1

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.,

Defendants, 

ERICSSON INC. and

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

 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.; 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC. and

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

 Intervenors. 

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

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1554
2

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO 

TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Defendant, 

ERICSSON INC. and

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

 Intervenors. 

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

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT

Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3, and the Court’s Docket Control Order, Plaintiff XR 

Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies (“Vivato”), Defendants AT&T Services, Inc., 

AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”), Verizon Communications, Inc., Cellco 

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), and T-Mobile USA, Inc., (“T-Mobile”) 

(together, “Defendants”), and Intervenors Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) and Nokia of America 

Corporation (“Nokia”) (together, “Intervenors”) (collectively, the “Parties”) respectfully submit 

the following Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.

I. AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS (P.R. 4-3(A)(1))

The parties agree on the following claim constructions with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,177,369 (“’369 Patent”), 8,289,939 Patent (“’939 Patent”), 8,737,511 (“’511 Patent”), and 

10,715,235 (“’235 Patent”).

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 1555
3

Claim Term Agreed Construction

“said at least one transmission delay”

’369 Patent, claims 1, 21, 41

“the at least one multipath transmission delay”

“transmission nulls”

’235 Patent, claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16

Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “portions of a 

transmission pattern where transmissions of no or 

insignificant energy are selectively directed.”

“bi-directional beam[]”

’511 Patent claims 1, 10

“a beam on which (i) the MIMO transmitter 

transmits and (ii) the MIMO receiver receives”

II. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS (P.R. 4-3(A)(2))

The parties’ proposed constructions of disputed terms are provided in the chart below, 

along with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence on which the parties intend to rely.

A. U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

“forward path preequalization

parameter” / 

“determining at least 

one forward path preequalization parameter 

based on said at least 

one transmission 

delay”

’369 Patent, claims 1, 

13, 21, 32, 33, 41

Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., a 

pre-equalization parameter for 

modifying a forward path signal to 

reduce unwanted effects associated 

with multipath fading between the 

transmitter and the receiver that is 

determined based on said at least 

one multipath transmission delay. 

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 Patent at 

abstract, Figs. 1-9 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 2:1-28, 3:1-5, 3:38-

61, 6:16-19, 6:53-67, 7:5-34, 7:51- 8:52, 9:43-10:24, 10:31-11:20, 

11:58-12:6, 12:11-22, 12:29-43, 

12:53-13:4, 13:31-50, 14:27-64, 

15:2-10, 15:21-29, 15:58-16:16, 

16:32-44; and claim language.

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00314 and 

Plain and Ordinary Meaning

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 

Patent at 3:17-32, 7:14-21, 8:4-

14; 9:42-10:24; 14:30-15:29, 

15:31-64; Figs. 3 and 9; 

IPR2024-00314, Paper Nos. 3, 

7, 9, and 10

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1556
4

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

exhibits thereto (e.g., Ex. 2001, 

IEEE Definition of pre-emphasis / 

pre-equalization). 

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

“modifying a forward

path data signal that is

to be transmitted to the

receiving device based 

on said at least one 

forward path preequalization 

parameter”

’369 Patent, claim 1

Plain and ordinary meaning, 

wherein “pre-equalization” has its 

plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., 

modifying a signal to reduce 

unwanted effects associated with 

multipath fading between the 

transmitter and the receiver.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 Patent at 

abstract, Figs. 1-9 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 2:1-28, 3:1-5, 3:38-

61, 6:16-19, 6:53-67, 7:5-34, 7:51-

8:52, 9:43-10:24, 10:31-11:20, 

11:58-12:6, 12:11-22, 12:29-43, 

12:53-13:4, 13:31-50, 14:27-64, 

15:2-10, 15:21-29, 15:58-16:16, 

16:32-44; and claim language.

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00314 and 

exhibits thereto (e.g., Ex. 2001, 

IEEE Definition of pre-emphasis / 

pre-equalization)

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

Plain and Ordinary Meaning

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 Patent 

at 3:17-32, 7:14-21, 8:4-14; 

9:42-10:24; 14:30-15:29, 15:31-

64; Figs. 3 and 9; IPR2024-

00314, Paper Nos. 3, 7, 9, and 10

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 1557
5

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

and skill).

