Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`Plaintiff(s)/Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT
`Technology Tutorial: July 14, 2017, 9:00 a.m.
`Claim Construction Hearing: July 21, 2017,
`9:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`)
`Case Number: 3:16-cv-2787-WHO
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants / Counterclaim-
`Plaintiffs,
`
`and
`
`SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`02198-00029/9170667.1
`
`
`PAT. L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`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
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`II.
`
` Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Huawei
`Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., and
`Counterclaim-Defendant HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”) and
`Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) hereby submit this
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`I.
`Agreed Constructions
`Exhibit A contains the parties’ agreed construction.
`Disputed Constructions
`Exhibit B (for Huawei’s asserted patents) and Exhibit C (for Samsung’s asserted patents)
`contain each party’s proposed construction and supporting evidence for each disputed term.
`III. Ten Most Significant Terms
`The construction of the following terms will be most significant to resolution of the case:
`1.
`“a set of control channel candidates” (’195 Patent, claims 9, 25)
`2.
`“a middle symbol in the slot” (’130 patent, claims 9, 13)
`3.
`“[calculating/calculates] a HARQ process IDentifier (ID) using the number of
`HARQ processes of the persistent resource allocation, the persistent resource allocation interval
`information, and time information” (’726 patent, claims 1, 11)
`4.
`“predetermined delay duration” (’825 patent, claims 1, 4)
`5.
`“controlling an active time period during a Discontinuous Reception (DRX)
`operation” (’588 patent, claims 1, 7)
`6.
`“receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a service sent by a base station” / “receive a
`service sent by a base station” (’613 Patent, claims 1, 5)
`7.
`“a group number k of a sequence group allocated by the system” (’239 patent,
`claims 6, 17)
`“a first P-temporary Mobile Station Identity (P-TMSI) in an access message” (’166
`8.
`patent, claims 1, 12)
`9.
`“dedicated priority list” (’197 patent, claims 1, 5, 7-9, 14, 15; ’246 patent, claims
`
`
`
`1
`PAT. L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`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
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, 16-18, 20; ’003 patent, claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, 14-20)
`10.
`“dynamically indicative of one of payload size or a Redundancy Version (RV)
`[through the state of the field]” (’278 patent, Claims 1, 7)
`IV. Huawei’s Request to Construe 10 More Terms
`Huawei requests that in addition to the 10 most significant terms listed above, the Court
`allow Huawei and Samsung each to identify an additional 5 terms as “next tier” terms to be
`construed at the July 21, 2017 Markman hearing, for a total of 20 terms.
`This case involves 11 patents that Huawei has asserted against Samsung and 9 patents that
`Samsung has asserted against Huawei. The 10 most significant terms allowed by the local patent
`rules represents less than one term per patent. For that reason, Huawei requests that the Court
`allow an additional 10 terms, for a total of 20 terms.
`Huawei also requests a status conference with the Court, whether telephonic or in-person,
`to discuss whether the Court would rather have the parties brief and argue only the 10 most
`significant terms at this time, brief and argue the 20 most significant terms at this time, or some
`other arrangement. In the event that the Court wishes the parties to brief and argue the top 20
`terms at this time, Huawei proposes extending the page limits by 50% for each of the claim
`construction briefs. If the Court does not wish to have a separate status conference, Huawei
`proposes that that this issue be discussed during the April 19 hearing on Samsung’s motion to
`amend its infringement contentions.
`In the event that the Court agrees with Huawei’s request that the parties may identify and
`brief 20 terms, the parties will identify the 10 terms for the Court at that time.
`Samsung believes that this request can be handled more efficiently later in the case when
`the disputes between the parties are narrowed.
`Huawei’s Statement on Impact of Claim Construction on the Case
`Huawei believes that, based on the information currently available to it, construction of the
`terms proposed by Huawei (term numbers 1-5) will be dispositive of Samsung’s patent
`infringement claims for their respective patents if the Court adopts Huawei’s proposed
`construction because the patents will not be infringed and/or invalid. Huawei further notes that
`
`
`
`2
`PAT. L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`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
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`other terms in addition to these five terms would also be dispositive and, as requested above,
`Huawei asks that the Court construe an additional 10 terms. But notably no constructions will be
`case-dispositive, because resolution of the patent infringement claims in this case would not
`resolve Huawei’s causes of action for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment of FRAND
`terms. Moreover, the parties have collectively identified a total of 102 terms for the 20 asserted
`patents in this case that require construction. Huawei expects that additional claim construction
`proceedings will be necessary for some or all of the disputed terms in addition to the ten (or 20, if
`the Court allows) most significant terms, before the parties’ patent infringement claims can be
`presented to a jury.
