Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 1 of 31
`
`Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196)
`mbettinger@sidley.com
`Irene Yang (SBN 245464)
`irene.yang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 772-1200 – Telephone
`(415) 772-7400 – Facsimile
`
`David T. Pritikin (Pro Hac Vice)
`dpritikin@sidley.com
`David C. Giardina (Pro Hac Vice)
`dgiardina@sidley.com
`Douglas I. Lewis (Pro Hac Vice)
`dilewis@sidley.com
`John W. McBride (Pro Hac Vice)
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`(312) 853-7000 – Telephone
`(312) 853-7036 – Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies
`USA, Inc., and HiSilicon Technologies Co. Ltd.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim-Defendants,
`
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION ON
`TECHNICAL ISSUES
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants / Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`and
`SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA,
`Defendant,
`
`v.
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`Hearing Date: August 8, 2018
`Time: 2:00 PM
`Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 2 of 31
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................1
`THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE SAMSUNG’S EXPERTS FROM OFFERING
`OPINIONS AT TRIAL THAT ARE BASED ON IMPROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`..............................................................................................................................................2
`A.
`Huawei’s ’613 Patent ...............................................................................................2
`1.
`Dr. Lyon’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “Position
`Information” Should Be Excluded. ..............................................................3
`2.
`Dr. Lyon’s Opinions Regarding What He Calls a “Non-Zero Offset” Have No
`Basis in the Claims and Should Be Excluded. .............................................6
`3.
`Dr. Lyon’s Divided Infringement Opinions Rest on an Improper Construction
`of Claims 1 and 5 and Should Be Excluded. ...............................................7
`Huawei’s ’587 Patent ...............................................................................................9
`1.
`Dr. Lyon’s Divided Infringement Opinions Rest on an Improper Construction
`of Claims 3 and 9 and Should Be Excluded. ...............................................9
`Samsung’s ’105 patent ...........................................................................................10
`1.
`Overview ....................................................................................................10
`2.
`Dr. Prucnal’s Opinions Regarding Mapping FT Precoded Symbols and Non-
`FT Precoded Modulation Control Symbols at Different Times Should Be
`Excluded. ...................................................................................................10
`Samsung’s ’130 Patent ...........................................................................................12
`1.
`Dr. Bambos Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “Mapping Data
`Information to Remaining Symbols” Should Be Excluded. ......................12
`2.
`Dr. Bambos’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “CQI
`Information Being Multiplexed with the Data Information” Should Be
`Excluded. ...................................................................................................13
`Huawei’s ‘239 Patent .............................................................................................14
`1.
`Dr. Madisetti’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “Obtaining”
`Should Be Excluded. ..................................................................................14
`2.
`Dr. Madisetti’s Opinions Requiring a “Sequence” to Be a ZC Sequence Are
`Based on an Improper Construction and Should Be Excluded. .................15
`3.
`Dr. Madisetti’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “n
`sequences” Should Be Excluded. ...............................................................17
`Huawei’s ’892 Patent .............................................................................................17
`1.
`Dr. Madisetti’s Opinion Requiring the UE to Select NCS Is Based on an
`Improper Construction and Should Be Excluded. .....................................18
`2.
`Dr. Madisetti’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “A Set of
`Random Access Preambles” Should Be Excluded. ...................................19
`Samsung’s ’825 Patent ...........................................................................................20
`1.
`Dr. Valenti’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “Without
`Checking a Downlink Channel” Should Be Excluded. .............................20
`Samsung’s ’726 patent ...........................................................................................23
`1.
`Dr. Bambos’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “associating a
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`i
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`HARQ process with the calculated HARQ process ID” Should Be Excluded.