“substantially

reciprocal to”

’369 Patent, claim 12

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 Patent at 

Figs. 1-9 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 2:9-16, 7:21-34, 

10:61-11:5, 11:59-12:6, 15:30-58; 

and claim language.

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00314 and 

exhibits thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

Indefinite term of degree

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 Patent 

at 7:22-34, 10:31-37, 10:65-

11:14, 11:58-12:6, 15:49-57; 

Fig. 6. 

Extrinsic Evidence: 

Expert testimony of James 

Proctor regarding the 

uncertainty of this term of 

degree

“a plurality of first 

device receive

antennas”

’369 Patent, claim 19

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’369 Patent at 

Figs. 1-3, 5, 9 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 2:24-29, 2:50-53, 

3:10-14, 4:46-6:11, 6:34-52, 7:34- 42, 8:15-9:20, 9:63-10:14, 10:61- 11:5, 11:40-57, 12:7-44, 14:46- 15:10; and claim language.

Extrinsic Evidence: 

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00314 and 

exhibits thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Indefinite

Extrinsic Evidence:

Expert testimony of James 

Proctor regarding the 

uncertainty of first device as 

used in the context of this 

limitation in view of 

surrounding claim language

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 1558
6

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

B. U.S. Patent No. 8,289,939

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

“wireless input/output

(I/O) unit”

’939 Patent, claims 15, 

30

Plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction necessary; not meansplus-function.

Alternative proposed 

construction, should the term be 

treated as means-plus-function: 

Function: 

Claims 15, and 30: establish a 

plurality of access points 

Structure: 

Wireless input/output unit 206 and 

equivalents thereof 

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent at 

abstract, Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 13 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 1:36-2:8, 2:12-45, 

2:53-56, 3:25-4:27, 4:44-52, 5:30-

64, 6:54-64, 8:1-10:21, 13:45-64, 

16:12-38; and claim language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Petition and any other filings in 

IPR2022-00958; Defendants’ IPR 

on the ’939 patent; and exhibits 

thereto.

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings on this 

Means-plus-function under 35 

U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and indefinite

Function: “establish a plurality 

of access points”

Structure: none disclosed

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent 

at 2:13-21, 2:65-67, 3:25-46, 

4:4-7, 4:17-27, 5:30-40, 5:57-

58, 6:54-64, 18:66-19:7, FIGs. 

2, 4, 6.

Extrinsic Evidence: 

Expert testimony of James 

Proctor regarding the 

understanding of a person 

skilled in the art at the time of 

invention regarding the claim 

term and the absence of 

corresponding structure 

disclosed in the specification. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 1559
7

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

term in XR Communications LLC v. 

D-Link Systems, Inc. et al., Lead

Case Nos. 8:17-cv-596-DOC 

(Carter, J.), including D.I. 312 

Order Adopting Special Master’s 

Report and Recommendations 

Regarding Claim Construction 

[D.I. 280], in which the Court 

construed this term to have its plain 

and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., 

D.I. 256-5 (Declaration of 

Branimir Vojcic, Nov. 2, 2021).

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings in 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-cv695 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.), 

including, without limitation, 

Plaintiff’s Claim Construction 

Briefing and all extrinsic evidence 

identified and attached thereto (see 

Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, D.I. 

44), Sept. 1, 2022 Markman 

Hearing Transcript and Sept. 30, 

2022 Markman Order.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

“signal transmission/ 

reception coordination

logic”

’939 Patent, claims 15, 

30

Plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction necessary; not meansplus-function. 

Alternative proposed 

construction, should the term be 

Means-plus-function under 35 

U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and indefinite

Function: 

Claim 15: “ascertaining, by 

monitoring the plurality of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 1560
8

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

treated as a means-plus-function 

limitation: 

Function:

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 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 

logic 404 and/or MAC coordinator 

logic 606 and/or 6:1-51 and/or 

6:65-7:20 and/or 9:11-59 and/or 

11:19-12:21 and/or 14:28-15:22 

and/or 15:23-65 and/or 16:53-67 

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”

Structure: none disclosed

Claim 30: (i) “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 (ii) 

“restrain[ing] at least a second 

access point of the plurality of 

access points from transmitting 

a second signal on asecond 

channel different from the first 

channel responsive to the 

ascertaining that the first access 

point is receiving the first 

signal.”