`Samsung’s Statement on Impact of Claim Construction on the Case
`The five significant terms that Samsung identified for construction (Term numbers 6-10)
`are case-dispositive for seven of the eleven Huawei asserted patents. 1 If the Court adopts
`Samsung’s proposed constructions, each of these seven patents will be not infringed, and/or
`invalid, and as a result not essential for the purpose of the FRAND-licensing related claims.
`Although construction of Samsung’s five significant terms will not alone dispose of the entire
`dispute between the parties—Samsung’s antitrust claim, for example, will remain—their
`construction could significantly narrow the case, leaving only four Huawei patents in the case.
`V.
`Anticipated Time Necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing
`The parties anticipate that the Claim Construction Hearing will require four hours, with
`two hours per side.
`VI.
`Proposed Witnesses
`The Parties agree not to call any witnesses, including expert witnesses, at the Claim
`Construction Hearing. The Parties, however, may rely on expert declarations or deposition
`testimony as extrinsic evidence in support of their respective claim construction positions.
`
`
`
`
`1 The term “dedicated priority list” is found in all claims in the ’197, ’246, and ’003 patents (all part of the same
`family of patents).
`
`
`3
`PAT. L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`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
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Bettinger
`
`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
`Telephone: (415) 772-1200
`Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
`
`Nathan A. Greenblatt (SBN 262279)
`ngreenblatt@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Bldg. 1
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 565-7000
`Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
`
`David T. Pritikin (Pro Hac Vice)
`dpritikin@sidley.com
`David C. Giardina (Pro Hac Vice)
`dgiardina@sidley.com
`Douglas I. Lewis (Pro Hac Vice)
`dlewis@sidley.com
`John W. McBride (Pro Hac Vice)
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853 7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853 7036
`
`Attorneys for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies
`USA, Inc., and HiSilicon Technologies Co. Ltd.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 7, 2017
`
` /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis (by permission)
`
`Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No.
`170151)
`charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
`David A. Perlson (Cal. Bar No. 209502)
`davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel: 415-875-6600
`Fax: 415-875-6700
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Tel: 650-801-5000
`Fax: 650-801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`and Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`
`
`4
`PAT. L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124 Filed 04/07/17 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that
`concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory.
`
`Dated: April 7, 2017
`
`
`
` /s/ Michael J. Bettinger
`Michael J. Bettinger
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`ATTESTATION
`
`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
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 2
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent No. 8,812,848
`
`Claim Term, Phrase or Clause
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“A method for security capability negotiation during idle state mobility of a user
`equipment (UE), in a situation where the UE moves from a non-long term
`evolution (non-LTE) network to a long term evolution (LTE) network, the
`method comprising:”
`(Claim 9)
`
`
`Preamble is limiting
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 85
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`obtain[ing] must be
`The following portions
`performed before
`of the claims need not
`select[ing]
`be performed in order.
`
`Indefinite under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`21:4-15, 34-45
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr.
`Kevin Negus may
`include, in response to
`Samsung’s expert
`testimony from Dr.
`Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`term: the technical
`background of the ‘239
`patent, the
`qualifications of one of
`skill in the art, and that
`this claim term is not
`indefinite
`including that the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence,
`informs those skilled in
`the art, with reasonable
`certainty, about how to
`properly interpret the
`“group number k” /
`“sequence group k” in
`this claim with
`reasonable certainty.
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract, 2:15-47, 3:1-
`9, 6:8-52, 8:39-9:62,
`21:4-46, Tables 1-9,
`Fig. 4.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Samsung may provide
`expert testimony from
`Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`language, including
`testimony to (1)
`describe the technical
`background of the ’239
`patent; (2) describe the
`qualifications of one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the
`alleged invention; (3)
`describe how the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence, does
`not inform those skilled
`in the art how to
`properly interpret the
`“group number k” /
`“sequence group k” in
`this claim with
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`1
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`“obtaining, by a cell or
`a base station or a user
`equipment, a group
`number k of a sequence
`group allocated by the
`system” /“selecting, by
`the cell or the base
`station or the user
`equipment, n
`sequences from a
`candidate sequence
`collection to form
`sequences in a sub-
`group i in a sequence
`group k” / “obtain a
`group number k of a
`sequence group
`allocated by a system”
`/ “select n sequences
`from a candidate
`sequence collection to
`form sequences in a
`sub-group i in the
`sequence group k”
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`2
`
`“a group number k of a
`sequence group
`allocated by the
`system”
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`
`a group number k
`allocated by the system,
`where the group number
`k identifies a sequence
`group
`
`The value k is the
`same throughout the
`claim.
`
`
`2
`
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`Moreover, Samsung’s
`summary of Dr.
`Madisetti’s testimony
`fails to adequately
`convey the substance
`of that witness’
`proposed testimony.
`Huawei is unable to
`discern what aspect of
`the claim term is
`alleged to be indefinite,
`and in what way, and
`reserves its rights to
`offer rebuttal testimony
`as necessary to cure
`any prejudice.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`4:26-27
`5:60-64
`9:31-42
`20:66-21:15
`23:24-28
`Fig. 4
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`reasonable certainty;
`and (4) show that these
`terms are indefinite.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract, 6:8-52, 8:39-
`9:62, 21:4-46, Tables 1-
`9, Fig. 4.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, 5th ed.
`(2002), p. 210; allocate:
`“to reserve a resource,
`such as sufficient
`memory, for use by a
`program”
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`Dictionary.com
`Unabridged. Retrieved
`March 15, 2017 from
`Dictionary.com;
`allocate: “ to set apart
`for a particular purpose;
`assign or allot”
`
`
`Merriam-Webster.com.
`Merriam-Webster, n.d.
`Web. 2017; allocate: “to
`apportion for a specific
`purpose or to particular
`persons or thing;
`distribute; to set apart or
`earmark; designate”
` Intrinsic Evidence:
`2:15-47, 3:1-9, 8:39-
`9:62
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`3
`
`“a value of a basic
`sequence index
`ir in
`the sub-group i”
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`
`ir of a
`An index value
`basic sequence in the
`subgroup i
`
`ir
`“a number
`determining the base
`sequence used to
`generate sequences in
`the sub-group i”
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`2:31-41
`3:1-9
`6:26-31
`8:49-50
`10:12-21
`19:32-49
`20:13-23
`20:45-58
`‘239 patent, Pros.
`History, Apr. 24, 2013
`Reply to Office Action
`(HW_Samsung_00041
`5
`
`3
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`4
`
`“the sequences”
`(Claims 6, 7, 17, 18)1
`
`
`corresponding
`sequences
`
`Indefinite under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`02,
`HW_Samsung_000416
`2
`5-27)
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`11:26-46
`21:16-21
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr.
`Kevin Negus may
`include, in response to
`Samsung’s expert
`testimony from Dr.
`Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`term: the technical
`background of the ‘239
`patent, the
`qualifications of one of
`skill in the art, and that
`this claim term is not
`indefinite including
`that the claim term,
`viewed in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence, informs those
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`2:15-47, 5:60-6:7, 8:30-
`50, 18:45-20:3, Table 1.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Samsung may provide
`expert testimony from
`Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`language, including
`testimony to (1)
`describe the technical
`background of the ’239
`patent; (2) describe the
`qualifications of one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the
`alleged invention; (3)
`describe how the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence, does
`not inform those skilled
`
`
`1 To be clear, “the sequences” refers to “the sequences” without further qualifiers in the claim and thus does not refer to “the sequences in the formed sub-
`group” or “the sequences in the formed sub-group i.” Samsung, however, contends that the ambiguity surrounding the proper antecedent basis of the term
`“the sequences” renders all of these terms indefinite.
`
`4
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 6 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`5
`
`“the reference sub-
`1N ”
`group sequence
`(Claims 9, 20)
`
`
`reference sub-group
`1N
`sequence length
`
`Indefinite under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`
`5
`
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`skilled in the art, with
`reasonable certainty,
`about how to properly
`interpret the
`“sequences” in this
`claim with reasonable
`certainty. Moreover,
`Samsung’s summary of
`Dr. Madisetti’s
`testimony fails to
`adequately convey the
`substance of that
`witness’ proposed
`testimony. Huawei is
`unable to discern what
`aspect of the claim
`term is alleged to be
`indefinite, and in what
`way, and reserves its
`rights to offer rebuttal
`testimony as necessary
`to cure any prejudice.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`4:18-19
`6:26-39
`12:51-56
`14:58-59
`17:46-52
`23:11-16
`
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`in the art how to
`properly interpret the
`“sequences” in this
`claim with reasonable
`certainty; and (4) show
`that the term is
`indefinite.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`6:40-8:38, 9:12-62
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Samsung may provide
`expert testimony from
`Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 7 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`language, including
`testimony to (1)
`describe the technical
`background of the ’239
`patent; (2) describe the
`qualifications of one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the
`alleged invention; (3)
`describe how the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence, does
`not inform those skilled
`in the art how to
`properly interpret the
`“the reference sub-
`group sequence N1”
`term in this claim with
`reasonable certainty;
`and (4) show that this
`term is indefinite.
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr.
`Kevin Negus may
`include, in response to
`Samsung’s expert
`testimony from Dr.
`Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`term: the technical
`background of the ‘239
`patent, the
`qualifications of one of
`skill in the art, and that
`this claim term is not
`indefinite including
`that the claim term,
`viewed in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence, informs those
`skilled in the art, with
`reasonable certainty,
`about how to properly
`interpret the “the
`reference sub-group
`sequence N1” term in
`this claim with
`reasonable certainty
`and that adding
`“length” corrects an
`obvious minor
`
`6
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 8 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`typographical and
`clerical error which is
`apparent from the face
`of the patent. The
`correction is not
`subject to reasonable
`debate based on
`consideration of the
`claim language and the
`specification.
`Moreover, Samsung’s
`summary of Dr.
`Madisetti’s testimony
`fails to adequately
`convey the substance
`of that witness’
`proposed testimony.
`Huawei is unable to
`discern what aspect of
`the claim term is
`alleged to be indefinite,
`and in what way, and
`reserves its rights to
`offer rebuttal testimony
`as necessary to cure
`any prejudice.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`4:9-16
`4:32-34
`4:51-55
`
`6
`
`“serial number”
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`
`No construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively, identifier
`
`“a unique identifying
`number”
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`4:3-5:2, 6:8-22, 20:12-
`23, 21:6-15, 23:42-54
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 9 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`7
`
`“a basic sequence
`ir ”
`index
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`
`ir is a basic sequence
`index that determines
`the basic sequence
`
`“a number ir
`determining the base
`sequence used to
`generate sequences in
`the sub-group i”
`
`8
`
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Merriam-Webster.com.
`Merriam-Webster, n.d.
`Web. 2017; serial
`number: “a number
`indicating place in a
`series and used as a
`means of identification”
`
`
`Dictionary.com
`Unabridged. Random
`House, Inc. 2017; serial
`number: “a number,
`usually one of a series,
`assigned for
`identification”
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`2:15-47, 3:1-9, 8:39-
`9:62
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`6:8-22
`21:6-9
`23:42-47
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`http://www.dictionary.
`c
`om/browse/serialnumb
`er?
`S=t
`(HW_Samsung_00262
`4
`62-64)
`https://www.merriamw
`ebster.
`Com/dictionary/
`serial%20number
`(HW_Samsung_00262
`4
`72-73)
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`2:15-47
`3:1-9
`6:26-31
`8:49-50
`10:12-21
`19:32-49
`20:13-23
`20:45-58
`‘239 patent, Pros.
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 17
`
`

`

`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 10 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`History, Apr. 24, 2013
`Reply to Office Action
`(HW_Samsung_00041
`502,
`HW_Samsung_000416
`25-27)
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony
`summary of Dr. Kevin
`Negus:
`At least that “a basic
`sequence index ”
`means that
` is a basic
`sequence index that
`determines the
`basic sequence
`
`The term index refers
`to an input to a
`function, process, or
`calculation that is used
`in some manner to
`affect the result. The
`i is an index
`index
`that is used as an input
`to a function, process,
`or calculation that
`
`9
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 11 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`3:1-67
`5:60-6:7
`19:62-20:3
`21:16-21
`21:34-46
`23:24-28
`Fig. 2
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr.
`Kevin Negus may
`include, in response to
`Samsung’s expert
`testimony from Dr.
`Vijay Madisetti
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`5:60-6:7, 18:45-20:3.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Samsung may provide
`expert testimony from
`Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`language, including
`testimony to (1)
`describe the technical
`background of the ’239
`patent; (2) describe the
`qualifications of one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the
`
`“[creating / create]
`new sequences from
`the sequences in the
`formed sub-group”
`
`
`Indefinite; alternatively,
`“[transmitting/transmit]
`…according to the n
`sequences from the
`candidate sequence
`collection on time
`frequency resources
`corresponding to the
`sub-group i
`
`
`10
`
`
`No construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively,
`[Generating/generate] …
`corresponding
`sequences according to
`the sequences in the sub-
`group i
`No construction
`necessary.
`
`
`
`Alternatively:
`[communicating/process
`] … according to the
`corresponding
`sequences, on the time
`frequency resources
`corresponding to the
`sub-group i
`
`“[generating/generate]
`…corresponding
`sequences according to
`the sequences in the
`formed sub-group”
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`
`“[communicating/
`process]…according to
`the sequences on time
`frequency resources
`corresponding to the
`sub-group i”
`(Claims 6, 17)
`
`
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`determines the basic
`sequence, sometimes
`referred to by those
`skilled in the art as a
`root sequence.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`21:16-21
`21:34-46
`23:24-28
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`2:15-47, 8:30-50, Table
`1.
