that § 112 ¶ 6 applied to the terms “computer 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 2699
7

program code,” “memory,” and “processor”); Dyfan LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1367 

(Fed. Cir. 2022) (reversing district court’s finding that § 112 ¶6 applied to terms “code” and 

“application” which could be implemented using “off-the-shelf” software); Apex Inc. v. Raritan 

Comput., Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding “circuit” connotes structure and is 

not §112(6)) (cited with approval in Dyfan); See VDPP LLC v. Vizio Inc., No. 2021-2040 (Fed. 

Cir. Mar. 2022) (nonprecedential) (reversing means-plus-function treatment for “processor”). 

The most recent district court to construe the claim term at issue was the Western District 

of Texas (WDTX). It correctly applied Dyfan and this line of cases to construe this term as not 

means-plus-function. Ex. 7 (WDTX Order). The ’939 claims and specification define this term as 

“signal” logic that monitors access points for “received signals” and restrains them from 

transmitting “signals.” ’939 patent, cl. 15, 30; see ’939 patent, 6:1-15. A POSITA thus understands 

that the signal logic is implemented as a signal processor chip in a wireless access station. Id. The

specification confirms that the signal transmission/reception coordination logic 404 is 

“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.” ’939 Patent, 18:39-44. This 

falls under Dyfan’s holding that “code” and “application” are not means-plus-function terms where 

they refer to computer programs that can be implemented using “off-the-shelf” software. Surely a 

signal logic structure implemented in an off-the-shelf, physical baseband chip is at least as

structural as the code or application from Dyfan. The ’939 patent’s baseband logic 404 is more 

analogous to the “circuit” structure in Apex. Apex, 325 F.3d at 1373 (cited with approval in Dyfan). 

Defendants attempt to analogize this term to the “logic” term in Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 

Inc., 972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020). But Egenera found no guidance in the claims or specification 

on the operation of the logic, its inputs and outputs, or how it could be implemented. Id. Here, the 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 2700
8

’939 Patent limits the logic by defining it as a “signal” logic, which is much narrower than the 

“logic” in Egenera, which was not limited to signal processing. And the ’939 patent couples the 

term “signal transmission/reception coordination logic” with “language describing its operation.” 

Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1367-68. The claims recite the inputs to the logic (“monitoring the plurality of 

access points for received signals”) and the output (“restrain[ing]” another access point from 

transmitting signal). See ’939 patent, cl. 15, 30; see id. 6:1-15. Similarly, Figure 4 depicts signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic 404 to “monitor the multiple access points 402(1...N) 

to ascertain when a signal is being received” and to “restrain” signal transmissions on the access 

points—just as claimed. ’939 patent, 5:65-6:15, 6:16-53. 

Given these disclosures, Defendants’ reliance on Canon, Inc. v. TCL Elecs. Holdings Ltd., 

2020 WL 2098197 at *25-26 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2020) is misplaced. In that case, the claim recited 

no inputs, outputs, or structural aspects of the “communications unit.” But the ’939 patent claims 

a “signal” logic that monitors the access points for received signals and restrains signal

transmission, which a POSITA understands is implemented in a baseband signal processor chip or 

equivalent. This discloses the inputs, outputs, and structural aspects found lacking in Canon. 

Defendants also point to the CDCA which construed this term as means-plus-function and 

to the corresponding structures in the specification. But that decision preceded or did not analyze

Federal Circuit’s recent guidance in WSOU and Dyfan, under which the term is not means-plusfunction. In light of that recent guidance, XR prevailed in the Western District of Texas by arguing 

the term is not means-plus-function. In any event, that the CDCA construed the term to cover the 

corresponding structures in the specification confirms that the term is not a “black box” and is not 

indefinite. Ex. 5 (CDCA Order) at 8-10. Those corresponding structures are clearly linked to the 

claimed functions, as the CDCA court held. Id. In any event, the term is not indefinite.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 2701
9

C. “restrain . . . responsive to the ascertaining . . .” (’939 patent claims 15, 30)

The CDCA rejected Defendants’ “while” construction, holding that there are no statements 

in the claims, specification, or prosecution history that would warrant importing the “while” 

limitation from dependent claim 8 (“restrains at least one other access point of the plurality of 

access points while the first access point is receiving the first signal”) into the independent claims. 