Structure: none disclosed

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent 

at 1:27-33, 2:13-21, 4:28-36, 

5:30-56, 5:65-6:7, 6:1-38, 6:39-

53, 7:11-20, 9:11-20, 9:28-31, 

10:61-65. 11:54-12:13, 14:28-

15:51, 16:39-40, 18:12-44, 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 1561
9

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

and/or 18:12-55 and equivalents 

thereof. 

The corresponding structure of 

“signal transmission/reception 

logic 404” includes the 

characteristics and configuration 

set forth for the signal 

transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404 (and the 

MAC coordinator logic 606, 

which is subsumed within the 

corresponding structure of the 

signal transmission/reception 

coordination logic 404) in the ’939 

Patent, including at 6:1-51 and/or 

6:65-7:20 and/or 9:11-59 and/or 

11:19-12:21 and/or 14:28-15:22 

and/or 15:23-65 and/or 16:53-67 

and/or 18:12-55, and equivalents 

thereof. 

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent at 

Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

13 (and associated discussion in the 

written description); 2:59-64, 3:13-

21, 3:47-4:3, 5:30-7:6, 9:11-10:60, 

11:54-12:21, 15:23-18:65; and 

claim language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings on this 

term in XR Communications LLC v. 

Cisco Systems, Inc. et al., Samsung 

Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., 

Microsoft Corporation, Case Nos. 

6:21-cv-623-ADA, 6:21-cv-626-

ADA, 6:21-cv-695-ADA (W.D. 

Tex.) (Albright, J.), including, 

without limitation, Plaintiff’s 

Claim Construction Briefing and 

all extrinsic evidence identified and 

attached thereto (see Case 6:21-cv- 00623-ADA, D.I. 44), Sept. 1, 

2022 Markman Hearing Transcript 

and Sept. 30, 2022 Markman Order 

construing this term to have its 

18:56-65, 19:11-19. Figs. 4, 6, 

8, 9, 10, 11, 13.

Prosecution History of the ’939 

Patent, May 9, 2011 Office 

Action Response

Prosecution History of the ’939 

Patent, January 30, 2012 Office 

Action Response

Extrinsic Evidence: 

Expert testimony of James 

Proctor regarding the 

understanding of a person 

skilled in the art at the time of 

invention regarding the claim 

term and the absence of 

corresponding structure 

disclosed in the specification. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 1562
10

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

plain and ordinary meaning and not 

to invoke 112(6). See, e.g., 

Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, 

DSc, dated May 6, 2022. 

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in 

Proceedings in XR v. Amazon et 

al., Case No. 6:21-cv-620-ADA 

(W.D. Tex.) (Lead case) and XR v. 

D-Link et al., Case No. 8:17-cv596-DOC(JDEx) (C.D. Cal.) (Lead 

case), including D.I. 312 Order 

Adopting Special Master’s Report 

and Recommendations Regarding 

Claim Construction [D.I. 280], in 

which the Court construed this 

term. See, e.g., D.I. 256-5 

(Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, 

Nov. 2, 2021)

Petition and any other filings in 

IPR2022-00958 or Defendants’ 

IPR on the ’939 patent and exhibits 

thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

“restrain . . . 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 ongoingon the second 

channel” (Claim 15) /

“restrain . . .

responsive to the

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent at 

Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

13 (and associated discussion in the 

written description); 5:30-6:53, 

9:11-10:60, 11:39-12:21, 15:23-

18:65; and claim language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “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” (claim 15)

and “while the first access point 

is ascertained to be receiving the 

first signal” (claim 30)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 1563
11

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

ascertaining that the

first access point is 

receiving the first 

signal” (Claim 30)

’939 Patent, claims 15, 

30

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings on this 

term in 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-cv695 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.), 

including, without limitation, 

Plaintiff’s Claim Construction 

Briefing and all extrinsic evidence 

identified and attached thereto (see 

Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, D.I. 

