In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
`AND RADIO FREQUENCY AND
`PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1065
`
`Publication 4981
`September 2019
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`

`

`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`COMMISSIONERS
`
`David Johanson, Chairman
`Irving Williamson, Commissioner
`Meredith Broadbent, Commissioner
`Rhonda Schmidtlein, Commissioner
`Jason Kearns, Commissioner
`
`Address all communications to
`Secretary to the Commission
`United States International Trade Commission
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`

`

`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Washington, DC 20436
`www.usitc.gov
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
`AND RADIO FREQUENCY AND
`PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1065
`
`Publication 4981
`
`September 2019
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In The Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY AND
`PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`InvestigationNo. 337-TA-1065
`
`NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION’S FINAL DETERMINATION FINDING NO
`VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
`
`AGENCY:
`
`U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`ACTION:
`
`Notice.
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (the
`“Commission’°)has determined that no violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337, as amended (“Section 337”),
`has been proven in the above-captioned investigation and accordingly no remedial orders shall
`be issued, which renders moot any issues of remedy, the public interest, or bonding. The
`investigation is terminated.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher,Office of the General
`Cotmsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436,
`telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection Withthis
`investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
`5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Intemational Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
`SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
`Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (fj[Qs.'//www.usilc.gov). The
`public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commissi0n’s Electronic Docket
`Information System (“EDIS”) (lips://edisusitc. ggg). Hearing-impaired persons are advised that
`information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal,
`telephone (202) 205-1810.
`
`~
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 14, 2017, the Commission instituted this
`investigation based on a Complaint and amendment thereto filed by Qualcomm Incorporated of
`San Diego, Calif0mia(“Qualcom1n”). 82 FR 37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). The Complaint alleged
`that 19 U.S.C. 1337, as amended (“Section 337”), has been violated by Wayof importation into
`the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of
`certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof that
`infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490 (“the ’490 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`8,698,558 (“the ’558 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936 (“the ’936 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`8,838,949 (“the ’949 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 (“the ’675 patent”), and U.S. Patent
`No. 8,487,658 (“the ’658 patent”). The notice of investigation named Apple Inc. of Cupertino,
`
`­
`­
`

`

`California (“Apple”) as Respondent. The Commission also named the Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations (“OUII”) as a party.
`
`The Commission, following Qua1comm’s motions, partially terminated the investigation
`with respect to the following claims and patents: all asserted claims ofthe ’658, ‘949, and ’675
`patents; claims 1, 20-24, 26, 38, 67, and 68 ofthe ’936 patent; claims 1, 6, and 8-20 ofthe ’558
`patent; and claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 16-17 of the ’490 patent. Comm’n Notice (July 17, 2018)
`(q_ff’g Order No. 43); Comm’n Notice (May 23, 2018) (afi"’gOrder No. 37); Comm’n Notice
`(May 9, 2018) (amending notice of investigation); Comm’n Notice (Apr. 6, 2018) (afi”g Order
`No. 34); Comm’n Notice (Mar. 22, 2018) (q[]”gOrder No. 24); Comm’n Notice (Sept. 20, 2017)
`(q[f’g Order No. 6). The only claims that remain at issue in this investigation are claim 31 of the
`’490 patent, claim 7 of the ’558 patent, and claims 19, 25, and 27 of the ’936 patent.
`
`The ALI held an evidentiary hearing from June 19-27, 2018. On September 28, 2018,
`the ALJ issued a combined initial determination (“ID”) on violation issues and recommended
`determination (“RD”) on remedy, the public interest, and bonding in this investigation. The ID
`found a violation of Section 337 due to infringement of the ’490 patent. ID at 197. The ID
`found no infringement and hence no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ’558 patent or
`the ’936 patent. Id. The ID found that Qualcomm satisfied the technical and economic prongs
`of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’490 patent, but did not satisfy the
`teclmical prong with respect to the ’558 patent or the ’936 patent. Id. The ID also found that it
`was not shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim was invalid. Id. The
`ALJ further recommended that no limited exclusion order or cease-and-desist order be issued in
`this investigation due to their prospective effects on competitive conditions in the United States,
`national security, and other public interest concerns. RD at 199-200. The ALI recommended
`that bond be set at zero-percent of entered value during the Presidential review period, if any. Id.
`at 20].
`
`Apple and Qualcomm filed their respective petitions for review on October 15, 2018.
`The parties, including OUII, filed their respective responses to the petitions on October 23, 2018.
`The parties also filed their submissions on the public interest on October 31, 2018. Intel
`Corporation, an interested third party, submitted its comments on the public interest on
`November 8, 2018.
`
`On December 18, 2018, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part with
`respect to certain findings regarding the ’490 patent. 83 FR 64875 (Dec. 18, 2018). The
`Commission determined to review the ID’s construction of the term “hold” and its findings on
`infringement and the technical prong of domestic industry to the extent they may be affected by
`that claim construction. Id at 64876. The Commission further determined to review the ID’s
`findings as to whether claim 31 of the ’490 patent is invalid as obvious. Id at 64876-77. The
`Commission determined not to review any of the ID’s findings with respect to the ’558 patent,
`the ’936 patent, or the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Id. at 64876.
`
`In the same notice, the Commission asked the parties to brief issues of remedy, the public
`interest, and bonding. Id at 64877. The Commission also invited members of the public and
`interested govermnent agencies to comment on the RD’s findings on the public interest, remedy,
`and bonding. Id. The Commission received a number of public interest statements from third
`
`2
`
`

