Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 3553
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-2122-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
` 
`
`GOOGLE 1011
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 3554
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS 
`
`I. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,581,804 (THE “’804 PATENT”) ..................................................... 1 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`Seven Terms Require Construction ........................................................................ 2 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`“base transmitter(s)” /“base receiver(s)”/“base [device]”/“mobile
`[device]” (Terms 46, 48-50) ....................................................................... 2 
`
`“set of base transmitters” (Term 47) ........................................................... 4 
`
`“systemwide probe signal” (Term 51) ........................................................ 4 
`
`“registration signal” (Term 52) ................................................................... 5 
`
`“disable the mobile transceiver’s capability to transmit a
`registration signal” (Term 53) ..................................................................... 5 
`
`The Remaining Terms of the ’804 Patent Should Be Given Their Plain and
`Ordinary Meaning ................................................................................................... 6 
`
`“preambles of the asserted claims” (Term 45) ........................................................ 7 
`
`“processing the stored number of registration signals” / “sending a
`message to the mobile transceiver to disable…” (Term 54/55) ............................. 7 
`
`“weak signal area” (Terms 57 & 58) ...................................................................... 7 
`
`“order of method steps” (Term 60) ......................................................................... 8 
`
`B.
` 
`
`C.
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`E.
` 
`
`F.
`
` 
`
`II. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,754,946 (THE “’946 PATENT”) ..................................................... 8 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Defendants Would Waste Judicial Resources. ........................................................ 8 
`
`“(means for) detecting errors in the received message” (Terms 69 and 75) ......... 10 
`
`Defendants Identify Structure Beyond What Is Necessary ................................... 11 
`
`III. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,894,506 (THE “’506 PATENT”) ................................................... 12 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Defendants Ignore This Court’s Prior Holdings ................................................... 13 
`
`Defendants Ignore the Plain Meaning of Commonly Understood Terms ............ 13 
`
`The Means-Plus-Function Terms Are Not Indefinite. .......................................... 14 
`
`1. 
`
`“means responsive to the received message code for retrieving
`from the memory the canned message assigned thereto” (’506
`Patent, Term 30) ....................................................................................... 15 
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 3555
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`“means for determining whether a receiving terminal in the
`network can receive the canned message in text form or in message
`code form” (’506 Patent, Term 31) ........................................................... 17 
`
`“means for updating the canned message file stored in the memory
`and a corresponding canned message file stored in a memory in at
`least the calling terminal” (’506 Patent, Term 32) .................................... 18 
`
`“means for retrieving from the memory those canned multiple
`response options assigned to response codes received from the
`calling terminal by the receiver, the retrieved canned message and
`multiple response options being transmitted to the receiving
`terminal by the transmitter” (’506 Patent, Term 33) ................................. 19 
`
`“means for routing a selected canned multiple response option
`received from the receiving terminal to the calling terminal in
`either text or response code form” (’506 Patent, Term 34) ...................... 20 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`“A Message Compiler for Compiling” ................................................................. 21 
`
`IV. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,428 (“THE ’428 PATENT”) ................................................... 21 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`The Court’s Prior Rulings Should Guide the Court .............................................. 21 
`
`To Assert Indefiniteness Defendants Must Ignore Known Structure ................... 21 
`
`The ’428 Patent Discloses Sufficient Structure for Terms Governed by
`§112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ 22 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Preclude MTel’s Constructions................. 22 
`
`Sufficient Structure Exists to Perform the Claimed Function .................. 24 
`
`“means for determining whether an acknowledgment message is an
`acknowledgment to a data message or an acknowledgment to a
`probe message” (’428 Patent, Term 15) ................................................... 25 
`
`“means for transmitting a probe message to the mobile unit if, after
`transmitting a data message to the mobile unit, no data
`acknowledgment message is received” (’428 Patent, Term 16) ............... 27 
`
`“means for marking a data message as undelivered and storing the
`undelivered data message if, after transmitting a probe message to
`the mobile unit, no probe acknowledgment message is received”
`(’428 Patent, Term 17) .............................................................................. 27 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`Dial-in Access ....................................................................................................... 30 
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 3556
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 3557
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alexam, Inc. v. Best Buy Co.,
`No. 2:10-cv-93, 2012 WL 1188406 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2012) ..................................................5
`
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp.,
`No. CV 07-8108-GHK (SHX), 2012 WL 12877984 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) .....................14
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................22
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................14, 26, 29
`
`Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured Lloyd’s.,
`786 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................23
`
`CardSoft, LLC v. First Data Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-290-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 2879695 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2014) ...........................23
`
`CEATS, Inc. v. Cont’l Airlines,
`No. 6:10-CV-120, 2011 WL 2971243 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2011) .............................................8
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Telcordia Techs., Inc.,
`590 F.Supp. 2d 828 (E.D. Tex. 2008) ......................................................................................23
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................11, 30
`
`Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc.