`....................................................................................................................23
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`ii
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012), rev’d on other grounds, 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) ................7, 9
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ..............................................................................7, 9
`
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc.,
`174 F. 3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................22
`
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................25
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................2
`
`CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................2
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`Dayco Prods, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`258 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................17
`
`FotoMedia Techs, LLC v. AOL, LLC,
`2009 WL 2175845 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2009) ...........................................................................8
`
`France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-04967-WHO, 2014 WL 4272771 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) ..................................1
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-CV-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 1265009 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) .................................2
`
`Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,
`9 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................6
`
`Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................21, 22
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................19
`
`Laryngeal Mask Co. v. Ambu A/S,
`618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iii
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................1
`
`MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 11–cv–05341–YGR, 2014 WL 971765, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) ............................2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Micro Therapeutics, Inc.,
`No. 03-cv-05669-JW, 2007 WL 2429412 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007) ......................................1
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................4
`
`Tech. Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd.,
`700 F.3d 482 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................................8
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................8
`
`Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd.,
`392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiffs Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei
`Technologies USA, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”) hereby move pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to preclude Samsung’s expert witnesses from offering
`opinions that are contrary to the proper construction of claim terms, and the claim as a whole, in
`Huawei patents 8,724,613 (“’613 patent”), 8,885,587 (“’587 patent”), 8,644,239 (“’239 patent”),
`and8,416,892 (“’892 patent”), and Samsung patents RE44,105 (“’105 patent”), 8,761,130 (“’130
`patent”), 9,288,825 (“’825 patent”), and 8,619,726 (“’726 patent”).
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`This Court’s Claim Construction Order, dated August 31, 2017, construed the ten “most
`significant terms,” as selected by the parties. (Dkt. 168).1 For a number of terms not construed by
`the Court, however, Samsung’s expert witnesses apply improper constructions and offer opinions
`based upon those improper constructions. In many instances, Samsung did not raise these claim
`constructions issues in the parties Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 124) and, instead,
`revealed these improper constructions for the first time in its experts’ reports. Samsung’s experts
`should be precluded from offering opinions that are based on these improper constructions.
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`Expert opinions “based on an impermissible claim construction” are improper and must be
`excluded. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1224 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(affirming district court’s decision to “exclud[e] . . . expert opinion evidence as irrelevant because it
`was based on an impermissible claim construction”); France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor
`Inc., No. 12-cv-04967-WHO, 2014 WL 4272771, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) (excluding
`testimony of plaintiff's expert on the ground that it was “based on [plaintiffs] rejected construction of
`‘systematic convolutional coding’”); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Micro Therapeutics, Inc., No. 03-cv-
`05669-JW, 2007 WL 2429412, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007) (striking portion of expert report that
`“does not comply with the Court's construction of the phrase ‘predetermined time period’”).
`Moreover, experts cannot argue claim construction to the jury, because claim construction is
`
`
`1 This Court, by Order dated March 1, 2018, reconsidered its construction of the phrase “first P=temporary Mobile
`Station Identity (P-TMSI) in an access message. (Dkt. 247).
`1
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 7 of 31
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 7 of 31
`
`the province of the court. See Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. l2-CV-03587-WHO,
`
`2015 WL 1265009, at *6 (ND. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (citing MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale
`
`Semiconductor, Inc., No. ll—cv—0534l—YGR, 2014 WL 971765, at *1 (ND. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014);
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp, 561 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We have held that it is
`
`improper to argue claim construction to the jury because the ‘risk of confusing the jury is high when
`
`experts opine on claim construction.”’) (citing CvtoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med. 3173., Inc, 424 F.3d
`
`1168, 1172-73 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); Claim Construction Order 2-4 (Aug. 31, 217), ECF No. 168.
`
`III.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE SAMSUNG’S EXPERTS FROM OFFERING
`
`OPINIONS AT TRIAL THAT ARE BASED ON INIPROPER CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Huawei’s ’613 Patent
`
`The ’613 patent provides a mechanism for a mobile device to know when it may receive one
`
`or more services from a network, thereby both limiting the power expended by the mobile device
`
`and improving the efficiency of the network. See Huawei Opening Claim Construction Br. 9-11
`
`(May 19, 2017), ECF No. 141. During the claim construction phase of this case, the parties
`
`presented only one term for construction: “receiving/receive .