`

`parties, including but not limited to Intel Corporation; ACT/The App Association; the American
`Antitrust Institute; the American Conservative Union; Americans for Limited Government; the
`Club for Growth; the Computer and Communications Industry Association; Conservatives for
`Property Rights; Frances Brevets; Frontiers of Freedom; Innovation Alliance; Inventors Digest;
`IP Europe; Public Knowledge and Open Markets (a joint submission); R Street Institute, the
`Electronic Frontier Foundation, Engine Advocacy, and Lincoln Network (a joint submission), er
`11].;RED Technologies; TiVo; certain members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of
`Representatives; Hon. Paul Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit; and various professors of law or economics.
`
`On March 19, 2019, while Commission review was ongoing, the parties informed the
`Commission of ajury verdict in a parallel lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
`District of California, Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01375 (S.D. Cal.). See
`Letter of D. Oktm to D. Johanson, Chainnan, U.S. International Trade Commission of March 19,
`2019 (“Qualcomm Letter”); Respondent Apple Inc.’s Request for Leave to Submit a
`Supplemental Response to Question D of the Commission’s Questions on the Public Interest
`(“Apple Request”). The jury found that the accused Apple iPhones infringe three Qualcomm
`patents. Qualcomm Letter at 1-2. Two of those three patents, the ’490 and ’936 patents, are also
`part of this investigation. Id. The jury was not asked to determine, nor did it detennine, whether
`any claim of the ’490, ’936, or ’949 patents is invalid as obvious. Id.
`
`In view of the jury’s verdict and damages award, Apple requested leave to supplement its
`response to the Co1nmission’s Question D on public interest, as set forth in the Con1mission’s
`notice of partial review. See 83 FR at 64877. Qualcomm filed an opposition to Apple’s request.
`The Commission has detennined to grant Apple’s request for the limited purpose of
`supplementing the record with respect to the jury’s verdict. Neither App1e’snor Qualcomm’s
`submissions affect the outcome of this investigation or any issue decided by the Commission.
`
`On review of the submissions from the parties and the public, the prior art, the ID, and
`the evidence of record, the Commission has determined: (1) the term “hold” in claim 31 of the
`’490 patent means “to prevent data from traveling across the bus, or to store, buffer, or
`accumulate data”; and (2) Apple has shown by clear and convincing evidence that claim 31 of
`the ’490 patent is invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 9,329,671 (Heinrich) in combination
`with U.S. Patent No. 8,160,000 (Balasubramanian), which reflects knowledge in the art.
`
`The Commission previously declined to review, and therefore adopted, the ID’s finding
`.
`that there is no infringement of either of the other two patents asserted in this investigation, the
`‘S58 patent or the ’936 patent. 83 FR at 64876. Accordingly, the Commission has concluded
`that Complainant has not shown a violation of Section 337 and no remedial orders shall be
`issued, which renders moot any issues of remedy, the public interest, or bonding.
`
`The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in Section 337 of the
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
`Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
`
`3
`
`

