Court Opinion

ID: 9839524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:02:06.334309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:16.076355
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2020    Document: 32     Page: 1    Filed: 08/14/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                      APPLE INC.,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-2020
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Central District of California in No. 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-
 GJS, Judge John A. Kronstadt.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: August 14, 2023
                  ______________________

     DOUGLAS GLEN MUEHLHAUSER, Knobbe, Martens, Ol-
 son & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
 Also represented by PAYSON J. LEMEILLEUR.

     HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
 for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DENA CHEN,
 BENJAMIN S. LIN, LOWELL D. MEAD.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-2020     Document: 32      Page: 2     Filed: 08/14/2023

 2                                 ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit
                           Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge.
     One-E-Way, Inc. (One-E-Way) appeals from the U.S.
 District Court for the Central District of California’s grant
 of summary judgment that Apple Inc.’s (Apple) accused
 products do not infringe the asserted claims of One-E-
 Way’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,129,627 and 10,468,047. We af-
 firm.
                         BACKGROUND
      One-E-Way’s asserted patents relate to “a wireless dig-
 ital audio system for coded digital transmission of an audio
 signal from any audio player with an analog headphone
 jack to a receiver headphone located away from the audio
 player.” ’627 patent at 1:66–2:3. 1 The written description
 explains the system “provides private listening without in-
 terference from other users or wireless devices and without
 the use of conventional cable connections.” Id. at 2:10–13.
 The system includes, among other things, a battery-pow-
 ered transmitter connected to an audio source and a bat-
 tery-powered receiver connected to headphone speakers.
 Id. at 2:40–64, Fig. 1. The transmitter contains a code gen-
 erator which may generate a unique user code “specifically
 associated with one wireless digital audio system user.” Id.
 at 2:64–3:1. The unique user code is used to pair the trans-
 mitter and receiver such that each headphone user “may
 be able to listen (privately) to high fidelity audio music . . .
 without interference from any other receiver headphone
 user.” Id. at 3:42–46.
      Claim 1 of the ’627 patent is representative and recites:

      1  Because the ’627 and ’047 patents share the same
 specification, we cite only to the ’627 patent.
Case: 22-2020     Document: 32     Page: 3    Filed: 08/14/2023

 ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.                              3

     A wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver,
     capable of mobile operation, configured to receive a
     unique user code and a high quality audio signal
     representation with a frequency range of 20 Hz to
     20 kHz from a digital audio spread spectrum trans-
     mitter, said audio signal representation repre-
     sentative of audio from a portable audio source,
     said digital audio spread spectrum receiver opera-
     tive to communicate wirelessly with said digital au-
     dio spread spectrum transmitter, said digital audio
     spread spectrum receiver comprising:
         a direct conversion module configured to
         receive wireless spread spectrum signal
         transmissions representative of the unique
         user code and the high quality audio signal
         representation, wherein the received trans-
         missions are encoded to reduce intersymbol
         interference, wherein the wireless digital
         audio spread spectrum receiver is capable
         of processing the high quality audio signal
         having a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20
         kHz;
         a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) config-
         ured to generate an audio output from said
         receiver audio signal representation; and
         a speaker configured to reproduce said gen-
         erated audio output, wherein said repro-
         duction does not include audible audio
         content originating from any transmitted
         audio signals in the wireless digital audio
         spread spectrum transmitter spectrum
         that do not originate from said digital audio
         spread spectrum transmitter;
         wherein the wireless digital audio spread
         spectrum receiver is configured to use inde-
         pendent code division multiple access
Case: 22-2020    Document: 32      Page: 4    Filed: 08/14/2023

 4                               ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.

         communication and to use the received
         unique user code to communicate with only
         said wireless digital audio spread spectrum
         transmitter for the duration of a wireless
         connection; and
         wherein the wireless digital audio spread
         spectrum receiver is further configured to:
             demodulate a received modulated
             transmission, and
             generate a demodulated signal
             based on the received modulated
             transmission by performing at
             least one of a plurality of demodu-
             lations, wherein the plurality of de-
             modulations includes a differential
             phase shift keying (DPSK) demod-
             ulation and also includes a non-
             DPSK demodulation.
 ’627 patent at claim 1 (emphases added).
      After One-E-Way sued Apple for infringement, the par-
 ties agreed the term “unique user code” means “fixed code
 (bit sequence) specifically associated with one user of a de-
 vice(s).” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Claim Construction
 Order), 2022 WL 2189529, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022).
 The district court accepted the construction and issued an
 order stating the construction was binding on the parties.
 Id. Apple moved for summary judgment of noninfringe-
 ment contending its accused Bluetooth-compliant devices
 do not include a “unique user code” under the agreed-upon
 construction because its devices contain codes associated
 with devices, not users. One-E-Way responded that the
 “unique user code” is associated with a user through the
 operation of the device and the accused Bluetooth-compli-
 ant devices therefore infringe the asserted claims. See gen-
 erally J.A. 1327–54.          The parties disputed the
Case: 22-2020     Document: 32     Page: 5    Filed: 08/14/2023

 ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.                               5

 interpretation and application of the stipulated construc-
 tion. The district court held the plain meaning of the stip-
 ulated construction of “unique user code” “means that the
 code is ‘associated with one user of a device(s),’ and not the
 device itself.” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Summary
 Judgment Order), 2022 WL 2564002, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June
 15, 2022). The court granted summary judgment because
 the accused Bluetooth-complaint devices are “user-agnos-
 tic,” which cannot meet the “unique user code” limitation.
 Id. at *9. One-E-Way appeals. We have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review the district court’s grant of summary judg-
 ment according to the law of the regional circuit. Neville v.
 Found. Constructors, Inc., 972 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
 2020). The Ninth Circuit reviews summary judgment de
 novo. Id. (citing Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851
 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2017)). “[T]he ultimate question of
 the proper construction of the patent [is] a question of law.”
 Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 325
 (2015). “[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence in-
 trinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications,
 along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s de-
 termination will amount solely to a determination of law,
 and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de
 novo.” Id. at 331.
     The parties dispute whether the plain and ordinary
 meaning of the agreed-upon construction for “unique user
 code” means the code is associated with a user or device.
 One-E-Way argues the district court narrowly interpreted
 the construction to require additional, unclaimed features.
 Apple argues the district court correctly interpreted the
 construction under the plain meaning of the term. We
 agree with the district court that, under the plain meaning
 of the phrase “associated with one user of a device(s),” the
Case: 22-2020    Document: 32      Page: 6    Filed: 08/14/2023

 6                               ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.

 unique user code is associated with one user of a device and
 not the device itself.
     Claims are generally given their “ordinary and custom-
 ary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have
 to a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the
 context of the claim, specification, and prosecution history.
 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Here, the specification
 supports the conclusion that the plain meaning of “one user
 of a device” refers to a code associated with the user of a
 device rather than the device itself. The patents distin-
 guish between users and devices when describing the pur-
 pose of the invention. See ’627 patent at 2:10–13 (“The
 wireless digital audio music system provides private listen-
 ing without interference from other users or wireless de-
 vices. . . .”).   Additionally, the written description
 consistently associates the “unique user code” with a
 “user.” For example, when describing aspects of the inven-
 tion, the specification states “[t]he unique user code gener-
 ated is specifically associated with one wireless digital
 audio system user, and it is the only code recognized by the
 battery powered headphone receiver 50 operated by a par-
 ticular user.” Id. at 2:66–3:3 (emphases added). Other por-
 tions of the specification also describe the user code as
 associated with a particular user. See, e.g., id. at 3:23–26
 (“The receiver code generator 60 may contain the same
 unique wireless transmission of a signal code word that
 was transmitted by audio transmitter 20 specific to a par-
 ticular user.”). The patents’ consistent reference to “user”
 and “device” as distinct entities and association of the
 unique user code with “user” supports the district court’s
 conclusion that “one user of a device” does not mean the
 device itself.
     The prosecution history further supports this under-
 standing of “one user of a device.” For example, in the pros-
 ecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/648,012—a
 parent application with the same written description as the
Case: 22-2020     Document: 32      Page: 7   Filed: 08/14/2023

 ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.                              7

 asserted patents—the applicant overcame prior art by dis-
 tinguishing between user codes and device codes. J.A. 928,
 941–42. Specifically, the applicant contended U.S. Patent
 No. 5,491,839 (Schotz) uses “codes [that] are assigned to
 specific devices for a single household—not individual us-
 ers.” J.A. 942. Because the codes were assigned to devices,
 the applicant explained “the Schotz code may be properly
 deemed a ‘device code’ as opposed to a ‘user code’ as in the
 present invention.” Id. The applicant’s own description of
 the term “user code” supports the conclusion that a skilled
 artisan would understand the ordinary meaning of the
 term, in the context of the intrinsic record, does not mean
 device code. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“[A] court should
 also consider the patent’s prosecution history. . . .” (cita-
 tions omitted)). Because the prosecution history supports
 the district court’s understanding, we need not decide
 whether such statements rise to the level of prosecution
 history disclaimer.      See Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson
 Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
      We conclude “unique user code” is associated with one
 user of a device, and not the device itself. Because the par-
 ties agreed there is no genuine dispute of material fact that
 Apple’s accused Bluetooth-complaint devices do not in-
 fringe under such construction, we therefore affirm the dis-
 trict   court’s grant       of summary judgment            of
 noninfringement.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered One-E-Way’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given,
 we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment
 of noninfringement.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 Costs awarded to Apple.