1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE

COMPANY; ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (P.R. 4-3) 

Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 and the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 37), Plaintiff Cobblestone 

Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”), Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), Hewlett Packard 

Enterprise Company (“HP”), and Aruba Networks, LLC (“Aruba”) (collectively, the “Parties”) 

have met and conferred, and hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement.

The claim construction hearing set for November 26, 2024 will address U.S. Patent No. 

7,924,802 (“Patent-in-Suit” or the “’802 Patent”).

I. P.R. 4-3(a)(1) Agreed Claim Constructions

At this time, the Parties have not agreed on the construction of any of the terms identified 

in their separate lists of proposed terms and constructions in the Parties’ respective P.R. 4-1 and 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 356
2

4-2 disclosures. Should the Parties reach any such agreements prior to the Claim Construction 

Hearing, they will advise the Court.

II. P.R. 4-3(a)(2) Proposed Construction of Terms in Dispute

Exhibit A hereto identifies the Parties’ proposed constructions of each disputed claim term 

with intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support such constructions. All Parties reserve the right to 

rely upon any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by any other Party. In addition, each Party 

reserves the right to amend, correct, or supplement its claim construction positions and supporting 

evidence in response to any change of position by any other Party, or for other good cause.

III. P.R. 4-3(a)(3) Anticipated Length of Time for Claim Construction Hearing

The Parties anticipate the length of time necessary for the claim construction hearing will 

be 1.5 hours, divided equally between the Parties, with Defendants Cisco, HP, and Aruba being on 

one side having 45 minutes, and Cobblestone being on the other side having 45 minutes.1

IV. P.R. 4-3(a)(4) Anticipated Witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing

At this time, the parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses at the Claim Construction 

Hearing.

V. P.R. 4-3(a)(5) Other Issues to be Addressed at a Prehearing Conference Prior to the 

Claim Construction Hearing

Defendants state that the following motion has been fully briefed by the Parties and could 

be ruled on by the Court at a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing:

a. Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review 

and Ex Parte Reexamination [Dkt. 52]; Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless LLC’s 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes

Review and Ex Parte Reexamination [Dkt. 56]; Defendants’ Reply in Support of 

Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review and Ex Parte

Reexamination [Dkt. 57]; and Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless LLC’s Sur-Reply in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes

1 Defendants Cisco, HP, and Aruba will jointly present their arguments on the construction of the 

disputed terms at the claim construction hearing.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/15/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 357
3

Review and Ex Parte Reexamination [Dkt. 58]. 

Cobblestone states that it does not take a position whether or not the stay motion should be 

taken up at a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing.

Dated: August 15, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Christian W. Conkle /s/ Kyrie K. Cameron /s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC

Counsel for Defendant Cisco 

Systems, Inc.

Counsel for Hewlett Packard 

Enterprise Company and Aruba 

Networks, LLC

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Amy E. Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

James Pickens

CA State Bar No. 307474

Christian W. Conkle

CA State Bar No. 306374

Jonathan Ma

CA State Bar No. 312773

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th 

Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

rak_cobblestone@raklaw.co

m

Andrea Fair

WARD SMITH & HILL, 

PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

(903) 757-6400

andrea@wsfirm.com

Randol Wayne Read (TBN

00798457)

rread@pattersonsheridan.com

Kyrie K. Cameron (TBN 

24079450)

kcameron@pattersonsheridan

.com

Archibald Deleon Cruz (TBN 

24137564)

acruz@pattersonsheridan.co

m

PATTERSON + 

SHERIDAN LLP

24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 

1600

Houston, Texas 77046

Telephone: (713) 623-4844

Facsimile: (713) 623-4846

Eric H. Findlay (TBN 

00789886)

efindlay@findlaycraft.com

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.