`342 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................23
`
`Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`34 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1994)....................................................................................................6
`
`Globespanvirata, Inc. v. Texas Instruments,
`No. 03-2854(GEB), 2005 WL 984346 (D. N.J. Apr. 7, 2005) ..........................................21, 27
`
`Graco Children’s Prods., Inc. v. Regalo Int’l,
`77 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Pa. 1999) .........................................................................................24
`
`In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litig.,
`481 F. Supp. 965 (N.D. Cal. 1979) ..........................................................................................18
`
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co.,
`No. 2:14-CV-201-JRG, 2015 WL 2090651 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2015) ......................................8
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`iv
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 3558
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................15
`
`Kollmorgen Corp. v. Yaskawa Elec. Corp.,
`147 F. Supp. 2d 464 (W.D. Va. 2001) .....................................................................................23
`
`Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155502 (N.D. Ind. 2013) ....................................................................23
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...............................................4, 9, 23
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2:04–CV–450, 2006 WL 1751779 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) ...........................................9
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................11
`
`Mondis Tech., Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .....................................................................................10
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................5
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................13, 20
`
`Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................13
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ..................................................................................6
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .................................................................................................................9
`
`Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Techs. Corp.,
`182 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. Tex. 2002) .....................................................................................22
`
`TQP Development, LLC v. Inuit Inc.,
`No. 2:12– CV–180, 2014 WL 2810016 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J.) ......................9
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................5, 6, 22
`
`
`
`
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`v
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 3559
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Email correspondence dated Sept. 8, 2016 from D. Taylor to counsel for
`Defendants
`
`Excerpts from Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946,
`filed by Microsoft Corporation
`
`Table identifying terms the Court previously construed
`and the construction the Court held was proper.
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order,
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Group,
`Case No. 2:12-CV-832-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 162 (May 2, 2014)
`
`Memorandum Order,
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:13-CV-258-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 384 (Nov. 7, 2014)
`
`Memorandum Order,
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Telecom. Am..,
`Case No. 2:13-CV-259-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 81 (Dec. 11, 2014)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order,
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:13-CV-883-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 79 (Nov. 5 2014)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order,
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. LG Elec. MobileComm USA,
`Inc.,
`Case No. 2:13-CV-947-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 94 (May 13, 2015)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order,
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. HTC America, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:13-CV-948-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 162 (April 12, 2016)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,809,428
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5, 894,506
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,581,804
`
`NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (9th ed. 1995).
`
`THE NEW IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY
`
`Ex. 1
`
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Ex. 7
`
`Ex. 8
`
`Ex. 9
`
`Ex. 10
`
`Ex. 11
`
`Ex. 12
`
`Ex. 13
`
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`vi
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 3560
`
`Ex. 16
`
`Ex. 17
`
`Ex. 18
`
`OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS (5th Ed. 1993)
`
`Demonstrative Showing Algorithms for Identified Functions
`and Corresponding Portions of Specification
`
`HTC Pre-Trial Hearing Transcript (July 15, 2016)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jay P. Kesan in Opposition to BlackBerry’s MSJ (D.I.
`293) on Indefiniteness, Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v.
`BlackBerry Corp., Civ. Act. No. 3:12-cv-1652-M Dkt. 309-2 (Aug. 26, 2015)
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`vii
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 3561
`
`This brief addresses 72 claim terms on which the parties cannot agree. MTel explains
`
`why no construction is necessary for 19 of these, and why the Court’s prior constructions should
`
`govern for 20. Indeed, MTel explains that only 11 terms (excluding those drafted in the means-
`
`plus-function format permitted by 35 USC § 112, ¶ 6) involve an actual, material dispute.
`
`Defendants, in contrast, would create disputes by impermissibly importing into the claims
`
`limitations from the specification, ignoring this Court’s prior constructions, and disregarding
`
`meanings commonly understood in the art.
`
`The parties identify 22 terms as potentially governed by § 112, ¶ 6. MTel explains that
`
`seven of these terms are not governed by § 112, ¶ 6—either because the claims do not include
`
`“means” or, because the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`Moreover, if governed by § 112, ¶ 6, MTel identifies corresponding structure within the
`
`specification that performs the claimed functions. Defendants on the other hand, feign ignorance
`
`of the meaning of such commonly understood terms as “message transmitting unit.”