`

`By order of the Commission.
`
`Issued: March 26, 2019
`
`Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`
`4
`
`

`

`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND RADIO
`FREQUENCY AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1065
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served upon the
`following parties as indicated, on March 26, 2019.
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainants Qualcornm Incorporated:
`
`S. Alex Lasher, II, Esq.
`QUINNN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Cl Via Hand Delivery
`Via Express Delivery
`U Via First Class Mail
`U Other:
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Agple Inc.:
`
`Lauren A. Degnan
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, SW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024 _
`
`III Via Hand Delivery
`Via Express Delivery
`[II Via First Class Mail
`III Other:
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In The Matter Of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY AND
`PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation N0. 337—TA-1065
`
`COMMISSION OPINION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This investigation is before the Commission for a final determination on the issues under
`
`review, whether there is a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337, as amended (“Section 337”), and, as
`
`appropriate, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. See Comm’n Determination to Review ln
`
`Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337, 83 Fed. Reg. 64875 (Dec.
`
`18, 2018). For the reasons set forth below, the Commission has determined the following:
`
`(1) With respect to claim 31 of U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490 (“the ’490 patent”), the
`
`Commission has determined to modify the presiding administrative lawjudge’s (“ALJ’s”)
`
`construction of the claim term “hold” to mean “to prevent data from traveling across the bus or
`
`to store, buffer, or accumulate data.” See Initial Determination and Recommended
`
`Determination (“lD” and “RD,” respectively‘) at 74-75 (Sept. 28, 2018). The modified
`
`construction more accurately denotes the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as used in the
`
`context of the ’490 patent.
`
`(2) The Commission has determined to reverse the ID’s finding that claim 31 of the ’490
`
`patent is not invalid as obvious and finds that Apple has presented clear and convincing evidence
`
`that claim 31 is obvious over U.S. Patent No. 9,329,671 (“Heinrich”) in combination with U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,160,000 (“Balasubramanian”), where Balasubramanian reflects the knowledge in
`
`the art. The Commission further finds that the alleged long-felt but umnet need for saving power
`
`insmobile devices lacks a sufficient nexus to the claimed invention and is insufficient to
`
`outweigh the evidence of its primafacie obviousness. See ID at 87-96.
`
`1
`
`1Specifically, “ID” refers to those portions directed to background and violation issues (pp. 1­
`114, 197-98), and “RD” refers to those portions directed to the public interest, remedy, and
`bonding (pp. 114-197, 198-201).
`,
`
`1
`
`.
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The Commission previously determined not to review, and therefore adopted, the ID’s
`
`finding that there is no infringement of the other two patents asserted in this investigation, U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,698,558 (“the ’558 patent”) and 8,633,936 (“the ’936 patent”). S3 Fed. Reg. at
`
`64876. Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that Complainant has not shown a violation
`
`of Section 337 and that no remedial orders shall be issued, which renders moot any issues of
`
`remedy, the public interest, or bonding.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`The Commission instituted the present investigation on August l4, 2017, on a complaint
`
`filed by Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) of San Diego, Califomia. 82 Fed. Reg. 37899
`
`(Aug. 14, 2017). The complaint accused Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) of Cupertino, California, of
`
`violating Section 337 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, or selling in
`
`the United States after importation certain mobile electronic devices and components thereof that
`
`allegedly infringe the asserted claims of the ’490 patent, T558patent, and ’936 patents? The
`
`~
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named a party to this investigation.
`
`The accused products include Apple’s iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus,
`
`and iPhone X smart phones that use certain baseband processor chipsets supplied by Intel
`
`Corporation (“Intel”), a third party to this investigation.
`
`ID at 72-73. Each Apple application
`
`processor is connected to an Intel baseband processor by a peripheral component interconnect
`
`express (“PCle") bus. Id.
`
`2
`
`Qualcomm originally asserted three other patents but later voluntarily withdrew them from the
`investigation: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,838,949 (“the ’949 patent”), 9,608,675, and 8,487,658. 83
`Fed. Reg. 64875, 6476 (Dec. l8, 2018) (discussing inter alia Comm’n Notice (May 23, 2018),
`Comm’n Notice (Sept. 20, 2017)). Those patents are no longer at issue in this investigation.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`On January 24, 2018, the ALJ held a Markman hearing to resolve the parties’ arguments