44),Sept. 1, 2022 Markman 

Hearing Transcript and Sept. 30, 

2022 Markman Order.

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings on this 

term in XR Communications LLC v. 

D-Link Systems, Inc. et al., Lead

Case Nos. 8:17-cv-596-DOC 

(Carter, J.), including D.I. 312 

Order Adopting Special Master’s 

Report and Recommendations 

Regarding Claim Construction 

[D.I. 280]

Excerpts of August 23, 2022 

Rebuttal Expert Report of Harry 

Bims, Ph.D. on Validity addressing 

the ’939 Patent in XR 

Communications LLC v. D-Link 

Systems, Inc. et al., Lead Case Nos. 

8:17-cv-596-DOC (Carter, J.).

Petition and any other filings in 

IPR2022-00958; Defendants’ IPR 

on the ’939 patent; and exhibits 

thereto.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent 

at 5:48-64, 6:35-46, 8:45-10:21, 

11:39-42, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 

Prosecution History of the ’939 

Patent, May 9, 2011 Office 

Action Response

Prosecution History of the ’939 

Patent, January 30, 2012 Office 

Action Response

U.S. Provisional Patent 

Application Nos. 60/423,696 

and 60/423,702

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 1564
12

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

“the access point”

’939 Patent, claims 20-

21, 33-34

“the first access point”

Intrinsic Evidence: ’939 Patent at 

Abstract, Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 5:57-6:53, 7:36-

12:45, 17:18-32; and claim 

language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

Petition and any other filings in 

IPR2022-00958 or Defendants’ 

IPR on the ’939 patent and exhibits 

thereto.

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings in 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.), 

including, without limitation, 

Plaintiff’s Claim Construction 

Briefing and all extrinsic evidence 

identified and attached thereto (see 

Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, D.I. 

44), Sept. 1, 2022 Markman 

Hearing Transcript and Sept. 30, 

2022 Markman Order.

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings on this 

Indefinite for lack of antecedent 

basis

Intrinsic Evidence: claim 

language

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 1565
13

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

term in XR Communications LLC v. 

D-Link Systems, Inc. et al., Lead

Case Nos. 8:17-cv-596-DOC 

(Carter, J.), including D.I. 312 

Order Adopting Special Master’s 

Report and Recommendations 

Regarding Claim Construction 

[D.I. 280].

C. U.S. Patent No. 8,737,511

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

“n multiple-input

multiple-output

transceivers (MIMO)”

’511 Patent claims 1, 

10

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 Patent at 

abstract, Figs. 1-5 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 1:28-53, 1:60-2:22, 

2:30-48, 2:54-67, 3:21-6:30, 6:65-

7:24, 7:50-8:29, 8:49-9:46; and 

claim language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00868 and 

exhibits thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings in 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-cv695 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.), 

“a single unit comprising a 

MIMO transmitter and a MIMO 

receiver, with common circuit 

components”

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 Patent 

at 1:28-46, 1:60-2:16, 2:58-66, 

4:23-39, FIGs. 1-5

Extrinsic Evidence:

IPR2022-00613, Paper No. 17 

(Jan. 14, 2023)

IPR2022-00613, Paper No. 33 

(July 5, 2023)

IPR2022-00613, Ex. 2024 (July 

17, 2023)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 1566
14

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

including, without limitation, 

Plaintiff’s Claim Construction 

Briefing and all extrinsic evidence 

identified and attached thereto (see 

Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, D.I. 

44), Sept. 1, 2022 Markman 

Hearing Transcript and Sept. 30, 

2022 Markman Order.

MIMO transmitter

configured to process . 

. . 

“Z-th MIMO 

transmitter”

“in multiple-input 

multiple-output 

transmitters (MIMO)” 

/

“a Z-th MIMO

transmitter”

’511 Patent claims 1, 

10, 20

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 Patent at 

abstract, Figs. 1-5 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 1:11-53, 2:4-2:22, 

2:54-67, 3:21-48, 4:29-49, 6:1-53, 

7:25-8:3, 8:13-9:59; and claim 

language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00868 and 

exhibits thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

“transmitter that processes 

MIMO signals for transmission”

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 

Patent at 1:28-46, 1:60-2:16, 

2:58-66, 4:23-39, FIGs. 1-3. 