Defendants argue the use of “is receiving” in the independent claims in the context of the claimed 

“ascertaining” action requires the claimed “restraining” action to occur “while a signal is being 

received.” Dkt. 86 at 22-23. But that is not what the claim says. The claim says to use “received 

signals” to ascertain that an access point “is receiving” a signal. It never says to perform the 

“restrain” action “while” performing any other action. As the CDCA court held, that “restraining” 

is “responsive to” ascertaining does not require the “restraining” action to be performed 

contemporaneously with the “ascertaining.” Ex. 5 (Order) at 11-12, citing Ex. 6 (R&R) at 63-64.

Defendants’ remaining arguments rest on their (incorrect) characterizations of preferred 

embodiments or what they characterize as the “patent’s objective” or the “problem the ’939 Patent 

attempts to solve.” Dkt. 86 at 23. But there is no support for limiting claims to preferred 

embodiments. Ex. 6 at 63-64. Nor are the patent’s alleged objective or problem to be solved a 

proper basis to import a “while” limitation into the claims. Tellingly, Defendants don’t argue 

lexicography or disclaimer, and the CDCA court confirmed that there is none. Defendants also fail 

to show their construction is warranted in view of preferred embodiments in which scanning is 

periodic (and not constant) such that restraining would clearly occur at different times from the 

moment of signal reception. ’939 patent, at 13:34-44, 17:18-32. 

D. “the access point” (939 patent, claims 20- 21, 33-34)

This Court should adopt the reasoning and construction of the CDCA court for the same 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 2702
10

term. Ex. 5 (CDCA Order) at 17 (“The term ‘the access point’ refers back to ‘a first access point’ 

for antecedent basis.”); see Ex. 6 (R&R) at 70 (“[T]he claim is reasonably clear that ‘the access 

point’ refers back to ‘a first access point.’”) (citing Ex. 13).

III. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,737,511 (“’511 PATENT”)

A. “n multiple-input multiple-output transceivers (MIMO)” (’511 patent, cl. 1, 10)

Defendants concede nothing in the intrinsic record supports their construction. Dkt. 86.

Indeed, the ’511 doesn’t limit the design of the claimed transceiver. Ex. 3 (‘511 patent), 4:29-39, 

5:33-41. Thus, Defendants’ construction is unsupported and should be rejected.

B. “MIMO transmitter . . . ” / “MIMO receiver . . .” (’511 patent, claims 1, 10, 20)

In the claims, the modifier “MIMO” modifies “transmitter” and “receiver”—not “signal.” 

Defendants fail to support requiring importing the requirement for “MIMO signals,” at least since 

“signals other than MIMO may be used as well.” 511 patent at 3:32-35.

C. “2nd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Long Term Evolution (LTE), 3GPP 

LTE-Advanced, 3GPP LTE-TDD, 3GPP LTE-FDD” (’511 patent, claims 2, 11)

The Court should follow the Western District of Texas and not construe the claim. Ex. 7 

(WDTX Order) (Term #2, rejecting the language “at the time of the invention.”) If not, the Court 

should at least clarify that claims 2 and 11 can be infringed by a 3GPP standard that existed at the 

time of the invention even if that standard has been updated over time. ’511 Patent at 3:30-47. 

IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,715,235 (THE ’235 PATENT)

A. “transceiver” (’235 patent, claims 1, 15, 18, 19)

No construction is needed for this term. The plain meaning of “transceiver” can be 

addressed at trial without adopting a formal construction. Defendants point to an IPR statement 

for a different patent (‘376 patent), with different claims and issues, that was responding to a factspecific invalidity argument. No adequate showing of disclaimer has been made.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 2703
11

Dated: August 21, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Adam Hoffman

CA State Bar No. 218740

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

James Pickens

CA State Bar No. 307474

Christian W. Conkle

CA State Bar No. 306374

Philip Wang

CA State Bar No. 262239

Minna Jay

CA State Bar No. 305941

Paul Kroeger

CA State Bar No. 229074

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

rak_vivato@raklaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

XR Communications, LLC,

dba Vivato Technologies

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 2704
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served on August 21, 2024, with a copy of this document via 

the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 88 Filed 08/21/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 2705