`
`on the disputed claim terms. On March 5, 2018, the ALJ issued Order N0. 28, which construed
`
`ten terms from four of the asserted patents but not the ’490 patent. '
`
`The AL] held an evidentiary hearing from June 15, 2018, to June 26, 2018. By that time,
`
`Qualcomm had withdrawn certain patents and claims, leaving just claim 31 of the ’490 patent,
`
`claim 7 of the ’558 patent, and claims 19, 25, and 27 of the ’936 patent. ID at 3. On September
`
`29, 2018, the ALJ issued a combined initial determination and recommended determination. The
`
`ID found that Apple infringes asserted claim 31 of the ’490 patent, but does not infringe any
`
`claim of the ’558 or ’936 patents. Id. at 197. The ID found that Qualcomm satisfies the
`
`technical prong ot‘the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’490 patent but not the
`
`’558 or ’936 patents. Id. The 1Dfurther found that Qualcomm satisfies the economic prong of
`
`domestic industry with respect to all three patents. Id. The ID did not find any of the asserted
`
`claims invalid. Id.
`
`The ID concluded that Apple is violating Section 337 in the importation, sale for
`
`importation, or sale in the United States after importation of mobileielectronic devices that
`
`infringe claim 31 of the ’490 patent. Id. at 197-98. Despite finding a violation of Section 337,
`
`the ID recommended that the Commission decline to issue a limited exclusion order or cease and
`
`desist order because it found that public interest concerns, particularly competitive conditions in
`
`the United States and national security, weighed against issuing any such remedy. RD at 198­
`
`200. The RD found that excluding Apple iPhones using Intel baseband processor chipsets would
`
`likely force Intel to exit the market for supplying 4G and next-generation 5G baseband
`
`technologies, leaving Qualcomm as the sole U.S. supplier for baseband processor chipsets in
`
`these critical technological areas. See generally id. at 114-97. The RD also recommended
`
`3
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`setting the bond at zero percent of entered value during the period of Presidential review because
`
`Qualcomm does not sell products that directly compete with the accused Apple smart phones.
`
`Id. at 201.
`
`The Commission determined to review the ID in part with respect to certain violation
`
`issues affecting claim construction, infringement, and invalidity of the ’490 patent. 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 64876-77. The Commission determined not to review, and thereby adopted, the ID’s findings
`
`of no infringement and hence no Section 337 violation with respect to the ’558 and ’936 patents.
`
`Id. at 64876. The Commission also asked the parties, interested members of the public, and
`
`interested government agencies to address the RD and issues relating to remedy, public interest,
`
`and bonding in the event the Commission were to find a violation of Section 337. Id. at 64877.
`
`The parties filed their initial responses to the Commission’s questions on review on
`
`February 7, 2019.3 On the same date, third-party Intel Corporation filed its own response to the
`
`Commission’s questions on remedy and the public interest.‘ On February 14, 2019, the parties
`
`filed their respective replies to the opposing parties’ submissions.5 The Commission also
`
`received numerous submissions from the public both in support of and in opposition to the RD’s
`
`3See Complainant Qualcomm lncorpoi-ated’s Written Submission Pursuant to the Commission’s
`December I2, 2018, Notice (“Qualcomm’s Resp.”); Respondent Apple Inc.’s Written
`I
`Submission Regarding the Commission’s Questions on the Issues Under Review, and on
`Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest (“Apple’s Resp.”); Brief of the Office of Unfair
`Import Investigations on Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
`(“OUII’s Resp.”).
`4See Statement in Response to the Commission’s Notice of Determination to Review in Part a
`Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337.
`
`5See Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Reply Submission Pursuant to the Commission’s
`December I2, 2018 Notice (“Qualcomm’s Reply”); Respondent Apple Incorporated’s Reply
`Submission Regarding the Commission’s Questions Under Review and on Remedy, the Public
`Interest, and Bonding (“Apple’s Reply”); Reply Brief of the Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations on Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding
`(“OUII’s Reply”).
`"
`
`4
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`recommendation that the public interest outweighs issuance of any remedial orders in the event a
`
`violation is found.
`
`On March 19, 2019, while Commission review was ongoing, the parties informed the
`
`Commission of ajury verdict in a parallel lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
`
`District of California, Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01375 (S.D. Cal.).6 See
`
`Letter of D. Okun to D. Johanson, Chairman, U.S. International Trade Commission of March 19,
`
`2019 (“Qualcomm Letter”); Respondent Apple Inc.’s Request for Leave to Submit a
`
`Supplemental Response to Question D of the Commission’s Questions on the Public Interest
`
`(“Apple Request”). The jury found that the accused Apple iPhones infringe three Qualcomm
`
`patents. Qualcomm Letter at 1-2. Two of those three patents, the ’490 and ’936 patents, are also