`
`.
`
`. a service.” The Court agreed with
`
`Huawei that no construction was necessary for this term. See ECF No. 168 at 10—1 1.
`
`During the Mar/anon presentation, the parties presented tutorials that explained the radio
`
`frames and subframes used in LTE. As the parties explained, each frame consists of 10 subframes.
`
`See also ’613 patent at Fig. 4; Ex. 1, Lyon ’613 Invalidity Rpt. TI 67. The ’613 patent relates to
`
`services that can be sent in certain designated radio frames and subframes and position information
`
`that identifies these designated radio frames and subframes.
`
`On May 25, 2018, Samsung’s expert, Dr. David Lyon, submitted a rebuttal report on non-
`
`infringement of the ’613 patent. See Ex. 2, Lyon ’613 Noninfringement Rpt. In his report, Dr. Lyon
`
`presents non-infringement arguments based on three new claim construction positions that Samsung
`
`never raised during the claim construction phase. See ECF No. 124 at 1-3. Specifically, Dr. Lyon
`
`argues that Samsung does not infringe the ’613 patent because:
`
`ili the “iosition information” ofclaims 1 and 5 mustbe-
`
`\OOO\IO\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`HUAWEI'S DAU'BERT MOTION
`CASE NO. 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 8 of 31
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 8 of 31
`
`- see Ex. 2, Lyon ’613 Noninfringement Rpt. 11 82;
`
`2 claims 1 and 5
`
`see id. at W 171-75;
`
`
`
`see id. at W 188-90.
`
`Dr. Lyon’s claim constluction positions on these “position information,” “offset,” and
`
`divided infi‘ingement issues run contrary to the proper construction of claims 1 and 5.
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Lyon’s Opinions Based on an Improper Construction of “Position
`Information” Should Be Excluded.
`
`Samsrmg’s expert, Dr. Lyon, opines that the “position information” of claims 1 and 5 must be
`
`_
`
`see Ex. 2, Lyon ”613 NonmfringementRpt.1H[ 28, 64, 71, 81-82, 120-21, 142-43, 153, 161. Dr.
`
`Lyon’s opinion is improper.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 require (in pertinent part) that a UE receive, or contain circuitry configured to
`
`receive: (a) a “service being sent in one or more subframes that are designated as specific subframes,
`
`the specific subframes being selected from one or more radio frames that are designated as specific
`
`radio frames;” and (b) “position information of the specific radio frames in the time 1mit and position
`
`information of the specific subframes in the specific radio frame on a transport channel.” Reading
`
`those elements together, the claims require that the UE receives a “service” that is “sent in” one or
`
`more “designated” specific subfi‘ames selected from one or more “designated” specific radio frames,
`
`and the UE receives position information for those “designated” frames/subfi‘ames. Nothing in the
`
`plain language of the claims requires that all of the “designated” flames and subfi‘ames actually
`
`contain the service, such that there is an exact one-to-one correspondence between the designated
`
`frames/subfi‘ames and the frames/subframes that actually contain the service, as Dr. Lyon argues.
`
`3
`HUAWEI‘S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. l6-CV—02787—WHO
`
`I
`
`\OOONON
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For example, if subframes 1, 2, and 3 were designated as specific subframes, and a UE received a
`service sent in subframes 1 and 2 (but not 3), the service would still be “sent in” subframes
`designated as specific subframes.
`Dr. Lyon’s attempt to engraft extra limitations onto the claims finds no support in the
`specification. The ’613 specification makes clear that the patented technology allows the UE to
`distinguish unicast from multicast/broadcast frames and subframes. The specification explains that
`the problem addressed by the patent is how to “inform the usage of each subframe” to the UE, as
`either MBMS or unicast services, which “are in time division multiplexing.” See Ex. 3, ’613 patent
`at 1:54-2:4, 2:38-44, 17:32-52. After receiving such information, the UE can then either attempt to
`read or ignore the frames and subframes designated for unicast or multicast/broadcast services,
`depending on which services are requested by the user. See id. This technology solved multiple
`problems facing 3GPP at the time in designing the LTE standard, including “reducing signaling
`overhead” in the network and “saving electrical energy of the user equipment.” See Ex. 4, R1-
`071690 at 1; Ex. 3, ’613 patent at 1:63-2:4, 2:38-44, 17:32-52. To solve those problems, it was not
`necessary to specifically indicate only those frames and subframes that actually contain a service.
`See id.; see also Ex. 5, X. Fan Dep. 58:2-61:12, 82:5-86:8 (explaining how signaling frame type
`allows the UE to “rest” during certain frames). In contrast, Lyon cites nothing from the ’613
`specification to support his “position information” argument.2
`Dr. Lyon’s argument also runs directly contrary to the intrinsic evidence and fails to reflect
`what the inventors actually invented. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (citing Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`(“‘Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full
`understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.’”).
`
`
`2 The specification also makes clear that the term “service” in the claims is broad, and can refer to a
`transmission mode or one or more kinds of multimedia broadcast multicast (MBMS) services, a
`service transmitted through a MBMS mode, or a service transmitted through a unicast mode. See
`Ex. 3, ’613 patent at 17:53-18:10. Reading the claims to requires that each one of the “designated”
`frames and subframes actually contains a service, as Dr. Lyon does, conflicts with the broad
`understanding of the term “service,” which is not limited to a particular instance of a service such as
`an individual stream, but can encompass a transmission mode.
`
`
`
`
`4
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`Huawei first publicly disclosed the technology of the ’613 patent, and proposed incorporating it into
`the LTE standard, by submitting a technical contribution called R1-071690 to the 3GPP standards-
`setting organization. See Ex. 2, Lyon ’613 Noninfringement Rpt. ¶ 42. Huawei cited the same
`contribution to the patent office during examination of the ’613 patent, which makes the contribution
`intrinsic evidence that is highly relevant to claim construction. See Ex. 6, ’613 patent file history
`excerpt); Philips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“‘intrinsic evidence’…includes the prior art cited during the
`examination of the patent.”) (citation omitted). The R1-071690 contribution makes clear that it
`relates to a UE receiving information about frame and subframe “type (M[B]SFN or non-
`MBSFN).”3 See Ex. 4, R1-071690 at 1 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1-2 (“This contribution
`provides a feasible solution for the indication of subframe type . . . two kinds of information need to
`be configured every modifying period . . . . [i]nformation about the MBSFN frames distribution . . .
`.[and] [i]nformation about the MBSFN subframes distribution within the MBSFN frame”).
`Information about frame and subframe type indicates which frames and subframes are “reserved” for
`MBSFN versus non-MBSFN services. See Ex. 7, Lyon Dep. 171:5-13 (admitting that eMBMS can
`only be “sent in frames and subframes that are designated as MBSFN subframes”). This evidence
`directly contradicts Dr. Lyon’s unsupported assertion that “position information” in the claims
`cannot refer to which frames and subframes are “reserved” to carry services.4
`In sum, Dr. Lyon’s opinion based on the term “position information” finds no support in the
`claims, specification, or intrinsic evidence. The Court should preclude Dr. Lyon from presenting
`arguments based on this improper claim construction at trial, and should strike paragraphs 28, 59,
`64, 71, 67, 81-82, 120-21, 141-43, 153, 159, and 161 of Dr. Lyon’s report.
`
`
`3 MBSFN stands for multicast-broadcast single-frequency network. MBMS services are sent in
`MBSFN frames.
