Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180130_0000047.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:12:08+00:00

Document:
FindACase | TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc.
Colm F. Connolly and Jody Barillare, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. Schuman (argued), Rachel M. Walsh (argued), and David L. Simpson, GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP, San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for Defendant 2WIRE, Inc.
Kenneth L. Dorsney, MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE. Attorney for Defendants Adtran Inc. and Zyxel Communications Inc.
Presently before the Court is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 570, 686 ("the '686 patent"); 7, 835, 430 ("the '430 patent"); 7, 889, 784 ("the '784 patent"); 8, 238, 412 ("the '412 patent"); and 9, 432, 956 ("the '956 patent"). The Court has considered the Parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief. (Civ. Act. No. 13-01835-RGA, D.I. 342; Civ. Act. No. 13-02013-RGA, D.I. 327; Civ. Act. No. 14-00954-RGA, D.I. 180; Civ. Act. No. 15-00121-RGA; D.I. 182). The Court heard oral argument on September 5, 2017. (D.I. 357). The Court subsequently heard testimony from two technical experts and received supplemental submissions.
The patents-in-suit represent "Family 1" of the patents that Plaintiff has asserted against Defendants, and they all share a common specification. (D.I. 342 at 12 n.1). The Family 1 patents claim both an apparatus and method for the reliable exchange of diagnostic and test information over a multicarrier communications system.
"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) (citation omitted). '"[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. . . . [This 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.
When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the court's construction is a determination of law. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The court may also make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19. Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history. Id.
"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) (citation omitted).
a message determination module capable of determining and, in cooperation with the transceiver, transmitting a diagnostic message from the transceiver, wherein the diagnostic message comprises a plurality of data variables representing the diagnostic information about the communication channel and each bit in the diagnostic message is mapped to at least one DMT signal, and wherein one variable comprises an array representing frequency domain received idle channel noise information.
('686 patent, claim 5) (disputed terms italicized).
a. Plaintiff's proposed construction: "communications device capable of transmitting and receiving data wherein the transmitter portion and receiver portion share at least some common circuitry"
c. Court's construction: "communications device capable of transmitting and receiving data wherein the transmitter portion and receiver portion share at least some common circuitry"
This term appears in all five of the asserted patents. The parties agree that a transceiver is a communications device that can transmit and receive data. They also agree that transceiver should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, but dispute whether the plain and ordinary meaning requires that the transceiver's transmitter and receiver portions share common circuitry. (D.I. 342 at 35). The specification does not provide an explicit definition of transceiver.
Plaintiff offers two dictionary definitions as extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill ("POSA") would understand that a transceiver's transmitter and receiver portions share common circuitry. (Id. at 34). Both definitions include a limitation that a transceiver's transmitter and receiver share common circuitry. (D.I. 343 at ¶ 53, A57). Defendants criticize Plaintiffs proposed construction as "an extraneous, irrelevant constraint" that improperly imports a limitation and relies "wholly on evidence extrinsic to the asserted patents." (D.I. 342 at 35, 36, 41).
Evaluating the intrinsic evidence in light of the dictionary definitions provided suggests that a POSA would understand the transmitter and receiver portions to share common circuitry or components. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 ("Because dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology, those resources have been properly recognized as among the many tools that can assist the court in determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art of the invention."). Therefore, I will construe transceiver to mean "a communications device capable of transmitting and receiving data wherein the transmitter portion and receiver portion share at least some common circuitry."

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