`
`MTel also identifies sufficient corresponding structure for eight terms which, although
`
`governed by § 112, ¶ 6, Defendants assert are indefinite. For the final seven terms, Defendants
`
`mistakenly rely on structure well beyond what is necessary to perform the claimed function.
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,581,804 (the “’804 Patent”)
`
`The ’804 Patent is a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403. The ’804 Patent is the only
`
`patent-in-suit that this Court has not previously construed.
`
`Five claims of the ’804 Patent are at issue. Only two claims, however, require this
`
`Court’s construction. Claims 5 and 10 are method claims. Claim 5 recites: (a) storing in the
`
`network the number of registration signals that the network has received from a mobile unit
`
`during a first period of time and storing the number of messages successfully delivered by the
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`1
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 3562
`
`network to the mobile unit during a period of time; (b) processing the number of stored
`
`registration signals and messages successfully delivered to evaluate a likelihood that the network
`
`will not use a registration signal from the mobile unit to determine a set of base transmitters to
`
`transmit data to the mobile unit; and (c) if the likelihood exceeds a selected value, sending a
`
`message to the mobile unit that instructs the mobile unit not to transmit a registration signal to
`
`the network. Claims 6, 7, and 8 depend from Claim 5.
`
`The preamble of Claim 10 discloses a network that is divided into a plurality of zones,
`
`each serviced by at least one base transmitter and receiver. Claim 10 recites: (a) the network
`
`transmitting a message using the base transmitter in the zone where the mobile unit was last
`
`known to be located; (b) if the mobile unit does not indicate receipt of the data message,
`
`transmitting a systemwide probe signal using more than one transmitter; (c) the mobile unit
`
`receiving the systemwide probe signal; (d) the mobile unit transmitting an acknowledgment
`
`signal that indicates receipt of the systemwide probe signal; (e) the network receiving said
`
`systemwide acknowledgment signal; (f) the network updating data stored within the network that
`
`indicates where the mobile unit was last known to be located based on the location of the known
`
`location of the base receiver that received the acknowledgement signal from the mobile unit; (f)
`
`the network determining whether the mobile unit’s failure to receive the message is likely caused
`
`by the mobile unit being located in a weak signal area within a zone in the network; and (g)
`
`retransmitting the message to the mobile unit using an error correcting code when the network
`
`determines that the mobile unit’s failure to acknowledge the message is likely caused by the
`
`mobile unit being located in a weak signal area within a zone.
`
`A.
`
` Seven Terms Require Construction
`
`1. “base
`/“base receiver(s)”/“base
`transmitter(s)”
`[device]” (Terms 46, 48-50)
`
`[device]”/“mobile
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`2
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 3563
`
`The parties do not dispute what constitutes a “transmitter” or “receiver.” Each party
`
`proposes a construction that includes the word “transmitter” and “receiver” respectively. The
`
`’804 Patent does not expressly define “base” or “mobile.” Instead, the ’804 Patent teaches how
`
`these items are used in conjunction with one another to achieve the stated goals of the patent.
`
`The ’804 Patent teaches that the location of the portable/mobile units may be unknown as the
`
`units move throughout the network. Ex. 13, ’804 Patent col. 10: 43-46. In contrast, the
`
`’804 Patent teaches that the base transmitters and receivers exist within a known location. Id. at
`
`19: 20-22. The locations of the mobile units are then determined in part by identifying the
`
`known location of the base transmitter and receiver with which the mobile unit communicates.
`
`Id. at col. 21: 44-52. Therefore, MTel proposes construing “base” as “a device that operates in
`
`an identifiable, fixed location” and “mobile” as “a device that operates in a non-fixed location.”
`
`These proposals are consistent with the meaning used in the ’804 Patent.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction mischaracterizes “base.”
`
` First, Defendants
`
`incorrectly require that communication between the transmitter or receiver and the mobile unit
`
`must be “wireless.” The ’804 Patent teaches that the preferred base transmitter “includes a
`
`satellite downlink connected to data input 1402, control logic 1404, and several modulators.” Id.
`
`at col. 16: 1-3. The output of the base transmitter is provided to a combiner and then provided to
`
`an antenna for broadcast. Id. at col. 16: 7-15. The antenna is therefore not part of the
`
`transmitter, but rather an attachment thereto. The ’804 Patent also teaches that an antenna is
`
`“attached to an analog receiver.” Id. at col. 19: 64-66; col. 20: 56-59 (base receiver input section
`
`2000 may receive data via wired phone lines or “other appropriate data paths.”). There is no
`
`support for the notion that communication between the transmitter or receiver and mobile units
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`3
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 3564
`
`must be “wireless.” “Wireless” does not appear in the claims or the specification and the only
`
`mention of “radio frequency” occurs in discussion of the mobile unit. Id. at col. 6: 24-37.
`
`Second, Defendants’ proposal to construe “base transmitter(s)” (term 46) to have the
`
`“understanding that transmitting multiple signals or outputs from a single structural unit cannot
`
`suffice as multiple transmitters” contradicts this Court’s prior claim construction holdings. Ex. 4
`
`at 9-10. Finally, Defendants’ proposal for “base receiver(s)” (term 48), improperly imports a
`
`limitation from one embodiment by requiring that the base receiver be “separate from [the] base
`
`transmitter.” Nothing in the claims or the specification limits the claim to this embodiment, nor
`
`prevents co-locating a base receiver and base transmitter.
`
`2. “set of base transmitters” (Term 47)
`
`This term appears only in the preamble to Claim 5 and is not a limitation. But if the
`
`Court construes this term, MTel’s proposal is consistent with the specification, indeed, it is one
`
`preferred embodiment. Specifically, figure 7 of the ’804 Patent illustrates a “set of transmitters”
`
`that transmits a block of information. ’804 Patent at Fig. 7 (steps 708, 710). The specification
`
`details that this “set” contains only one transmitter—either base transmitter 614 as part of the
`
`first “set” or base transmitter 612 as part of the second set. Id. at col. 10: 47-51 (“and base
`
`transmitter 612 transmits another block of information, which corresponds to steps 708 and 710
`
`of Fig. 7”). Claim terms take the meaning provided by the patentee acting as “his own
`
`lexicographer.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
`
`aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Therefore, the “set of base transmitters” means one transmitter.
`
`3. “systemwide probe signal” (Term 51)
`
`MTel bases its proposal on the specification; Defendants’ proposal explicitly contradicts
`
`the specification. See Ex. 13, ’804 Patent at col. 11: 40-46 (“It should be understood that the
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`4
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 3565
`
`systemwide wide [interval need involve] merely two or more zones.”). Further, the systemwide
`
`interval “can be used to send a ‘probe’ signal”. Id. at 49-50. Thus, the systemwide probe need
`
`only be transmitted across two or more zones.
`
`4. “registration signal” (Term 52)
`
`Although this Court has not construed “registration signal” as used in the ’804 Patent,
`
`this Court has construed the term as used in the ’428 Patent. See Ex. 9 at 35-36. The Court
`
`should provide term 52 with the same construction. See Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334
`
`F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same
`
`claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”).
`
`5. “disable the mobile transceiver’s capability to transmit a registration
`signal” (Term 53)
`
`This term needs no construction because it is not “unfamiliar to the jury, confusing to the
`
`jury, nor affected by the specification or prosecution history.” Alexam, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., No.
`
`2:10-cv-93, 2012 WL 1188406, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2012).
`
`But if this Court construes the term, MTel’s proposal is consistent with the specification,
`
`where in a preferred embodiment the network disables a mobile transceiver’s capability to
`
`transmit a registration signal by setting a registration flag to zero. Ex. 13, ’804 Patent at col. 30:
`
`34-37. The ability to transmit a registration signal is restored in the same manner. Id. at 47-51.
`
`Thus, “disabling” refers to an instruction not to perform an action, not to a physical obstruction.
`
`Defendants’ proposal is improper. First, Defendants merely restate the term in different
`
`words. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim
`
`construction “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.”). Second, Defendants improperly
`
`add a limitation that does not exist within the specification or claims or the. The ’804 Patent
`
`teaches in a preferred embodiment that registration signals may be sent in predetermined events,
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`5
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 3566
`
`such as when the mobile unit returns to a specified coverage area, or when power is restored to
`
`the mobile unit. Id. at col. 29: 38-30: 4. If the network determines that registration signals are
`
`“frequently not useful,” the network instructs the mobile unit not to transmit additional
`
`registration signals. Id. at col. 30: 21-25. Whether a predetermined event occurs—that would
`
`otherwise cause the mobile unit to transmit a registration signal—is independent of whether the
`
`network has instructed the mobile unit not to transmit a registration signal. Id.
`
`B.
`
` The Remaining Terms of the ’804 Patent Should Be Given Their Plain and
` Ordinary Meaning
`
`Terms 45, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60 should be given their plain and ordinary meaning
`
`because no construction is necessary to clarify their meaning to the jury. See U.S. Surgical
`
`Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568 (the purpose of claim construction is “to clarify, and when necessary to
`
`explain what the patentee covered by the claims,” not to introduce unhelpful or confusing
`
`language).