`4 In fact, the entire basis of Dr. Lyon’s position is illogical, because he effectively argues that the
`’613 patent claims must be construed to cover portions of the LTE standard that did not even exist
`until a year and a half after Huawei’s technology was adopted into the standard (TS 36.331
`v9.2.0) and that no witness has linked to the genesis of the ’613 patent. See Ex. 2, Lyon ’613
`Noninfringement Rpt., ¶ 136. In contrast, Huawei’s expert properly relies on a contemporaneous
`version of the LTE standard (TS 36.331 v8.4.0) linked to Huawei’s invention to prove infringement.
`5
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 11 of 31
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 11 of 31
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Lyon’s Opinions Regarding What He Calls a “Non-Zero Offset”
`Have No Basis in the Claims and Should Be Excluded.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 of the ’613 patent require that the radio flames that are “designated as
`
`specific radio flames” be “selected flom a time unit, wherein the time unit comprises 2” radio flames
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .” See, e.g., Ex. 3, ’613 patent at 18:29-30. Dr. Lyon asserts that this claim language requires
`—
`
`Lyon ’613 Noninflingement Rpt. 1] 171. For example, in a time unit composed of 210 (i. e., 1024)
`
`radio flames, Dr. Lyon contends that claims 1 and 5 require that the first radio flame in the time unit
`
`must be designated as a specific radio flame, such that there is no “offset” between the start of the
`
`time unit and the start of the designated specific radio flames. See id. Lyon, however, points to
`
`nothing in the claims that imposes this spurious limitation. See id. Nothing in asserted claims 1 and
`
`5 requires a specific starting position, and seeking to impose such a limitation is an improper attempt
`
`to narrow the scope of the claims. See, e.g., Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus, Inc, 9 F.3d 948, 950
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It is improper for a court to add ‘extraneous’ limitations to a claim”) (citation
`
`omitted); Laryngeal Mask Co. v. Ambu A/S, 618 F.3d 1367, 1371 0:ed. Cir. 2010) (“Certainly, it
`
`would be improper to add a tube joint limitation to the claims at issue where none appears”).
`
`The same conclusion follows directly flom the ’613 patent specification. The embodiments
`
`described in the ’613 patent specifically contemplate use of non-zero offsets. The ’613 patent uses
`
`the term “starting position” to refer to what Dr. Lyon calls an “offset.” In one embodiment, “F can
`
`represent the number Gp of the specific radio flames in the time unit,” where Gp together with
`
`“startingposition go” which “can be appointed or informed by the signaling” precisely identify the
`
`position of the MBSFN radio flames. See Ex. 3, ’613 patent at 13:58—14:27. The specification states
`
`that “the starting position may be appointed as 0,” but a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “may” does not mean “must.” The specification reinforces that the starting position
`
`need not be 0 by using a variable (go) rather than a constant to represent it. A person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that a variable can vary—it need not always be 0 as Dr. Lyon asserts.
`
`In another embodiment, the specification similarly states that “the positions of the specific
`
`radio flames can be determined according to a starting position f» of the successive Fp specific radio
`
`\OOOQON
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`HUAWEI'S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 12 of 31
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 12 of 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`I
`
`\OOONON
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`frames and the value of Fp.” See Ex. 3, ’613 patent at 13:42-57 (emphasis added). In that
`
`embodiment, the “starting position fo” “may be appointed as 0” according to the specification. See
`
`id. at 13:56-5 7; see also id. at 14:28-65. Relatedly, the specification explains that in one
`
`embodiment, the subframes that are designated as specific subframes can be calculated from a
`
`formula that includes the quantity ro, which “is the position of a first specific subframe in the specific
`
`radio frame.” The patent teaches that “[g]enerally, ro=0 can be adopted.” Id. at 8: 15-48. In short, the
`
`’613 patent specifically contemplates use of non-zero offsets not once but multiple times.
`
`Accordingly, the plain language of the claims and specification refute Dr. Lyon’s spurious claim
`
`construction argument regarding an “offset.” The Court should preclude Dr. Lyon from presenting
`
`his “offset” argument at trial, and should strike paragraphs 171 to 175 of Dr. Lyon’s report.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Lyon’s Divided Infringement Opinions Rest on an Improper
`Construction of Claims 1 and 5 and Should Be Excluded.