7270 Crosswater Avenue, 

Suite B

Tyler, Texas 75703

Telephone: (903) 534-1100

Facsimile: (903) 534-1137

Holly Engelmann (TBN 

24040865)

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.co

m

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 

1700

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6915

Facsimile: (404) 253-6901

Tyler Marandola

TMarandola@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

30 South 17 Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (215) 979-1529

Facsimile: (215) 689-1914

Jennifer Haltom Doan

JDoan@haltomdoan.com

HALTOM & DOAN

6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 

100

Texarkana, TX 75503

Telephone: (903) 255-1000

Facsimile: (903) 255-0800

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/15/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 358
4

HEngelmann@duanemorris.c

om

DUANE MORRIS LLP

Terrace 7

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 200

Austin, Texas 78746-7567

Telephone: (512) 277-2246

Facsimile: (512) 597-2301

Louis N. Jameson

WJameson@duanemorris.co

m

Matthew S. Yungwirth

msyungwirth@duanemorris.c

om

Jayla C. Grant

jcgrant@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE, 

Suite 1700

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: (404) 253-6915

Facsimile: (404) 253-6901

msyungwirth@duanemorris.c

om

JCGrant@duanemorris.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 15, 2024, I caused the foregoing to be electronically served 

to all counsel of record.

/s/ Christian W. Conkle

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/15/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 359
1

EXHIBIT A TO JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT

Term Cobblestone’s Proposed 

Construction and Evidence

Cisco, HP, and Aruba’s Joint Proposed 

Construction and Evidence

“A method of transmitting 

information in a wireless 

communication channel 

comprising” (preamble –

claim 1)

The preamble is limiting as to “in a 

wireless communication channel”

Intrinsic Evidence:

’802 Patent at Abstract, 1:61-63,

2:45-47; 6:60-62; 10:63-66, 12:14-

15, 13:21-23; cl. 1

Any intrinsic evidence relied upon 

by Defendants.

No construction necessary 

Intrinsic Evidence:

’802 Patent at Claims, Figs. 6, 7A and 7B, 5:27-

31, 9:9-10:61. 

File history of the ’802 Patent, including 

statements made by Plaintiff as Patent Owner in 

IPR 2024-0707 and IPR 2024-0606.

Any intrinsic evidence relied upon by Plaintiff.

Extrinsic Evidence:

Papers and Evidence submitted with IPR 2024-

0707 (to the extent not qualified as intrinsic 

evidence).

Any extrinsic evidence relied upon by Plaintiff.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/15/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 360
2

Term Cobblestone’s Proposed 

Construction and Evidence

Cisco, HP, and Aruba’s Joint Proposed 

Construction and Evidence

“first center frequency / 

second center frequency” 

(claim 1)

The frequency of the carrier that the 

baseband signal is upconverted to

Intrinsic Evidence:

’802 Patent at 1:25-49, 2:6-9, 5:60-

7:31, 9:9-57, 10:64-11:20, 12:33-58; 

passim (90 references to “center 

frequency”); figs. 2, 3; cl. 1; 

IPR2024-00707 Exs. 2001, 2002 

(Declaration and CV of Todor 

Cooklev)

Any intrinsic evidence relied upon 

by Defendants

Extrinsic Evidence:

IEEE Dictionary of Standards 

Terms, Seventh Edition (2000), 

definition of “channel”

Plain and ordinary meaning

Intrinsic Evidence:

’802 Patent at Abstract; Claims; 1:25-49, 2:6-9, 

6:48-53, 7:29-31, and 9:35-41; and Figs. 2-6. 

File history of the ’802 Patent, including 

statements made by Plaintiff as Patent Owner in 

IPR 2024-0707, e.g., Patent Owner’s Preliminary 

Response at 3-18, and IPR 2024-0606, e.g., 

Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Patent 

Owner’s Sur-Reply.

Any intrinsic evidence relied upon by Plaintiff.

Extrinsic Evidence:

Papers and Evidence submitted with IPR 2024-

0707 (to the extent not qualified as intrinsic 

evidence).

47 C.F.R. § 22.99 (defining “center

frequency” as “the frequency of the middle of the 

bandwidth of a channel”); 59 F.R. 59498, at 

59507 (Nov. 17, 1994)

Any extrinsic evidence relied upon by Plaintiff.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/15/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 361