`
`Defendants would improperly limit the full scope of each of these claim terms by
`
`imposing limitations taken from illustrative embodiments in the specification. That is
`
`impermissible. See Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are
`
`preferred, particular embodiments … will not be read into the claims when the claim language is
`
`broader than the embodiments.”); SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set
`
`forth the limits of the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims.”). For
`
`example, Defendants restrict claim 10 by requiring that the location of the mobile transceiver be
`
`limited to a “geographic location” (Term 56) and by limiting the retransmission “of the message
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`6
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 3567
`
`signal … using an error correcting code” to a “message signal, which had not previously been
`
`transmitted using an error correcting code” (Term 59). Neither limitation is within the claims.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`“preambles of the asserted claims” (Term 45)
`
`Defendants assert without explanation that the preambles for Claims 5 and 10 of the
`
`’804 Patent should be construed as limiting. Yet Defendants have consistently refused to
`
`identify any specific term in the preamble that supposedly limits the preamble. See Ex. 1
`
`(requesting Defendants to “identify antecedent basis that is limiting”).
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`“processing the stored number of registration signals” / “sending a message
`to the mobile transceiver to disable…” (Term 54/55)
`
`Any juror will understand storing the number of registrations signals, and storing the
`
`number of successfully delivered messages, and then using those numbers to decide if it is likely
`
`that an additional registration signal will be needed to determine the location of a base
`
`transmitter. Similarly, any juror will understand sending a message to the mobile unit to disable
`
`its capability to transmit a registration signal, when certain conditions are met, specifically, if
`
`“the likelihood exceeds a selected value.”
`
`In the context of the trial, all the terms in these phrases will have become familiar to the
`
`jurors. Defendants may argue that the jurors will not understand “how” the determination is
`
`made or “how” the mobile unit does the disabling, but that argument is a red herring.
`
`Defendants seek to divert the focus from whether the jurors understand that the Defendants
`
`perform the determination to how they perform it, such granularity is not required by the claim.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`“weak signal area” (Terms 57 & 58)
`
`Defendants similarly assert that terms 57 and 58 are indefinite. The ’804 Patent,
`
`however, teaches that the network may determine the location of a mobile unit based, in part, on
`
`the known location of the base receiver with which the mobile unit communicates. Ex. 13,
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`7
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 3568
`
`’804 Patent at col. 11: 52-54. Also known to the network are the boundaries of each zone. Id. at
`
`col. 11: 27-31. One skilled in the art reading the ’804 Patent would understand that the
`
`’804 Patent teaches a way to determine whether failure to deliver the message is likely caused by
`
`the mobile unit being located in a weak signal area by using this known information. The
`
`’804 Patent teaches that if the mobile unit is located in an area of inter-zonal interference, then
`
`failure is not likely caused by the mobile unit being located in a weak signal area. Id. at
`
`col. 12: 24-28. Alternatively, if the mobile unit is not located in an area of inter-zonal
`
`interference, then failure “may be simply caused by the mobile unit being located in a weak
`
`signal area within a zone.” Id. at col. 12: 31-34; see Ex. 18, Kesan Decl. at APP170-APP176.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`“order of method steps” (Term 60)
`
`“[A]lthough a method claim necessarily recites the steps of the method in a particular
`
`order, as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited,
`
`unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” CEATS, Inc. v. Cont'l
`
`Airlines, No. 6:10-CV-120, 2011 WL 2971243, at *9 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2011). Defendants do
`
`not show for any claim of the ’804 Patent that any step must be performed in any specific order.1
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,754,946 (the “’946 Patent”)
`This Court has construed the ’946 Patent six times. See Exs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Defendants
`
`nevertheless ignore this Court’s prior Orders and its reasoning.
`
`A.
`
` Defendants Would Waste Judicial Resources.
`
`Terms 62-68, 73, and 74 should be given the construction this Court previously
`
`determined was correct. See Ex. 3 (identifying prior constructions). Under general principles of
`
`stare decisis, the Court should again construe these terms to have the construction previously
`
`                                                       
`1  Defendants’ proposed construction of term 71 of the ’946 Patent is improper for the same reasons. 
`
`MTEL’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` 
`
`
`
` 
`8
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00002-JRG-RSP Document 99 Filed 10/21/16 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 3569
`
`given. Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 2:14-CV-201-JRG, 2015 WL
`
`2090651, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2015) (“In general, prior claim construction proceedings
`
`involving the same patents-in-suit are ‘entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals
`
`of stare decisis and the goals articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare
`
`decisis may not be applicable per se.’”).2
`
`Defendants abuse process by insisting on re-litigating terms of the ’946 Patent that this
`
`Court has repeatedly cons