`
`-
`
`Dr. Lyon presents a divided infringement argument in his report, based his assertion that'
`
`15
`
`” See Ex. 2, Lyon ’613 Noninfringement Rpt. 1| 188. Lyon asserts that, as a
`
` 14
`
`17 _’ See Id. at 1[ 190. The Court should
`
`
`
`18 p—recludeDr. Lyonfrompresentingthis argumentattrialbecauseDr. Lyonrelies onanincorrect
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`lmderstanding of the law and an incorrect reading of the claims.
`
`As an initial matter, claim 5 is a product claim covering “user equipment,” such as a mobile
`
`phone. Samsung has not shown that divided infringement can legally apply to such a product claim.
`
`See Almnmi Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc, 692 F.3d 1301, 1305—06 (Fed. Cir. 2012), rev'd
`
`on other grounds, 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) (“When claims are directed to a product or apparatus,
`
`direct infringement is always present, because the entity that installs the fmal part and thereby
`
`completes the claimed invention is a direct infringer.”); see also Almmai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight
`
`Networks, Inc, 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (stating that divided infringement
`
`doctrine pertains to method claims). Here, there can be no dispute that Samsung at least imports,
`
`offers for sale, and sells in the United States the SamSImg phones that Huawei accuses of
`
`7
`HUAWEI‘S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. l6-CV—02787—WHO
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`infringement. Therefore, Dr. Lyon’s divided infringement argument for claim 5 of the ’613 patent
`fails as a matter of law.
`Dr. Lyon’s divided infringement argument for claims 1 and 5 of the ’613 patent also fail as a
`matter of law, because claims 1 and 5 are written from a single perspective—user equipment (UE).
`As the Federal Circuit has explained, “a patentee can usually structure a claim to capture
`infringement by a single party, by focusing on one entity.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632
`F.3d 1292, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). That is exactly what Huawei did in claims 1
`and 5. The elements of claim 1 unambiguously recite “receiving, by a user equipment” a service and
`position information. Claim 5 is similar. “That other parties are necessary to complete the
`environment in which the claimed element functions” is irrelevant. See id. In fact, in Uniloc, the
`Federal Circuit provided an example of a claim that does not have divided infringement problems:
`“a claim that reads ‘An algorithm incorporating means for receiving e-mails’ may require two parties
`to function, but could nevertheless be infringed by the single party who uses an algorithm that
`receives e-mails.” See id. The Federal Circuit’s example has a very similar structure to claims 1 and
`5 of the ’613 patent.
`Similarly, in Tech. Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd., 700 F.3d 482, 501 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
`held that the claims “do not present an issue of joint or divided infringement. That is because,
`contrary to the district court's ruling, those claims do not require performance by multiple actors.”
`Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that “representative claim 11 requires action only by the
`originating user,” despite the fact that claim 11 recited characteristics of computers in
`communication with the originating user’s computer. See id. at 490-91, 501; see also FotoMedia
`Techs, LLC v. AOL, LLC, 2009 WL 2175845, *8 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2009) (rejecting accused
`infringer’s argument that a claim limitation reciting “receiving image data embodying an electronic
`image, the image data transferred under control of the user at the sending computer” recited a
`separate step performed by the user at the sending computer).
`There is no support for Dr. Lyon’s new divided infringement argument for claims 1 or 5 of
`the ’613 patent. The Court should therefore preclude Lyon from presenting his divided infringement
`argument at trial, and should strike paragraphs 188 to 190 of Dr. Lyon’s report.
`
`
`
`8
`HUAWEI’S DAUBERT MOTION
`CASE NO. 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 14 of 31
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 330 Filed 07/03/18 Page 14 of 31
`
`B.
`
`Huawei’s ’587