`
`part of this investigation, as noted above. Id. Qualcomm originally asserted the third patent, the
`
`’949 patent, in this investigation but later withdrew it. See fn. 1, supra. The jury was not asked
`
`to determine, nor did it determine, whether any claim of the ’490, ’936, or ’949 patents is invalid
`
`as obvious. Qualcomm Letter at 2.
`
`In view of thejury’s verdict and damages award, Apple requested leave to supplement its
`
`response to the Commission’s Question D on public interest, as set forth in the Commissi0n’s
`
`notice of partial review. See 83 Fed. Reg. 64875, 64877 (Dec. 18, 2018). Qualcomm filed an
`
`opposition to Apple’s request.7 The Commission has determined to grant Apple’s request for the
`
`limited purpose of supplementing the record with respect to the jury’s verdict. Apple’s
`
`6 Qualcomm filed its complaint in the Southern District of Califomia on July 6, 2017, one day
`before it filed its Section 337 complaint in the Commission. Qualcomm Letter at 1-2. Apple did
`not exercise its rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 to stay the parallel district court litigation.
`Id.
`7 Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Reply to Respondent Apple Inc.’s Request for Leave to
`Submit a Supplemental Response to Question D of the Commission’s Questions on the Public
`Interest (March 21, 2019).
`
`5
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`submission does not affect the outcome of this investigation or any issue decided by the
`
`Commission, for the reasons set forth below.
`
`III.
`
`THE ’490 PATENT
`
`The ’49Opatent is directed to techniques for power saving in smart phones, tablets, and
`
`other mobile devices as well as larger networked systems.
`
`’49Opatent at 1:20-35, 6:1-9, 6:33­
`
`43, Figs. IA-1C. As shown in Figures 1C and 2 of the ’490 patent, below, a mobile device
`
`includes a mobile device modem (“MDM”) for communicating with a data network. Id. at 6:58­
`
`63, 7:19-21, 7:47-52.8 The MDM includes a modem processor (44), which receives and
`
`processes data from the network for transmission to the application processor (34), and further
`
`receives and processes data received from the application processor for uploading to the network
`
`Ia’.at 6:58-63, 7:37-52. The modem processor and application processor exchange data via an
`
`interconnectivity data bus (36). Id. at 6:60-65, 7:14-15, Figs. 1C, 2. Data transmitted from the
`
`network to the modem processor is referred to as “downlink data.” See, e.g., id. at 8:20-23, 9:66­
`
`10:4, 10:36-38, 10:46-50, Fig. lC. Data transmitted from the application processor to the
`
`modem processor for transmission to the network is referred to as “uplink data.” See, e.g., id.
`
`s
`
`The ’49Opatent states that the invention is not limited to any particular wireless transmission
`protocol. See ’49Opatent at 7:50-60.
`
`6
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`\
`1
`,=
`P’ 24
`
`/'
`1’11;;1\'\.
`1
`\. V"-i-‘
`\
`
`#31
`
`Wireless Data Network
`Q
`.
`
`U plink Data
`Data transfer from Device to Network
`
`5,,
`
`Downlink Data
`»-._
`‘,1-’Data transfer from Network la Device
`
`'
`
`I
`
`Y
`
`30
`
`RF
`
`(Device)
`MDM
`
`/\,22
`
`(Hos!)
`Application
`Processor
`
`34
`
`32
`
`lntercunneclivily Bus
`
`36
`
`FIG. 1C >
`
`30
`
`‘V
`
`42
`
`[22
`
`38
`
`36
`
`34
`
`Modem Pvocessor
`
`Applications
`Prucessor
`
`Tr-ansmifler Palh
`
`40
`
`32
`
`V
`
`46
`
`FIG. 2
`
`7
`
`4B
`
`50
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The ’490 patent teaches that as processing and transmission speeds of mobile devices
`
`have increased, mobile devices have required faster interconnectivity buses (36), such as the
`
`aforementioned PCle buses or later generations of universal serial buses (“USB”). Id. at 1:52­
`
`56, 6:66-7:3. Faster buses require more power, however, which tends to reduce battery life. Id.
`
`at 1:56-60. As shown in Figure 3, below, each time the modem and application processors
`
`exchange data across the bus, relatively large amounts of power are required to transition the bus
`
`from a low-power sleep state to a high-power active state for transmission, after which the bus
`
`drops back to the low-power sleep state. Id. at 8:6-31, Fig. 1C. If the bus drops back to its sleep
`
`state before the next transmission, power must be expended again to transitionvthe bus back up to
`
`its active state. Id. at 8:27-34. As transmission and processing speeds in mobile devices have
`
`increased, the bus interconnecting the modem and application processors may transition between
`
`power states thousands of times per second, which consumes substantial amounts of power and
`
`reduces battery life. Id. at 8:34-40, Fig. 3.
`
`52
`
`Am‘ F
`
`kw Ive owar
`
`?
`......
`
`,
`
`54
`__S _____
`'
`‘
`Downlink '
`3
`eviee > H |
`Oat
`
`— LowPower.
`
`.)l‘.-.......
`
`/
`________....,....,.....
`
`6256
`_
`.,..
`ling‘
`all
`1- tibia \
`'
`ownlmk
`I (D vice
`I
`D513
`I Device -> H95
`-> Host)
`'
`I
`I
`e
`. (
`‘,
`__.._'l. ,..........’.‘».___
`
`t
`
`--_ .. ..
`IU |ink\
`If
`\‘
`[Qua \
`'
`'1 (Device \\
`-> Host
`'
`..... _-_-|l................
`
`Tlme Slot n
`
`S
`
`'
`
`Time S|01n+1
`
`FIG. 3
`
`The ’490 patent teaches that power can be saved and battery life extended by aggregating
`
`transmissions of downlink and uplink data across the bus, which reduces the number of times the
`
`bus transitions between low and high power states. See, e.g., id. at 1:64-2:15, 5:17-35, 8:41-56,
`
`8
`
`