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 12 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`regarding this claim
`term: the technical
`background of the ‘239
`patent, the
`qualifications of one of
`skill in the art, and that
`this claim term is not
`indefinite including
`that the claim term,
`viewed in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence, informs those
`skilled in the art, with
`reasonable certainty,
`about how to properly
`interpret the
`“sequences” in this
`claim with reasonable
`certainty. Moreover,
`Samsung’s summary of
`Dr. Madisetti’s
`testimony fails to
`adequately convey the
`substance of that
`witness’ proposed
`testimony. Huawei is
`unable to discern what
`aspect of the claim
`term is alleged to be
`indefinite, and in what
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`alleged invention; (3)
`describe how the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence, does
`not inform those skilled
`in the art how any
`information is
`communicated or
`processed according to
`the sequences on time
`frequency resources
`corresponding to the
`sub-group i with
`reasonable certainty; (4)
`describe how the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence, does
`not inform those skilled
`in the art how to
`properly interpret the
`“sequences” in this
`claim with reasonable
`certainty; and (4) show
`that the term is
`indefinite.
`
`11
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 20
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 13 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`23:39-24:25, and Figs.
`5-7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Samsung may provide
`expert testimony from
`Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`regarding this claim
`language, including
`testimony to (1)
`describe the technical
`background of the ’239
`patent; (2) describe the
`qualifications of one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the
`alleged invention; (3)
`describe why the claim
`term, viewed in light of
`the intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence, does
`not recite sufficiently
`definite structure and
`instead recites a
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`way, and reserves its
`rights to offer rebuttal
`testimony as necessary
`to cure any prejudice.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Fig. 4, 5
`21:4-19
`21:34-48
`23:29-35
`23:42-54
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony
`summary of Dr. Kevin
`Negus:
`At least that the
`“sequence selecting
`unit” would be
`understood by
`persons of ordinary
`skill in the art to have
`a sufficiently definite
`meaning as the name
`for structure.
`The function
`performed by the
`“sequence selecting
`unit” is “to obtain a
`
`This term is governed
`by § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Function: obtain a
`group number k and
`select n sequences
`from a candidate
`sequence collection
`
`Structure: not
`adequately disclosed;
`indefinite.
`
`Not means plus function
`element subject to
`112(6).
`
`Alternatively:
`Function: obtain a group
`number k of a sequence
`group allocated by a
`system, and select n
`sequences from a
`candidate sequence
`collection to form
`sequences in a subgroup
`i in the sequence group k
`
`Corresponding
`Structure: hardware
`executing program
`instructions
`implementing:
`• “The group number k
`of the sequence group
`allocated by the
`system is obtained.”
`
`12
`
`
`10 “sequence selecting
`unit configured to
`obtain…select…”
`(Claim 17)
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 21
`
`

`

`SS’s Supporting
`Evidence
`function without
`reciting sufficient
`structure for performing
`that function; (4)
`describe why the
`specification does not
`describe sufficient
`corresponding structure
`for the claimed
`“sequence selecting
`unit”; and (5) show that
`the term is indefinite.
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/07/17 Page 14 of 85
`PATENT L.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (CASE NO. 3:16-CV-2787-WHO)
`EXHIBIT B
`U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239
`Huawei’s Proposed
`Samsung’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`• “N (n is a natural
`number) sequences are
`selected from the
`candidate sequence
`collection to form
`sequences in the sub-
`group i (i is a serial
`number of the sub-
`group) in the sequence
`group k, where the n
`sequences make the
`d(ƒi(•),Gk) function
`value the smallest”
`• “Taking the Zadoff-
`Chu sequence as an
`example, if the
`function d(a,b) is
`d(a,b)=|(a−b)|, for the
`subgroup m, the
`sequence that makes
`the |rm/Nm−k/N1| value
`the smallest is selected
`and included into the
`sequence group k, thus
`ensuring higher
`correlation between
`sequences and
`reducing correlation
`between groups.
`
`Huawei’s Supporting
`Evidence
`group number k of a
`sequence group
`allocated by a system,
`and select n
`sequences from a
`candidate sequence
`collection to form
`sequences in a sub-
`group i in the
`sequence group k”
`The specification
`identifies the structure
`that performs this
`function as hardware
`executing program
`instructions.
`The specification also
`describes the
`algorithm that this
`hardware executing
`program instructions
`performs as:
`“The group number k
`of the sequence group
`allocated by the
`system is obtained.”
`
`No. Claim Term, Phrase
`or Clause
`
`13
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1009, Page 22
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 124-2 Filed 04/