MIMO receiver 

configured to process . 

. . 

“j-th MIMO receiver”

“in multiple-input 

multiple-output 

receivers (MIMO)”

’511 Patent claims 1, 

10, 19

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 Patent at 

abstract, Figs. 1-5 (and associated 

discussion in the written 

description); 1:11-46, 1:60-2:16, 

2:35-37, 2:54-67, 3:30-48, 4:29- 5:41, 5:55-67, 6:13-7:30, 7:51- 8:29, 9:24-10:3; and claim 

language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

“receiver that processes 

received MIMO signals”

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 

Patent at 1:28-46, 1:60-2:16, 

2:58-66, 4:23-39, FIGs. 1-3. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 1567
15

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

filings in IPR2024-00868 and 

exhibits thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

“2nd Generation

Partnership Project

(3GPP) Long Term

Evolution (LTE), 

3GPP LTE-Advanced, 

3GPP LTE-TDD, 

3GPP LTE-FDD”

’511 Patent claims 2, 

11

No construction necessary. 

Alternative proposed construction: 

3rd Generation Partnership Project 

(3GPP) Long Term Evolution 

(LTE), 3GPP LTE-Advanced, 

3GPP LTE-TDD, 3GPP LTEFDD.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 Patent at 

1:47-53, 3:30-48, 8:49-65, 9:11-23; 

and claim language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00868 and 

exhibits thereto.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

“one of the 3GPP LTE, LTEAdvanced, LTE-TDD or LTEFDD standards that existed at the 

time of the invention” 

Intrinsic Evidence: ’511 

Patent at 3:30-46. 

D. U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 1568
16

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

“transceiver”

’235 Patent, claims 1, 

15, 18,

19

No construction necessary.

Intrinsic Evidence: ’235 Patent at 

Figs. 2, 4, 8A, 8B, 11-15, 17-18 

(and associated discussion in the 

written description); 2:52-53, 3:37-

52, 4:27-43, 5:5-55, 6:20-28, 7:22-

30, 8:60-9:11, 10:5-11:23, 11:53-

61, 12:6-30, 12:46-63, 15:44- 17:5, 

18:10-19:5, 19:40-21:39, 22:56-

23:64, 24:25-25:30, 25:31-27:67, 

28:21-30:54, 30:62-31-11, 31:24-

47; and claim language

Extrinsic Evidence:

Defendants’ Petition and any other 

filings in IPR2024-00613; Petition 

and any other filings in IPR2022-

01155; and exhibits thereto.

Any materials, pleadings, or orders 

filed, issued, or exchanged in claim 

construction proceedings on this 

term in 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-cv695 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.), 

including, without limitation, 

Plaintiff’s Claim Construction 

Briefing and all extrinsic evidence 

identified and attached thereto (see 

Case 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, D.I. 

44), Sept. 1, 2022 Markman 

Hearing Transcript and Sept. 30, 

2022 Markman Order.

Based on the intrinsic record and 

any extrinsic evidence (including 

background knowledge and skill), 

Plaintiff may rely on expert 

testimony regarding how a 

POSITA would understand this 

term in view of the intrinsic record 

and any extrinsic evidence 

(including background knowledge 

and skill).

Corrected Invalidity Report of 

James A. Proctor, Jr., in XR 

“a single unit comprising a 

transmitter and a receiver, with 

common circuit components” 

Intrinsic Evidence: claim 

language

Extrinsic Evidence:

IPR2022-00613, Paper No. 17 

(Jan. 14, 2023)

IPR2022-00613, Paper No. 33 

(July 5, 2023)

IPR2022-00613, Ex. 2024 (July 

17, 2023)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 1569
17

Claim Term Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Construction

Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

Proposed Construction

Communications LLC v. ASUSTeK 

Computer Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv00622-ADA, dated as of July 25, 

2023, correcting opening report 

dated June 20, 2023

Rebuttal Report of Branimir 

Vojcic, D.Sc. Regarding Validity 

of the ’235 and ’376 Patents in XR 

Communications LLC v. ASUSTeK 

Computer Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv00622-ADA, dated as of July 18, 

2023.

III. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED FOR THE CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION HEARING (P.R. 4-3(A)(3))

The parties estimate that four hours will be needed for the claim construction hearing. The 

parties agree that each side will be allocated half of the total time permitted for the hearing.

IV. PROPOSED WITNESSES TO BE USED AT THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

HEARING (P.R. 4-3(A)(4))

No party proposes to call witnesses at the claim construction hearing.

V. OTHER ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION HEARING (P.R. 4-3(A)(5))

The parties are not currently aware of any issues that they would propose taking up at a 

prehearing conference prior to the claim construction hearing.

Dated: June 11, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie________________

Reza Mirzaie

California Bar No. 246953

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 1570
18

Neil Rubin 

nrubin@raklaw.com

Paul A. Kroeger 

California Bar No. 229074

pkroeger@raklaw.com

Philip X. Wang 

California Bar No. 262239

pwang@raklaw.com

James N. Pickens

California Bar No. 307474

Adam Hoffman

ahoffman@raklaw.com

Jacob Buczko

jbuczko@raklaw.com

Minna Chan

mchan@raklaw.com

Christian Conkle

cconkle@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90025

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Facsimile: (310) 826-6991

Counsel for Plaintiff XR Communications

LLC dba Vivato Technologies

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth______

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Alice E. Snedeker

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com

John R. Gibson

jrgibson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6900

Elissa Sanford

esanford@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

901 New York Avenue NW

Suite 700 East

Washington, D.C. 20001-4795

Telephone: (202) 776-5231

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 1571
19

William A. Liddell

waliddell@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

2801 Via Fortuna

Suite 200

Austin, Texas 78746-7567

Telephone: (512) 277-2272

Facsimile: (512) 227-2301

Deron R Dacus

THE DACUS FIRM, PC

821 ESE Loop 323

Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Telephone: (903) 705-1117

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants

AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, 

and AT&T Corporation

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth______

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Alice E. Snedeker

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com

John R. Gibson

jrgibson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6900

Elissa Sanford

esanford@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

901 New York Avenue NW

Suite 700 East

Washington, D.C. 20001-4795

Telephone: (202) 776-5231

William A. Liddell

waliddell@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 1572
20

2801 Via Fortuna

Suite 200

Austin, Texas 78746-7567

Telephone: (512) 277-2272

Facsimile: (512) 227-2301

Deron R Dacus

THE DACUS FIRM, PC

821 ESE Loop 323

Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Telephone: (903) 705-1117

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

Verizon Communications, Inc. and

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth_______

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Alice E. Snedeker

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com

John R. Gibson

jrgibson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6900

Elissa Sanford

esanford@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

901 New York Avenue NW

Suite 700 East

Washington, D.C. 20001-4795

Telephone: (202) 776-5231

William A. Liddell

waliddell@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

2801 Via Fortuna

Suite 200

Austin, Texas 78746-7567

Telephone: (512) 277-2272

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 1573
21

Facsimile: (512) 227-2301

Melissa R. Smith

Texas Bar No. 24001351

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Attorneys for Defendant

T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth_______

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Alice E. Snedeker

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com

John R. Gibson

jrgibson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6900

Deron R Dacus

THE DACUS FIRM, PC

821 ESE Loop 323

Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Telephone: (903) 705-1117

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com

Attorneys for Intervenor

Ericsson, Inc. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth_________

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Alice E. Snedeker

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com

John R. Gibson

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 1574
22

jrgibson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6900

Deron R Dacus

THE DACUS FIRM, PC

821 ESE Loop 323

Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Telephone: (903) 705-1117

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com

Attorneys for Intervenor

Nokia of America Corporation 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for the Parties met and conferred to discuss 

the substantive relief sought in this Motion pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h). The Parties are jointly 

seeking the relief sought in this Motion. 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie______________

Reza Mirzaie

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on June 11, 2024, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a true and correct copy of 

this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie______________

Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 76 Filed 06/11/24 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 1575