`

`1>U1§L1cVERSION
`
`9:29-40, 11:54-63, Figs. 5, 7. ln Figure 5, below, the previously separate transmissions of
`
`downlink and uplink data in Figure 3 have been temporarily stored and then synchronized to
`
`form a single data transmission during each time interval, so that the bus transitions from a low
`
`power state to a high power state only once, not twice, per time interval._ Id. at 10:36-45.
`
`Synchronizing data transmissions in this manner saves power by avoiding the second transition
`
`from a low power state to a high power state. Id. at 2:12-l4, 5:32-35, 10:36-45.
`
`ActivePower
`
`"
`
`LowPower
`
`102
`104
`.. ..,______.Z___i..,.._....
`l
`\\
`Downlink Followed \
`\
`By Upllnk Data
`I
`.................._.................,i___.._....__----__-.._
`
`I
`I
`
`I
`
`100
`
`/
`
`........................t.....,__._______-_...
`l
`
`llnk Followed
`Upllnk Data
`
`58 J
`
`Time Slol n
`
`Tlma Slot n+1
`
`FIG. 5
`
`To accomplish this goal, the ’490 patent teaches that the modem processor temporarily
`
`stores and accumulates downlink data on one side of the bus, while the application processor
`
`accumulates uplink data on the other side of the bus. See, e,g., id. at 1:64-22, 2:48-3:_6,4:30-42,
`
`5:l7-35, 9:21-40.
`
`ln some embodiments, the modem processor transmits its stored downlink
`
`data to the application processor upon expiration of a modem timer (or “downlink timer”), which
`
`may operate alone or in conjunction with an application timer (or “uplink timer”). Id. After the
`
`modem processor transmits its stored downlink data to the application processor, the modem
`
`processor may “pull” stored uplink data from the application processor, so that the downlink and
`
`iuplink data are transmitted during a single active state of the bus. Id. at 4:30-42, 9:66-10:4.
`
`9
`
`

