Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180129_0000042.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:24:26+00:00

Document:
FindACase | TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.
TQ DEL TA, LLC, Defendant.
Colm F. Connolly, Esq., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jody Barillare, Esq. (argued), MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. Schuman, Esq., GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP, San Francisco, CA; Rachel M. Walsh, Esq., GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP, San Francisco, CA; David L. Simson, Esq., GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP, San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for Defendant 2WIRE, Inc.
Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esq., MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE. Attorney for Defendants Adtran Inc. and Zyxel Communications Inc.
Paul M. Sykes, Esq. (argued), BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Birmingham, AL; Benn C. Wilson, Esq. (argued), BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Birmingham, AL. Attorneys for Defendant Adtran Inc.
Elizabeth Rader, Esq., ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington, DC. Attorney for Defendant Zyxel Communications Inc.
Presently before the Court is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 292, 627 ("the '627 patent"), 8, 073, 041 ("the '041 patent"), 8, 090, 008 ("the '008 patent"), 8, 218, 610 ("the '610 patent"), and 8, 355, 427 ("the '427 patent"). The Court has considered the parties' joint claim construction brief. (Civ. Act. No. 13-01835-RGA, D.I. 362; Civ. Act. No. 13-02013-RGA, D.I. 348; Civ. Act. No. 14-00954-RGA, D.I. 202; Civ. Act. No. 15-00121-RGA, D.I. 204). The Court heard oral argument on November 30, 2017. (D.I. 452) ("Tr.").
The patents-in-suit represent "Family 4" of the patents that Plaintiff has asserted against Defendants. (D.I. 362 at 8). They all share a common specification. (Id. at 18). They relate to a system and method for scrambling the phase characteristics of carrier signals.
"It 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." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). '"[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. . .. [Which 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." Id. at 1312-13. "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321. "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314.
"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
combining the phase shift computed for each respective carrier signal with the phase characteristic of that carrier signal so as to substantially scramble the phase characteristics of the plurality of carrier signals, wherein multiple carrier signals corresponding to the scrambled carrier signals are used by the first multicarrier transceiver to modulate the same bit value.
('008 patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
b. Defendants' proposed construction: "communications device capable of transmitting and receiving data"
The parties' Family 4 arguments for "transceiver" appear to be more or the less the same as those made for Families 1, 2, and 3. I will construe "transceiver" as I do for those Families.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.