`

`I
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Claim 31, the only asserted claim of the ’490 patent and the only claim under review, is
`
`set forth below, with claim terms of interest identified by underlined italics:
`
`31. A mobile terminal comprising:
`
`a modem timer;
`
`_
`
`a modem processor, the modern processor configured to hold modem
`processor to application processor data [i.e., downlink data] until
`expiration of the modem timer;
`
`an application processor;
`
`an interconnectivity bus communicatively coupling the application
`processor to the modem processor; and
`
`the application processor configured to h_olQapplication processor to
`modem processor data [i.e., uplink data] until the modem processor gtglg
`data from the application processor after transmission of the modem
`processor to application processor [downlink] data,
`
`wherein the modem processor is further configured [to] £11 data from the
`application processor after transmission of the modern processor to
`application processor [downlink] data and before the interconnectivity bus
`transitions from an active power state to a low power state.
`
`’49Opatent at 2 l :4-21 (emphasis added). For the sake of convenience, and consistent with the
`
`patent specification, the term “modem processor to application processor data” will be referred to
`
`as “downlink data,” and “application processor to modem processor data” ‘willbe referred to as
`
`“uplink data.” See, e.g., id. at 8:20-23, 9:66-10:4, 10:36-38, l0:46-50, Figs. 1C, 3, 5.
`
`The parties did not ask the ALI to construe, nor did he sua sponte construe, any terms
`
`from the ’490 patent in the Markman order. ID at 72. Because the parties‘ claims and defenses
`
`1 as“
`presented tacit claim construction issues, the ID construed three terms —“ho d,
`
`processor,” and
`
`“after” ~ as a predicate to the lD’s infringement analysis. The ID’s constructions follow:
`
`0
`
`“Hold. ” Claim 31 states that each processor is “configured to hold” certain data
`
`until there is a certain triggering event (e.g., expiration of a modem timer). The ID
`
`10
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`construed “hold” to mean “to prevent data from traveling across the bus.” ID at 74-75.
`
`The lD’s construction is under review, as discussed below.
`
`0
`
`“Processor. ” The ID construed “processor” to refer to “the system components
`
`responsible for logic processing, and does not require that all such components reside on
`
`the same chip or package.” lD at 76-77. Under this construction, a “processor” may
`
`include memory devices that are extemal (“off-chip”) to the processor chipset. See id.
`
`0
`
`“After transmission. ” The ID construed “afier transmission” to mean “waiting
`
`until the downlink transmission has started before starting the uplink transmission. The
`
`entirety of the downlink data need not have been transmitted before starting the uplink
`
`transmission.” ID at 80-82. Once the modem processor begins to transmit downlink data
`
`across the bus to the application processor, transmissions of uplink and downlink data
`
`between the two processors across the bus may proceed simultaneously.
`
`Id.
`
`A fourth term —“pull” —will be of interest as a predicate to the obviousness analysis later
`
`in this opinion. The parties did not ask the ALJ to construe, nor did he sua sponte construe, the
`
`term “pull” in either the Markman opinion or the ID. The Commission’s understanding of the
`
`term comports with its usage in the ‘490 patent, the ID, and the evidence of record, as discussed
`
`in Part lV(B)(4)(a)(v) of this opinion, infra.
`
`IV.
`
`ISSUES UNDER REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`Construction Of The Claim Term “Hold”
`
`1.
`
`égplicable Claim Construction Law
`
`Section 337 prohibits, inter alia, “the importation into the United States, the sale for
`
`importation, or the sale within the United States after importation . . . of articles that infringe a
`
`valid and enforceable United States patent . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(l)(B).
`
`Infringement is
`
`11
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`found where an accused product or process practices each and every limitation of a patent claim,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, 1nc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The first step of an infringement
`
`analysis is to construe, or interpret, the disputed terms in the asserted patent claims. SafeTCare
`
`1l4fg.,Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS
`
`Techns., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)). The second step is to compare
`
`the properly construed claim to the allegedly infringing product or process. Id.
`
`Claim tenns are normally construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`in the art, “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.’” Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel C0rp., 915 F.3d 788,
`
`796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc))