Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 30
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
`charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
`David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)
`davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 2801-5100
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
`Research America, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, CO., LTD., et al.,
`CASE NO. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S OPENING CLAIM
`Plaintiffs,
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Technology Tutorial
`Date:
`August 7, 2017
`Time:
`9:00 AM
`Claim Construction Hearing
`Date:
`August 10, 2017
`Time:
`9:00 AM
`Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. &
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, CO., LTD,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. & HISILICON
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW ........................................................................................ 1
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,761,130 ............................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Overview of the ’130 Patent ...................................................................................... 3
`B.
`A Middle Symbol in the Slot ..................................................................................... 4
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,619,726 ............................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Overview of the ’726 Patent ...................................................................................... 7
`B.
`[Calculating/Calculates] a HARQ Process IDentifier (ID) . . . ................................. 9
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,288,825 ............................................................................................. 11
`A.
`Overview of the ’825 Patent .................................................................................... 11
`B.
`“Predetermined Delay Duration” ............................................................................. 13
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,315,195 ............................................................................................. 15
`A.
`Overview of the ’195 Patent .................................................................................... 15
`B.
`“A Set of Control Channel Candidates” .................................................................. 16
`VII. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,457,588 ............................................................................................. 19
`A.
`Overview of the ’588 Patent .................................................................................... 19
`B.
`“Controlling an Active Time Period During a [DRX] Operation” .......................... 21
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp.,
`732 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................. 19
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 2
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 22
`CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 24
`Cox Comm’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Comm’n Co. LP,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 22
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 10
`ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`566 F.3d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 18
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`Case No. 12-cv-0358, 2015 WL 757575 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2015) .................................... 22, 23
`Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 2, 6, 10, 15
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.,
`640 Fed. Appx. 951 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 23
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 17
`Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp.,
`483 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................. 11
`InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 7
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................... 6, 7, 15
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 2
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ........................................................... 1
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 30
`
`Marrin v. Griffin,
`599 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 25
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 18
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................................................................................... 22
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 2
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 2, 11
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 19
`SanDisk. Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc.
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 25
`Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd...
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 22
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................. 24
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 2
`Tex. Digital Sys. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 10
`Textron Innovations Inc. v. American Eurocopter Corp.,
`498 Fed. Appx. 23 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 23, 25
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 2
`Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 30
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung respectfully submits this opening brief on the following disputed claim terms from
`Samsung’s patents: “a middle symbol in the slot” (’130 patent); “[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);
`
`“predetermined delay duration” (’825 patent); “a set of control channel candidates” (’195 patent); and
`“controlling an active time period during a [DRX] operation” (’588 patent).
`The patents-at-issue are largely the result of Samsung’s research to improve the LTE standard.
`Samsung’s inventors participated in LTE standard-setting meetings and contributed their ideas during
`those meetings. It is therefore no coincidence that Samsung’s inventions are now part of, and
`essential to the LTE standard. As set forth in Samsung’s infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 134),
`Huawei infringes these patents when it practices the LTE standard.
`The disputed claim terms are mostly common English words, like “middle,” “controlling,”
`“predetermined,” and “set.” Instead of focusing on the claim language and its ordinary meaning,
`Huawei seeks to add ambiguity and complexity to straightforward terms. For the first three terms
`(“middle symbol …,” “calculating …,” and “predetermined …”), Huawei adds limitations from the
`specification by requiring certain exemplary embodiments and studiously ignoring others. For the
`next term (“a set …”), Huawei ignores the invention altogether, arguing that the claims should be
`construed to cover the antithesis of the specification. For the final term (“controlling …”), Huawei
`argues that the term is indefinite, even though (i) Huawei proposes an alternative construction and (ii)
`one skilled in the art would understand the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
`When, as here, claim terms are used consistent with their ordinary meaning, it is difficult, if
`not impossible, to craft a definition that is better than the claim language itself. This is why Courts
`have routinely held that some claim terms should be left untouched; to construe them would only rob
`the inventors of the full scope of their invention.
`II.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW
`Claim construction is a matter of law to be determined by the Court. Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “It is well-
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 6 of 30
`
`settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of
`record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution
`history. Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of
`disputed claim language.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In
`addition to intrinsic evidence, a court may rely on extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries and
`treatises, to shed light on the claimed technology, although such evidence is “less significant than the
`intrinsic record.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal
`citations omitted).
`
`When construing claims, the Court must begin by “look[ing] to the words of the claims
`themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “The task
`of comprehending those words is not always a difficult one. In some cases, the ordinary meaning of
`claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay
`judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely-
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 805
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).
`While claims are read in view of the specification, the specification should not be used to limit
`the claim absent lexicography or disavowal. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367,
`1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standards for these two exceptions are exacting. Id. “To act as its own
`lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its
`plain and ordinary meaning” and must “clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (quoting
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Disavowal
`requires that the intrinsic record makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, or
`is clearly limited to a particular form of the invention. Id.
`Not every claim limitation requires construction. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Though a limitation may require construction to resolve a genuine,
`material dispute, courts are not required to construe every limitation. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond
`Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 7 of 30
`
`III.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,761,130
`A.
`Overview of the ’130 Patent
`In LTE systems, mobile phones (“user equipment” or “UE”) communicate with “base
`stations,” which are called the “Node B.” Ex. 1, ’130 patent at 1:20-36. The transmission from the
`Node B to the UE is called the “downlink,” and the transmission from the UE to the Node B is the
`“uplink.” Id. at 1:28-42. On both the downlink and the uplink, information is sent using symbols. Id.
`at 52-65. These symbols are arranged into frames, subframes, and slots, id., and each slot contains 6
`or 7 symbols.
`
`Id. at Fig. 1. As shown above, LTE systems use a “reference signal” (abbreviated “RS”) to estimate
`how much the signal was distorted during transmission from the UE to the Node B, and ultimately
`restore signal quality. Id. The remaining symbols contain control bits and/or data bits. Id. at 20-51.
`The control bits are used to ensure the system is working properly. Id. The data bits are the actual
`message(s) being transmitted.
`
`types of control bits.
`two relevant
`there are
`the ’130 patent,
`For purposes of
`“Acknowledgment information” is used to acknowledge (“ACK”) that the message was successfully
`received or indicate that it was not successfully received (“NACK”). Id. at 39-51. The other control
`bits are “channel quality indicator” (CQI) bits. Id. These bits determine whether there is a good
`connection between the Node B and the UE. Id.
`While working on the LTE standard, the ’130 inventors made two key observations. First, it
`is critical for the UE to receive the control bits. Id. at 2:62-3:3. If the data bits are corrupted during
`transmission, the control bits tell the system to retransmit them. Id. But if the control bits are lost, the
`transmission can break down. Id. Second, the RS is a better indicator of the distortion for adjacent
`symbols than more distant symbols. Id. at 4:40-55. Using these observations, the inventors conceived
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 8 of 30
`
`that the “acknowledgement information” should be in symbols directly adjacent to the symbol
`carrying the RS. Id. at 5:57-59.
`In one exemplary embodiment, the slot contains seven symbols, with the RS in the fourth
`symbol. Id. at Fig. 10. The directly adjacent symbols contain the acknowledgement information, and
`the CQI is interspersed with the data in the remaining symbols. Id. The RS is thus equidistant from
`the beginning and the end of the slot.
`
`Id. at Fig. 10. While not shown in Figure 10, if the slot contains an even number of symbols, the RS
`cannot be surrounded by an equal number of symbols. For instance, the use of six-symbol slots was
`known. See e.g., Ex. 6, Zyren, J. “Overview of the 3GPP Long Term Evolution Physical Layer,”
`(“Zyren”) at 8-9 (“Slots consist of either 6 or 7 ODFM symbols, depending on whether the normal or
`extended cyclic prefix is employed.”). In such a slot, the RS is still in one of the middle symbols but
`it is necessarily closer to the beginning or end of the slot.
`B.
`A Middle Symbol in the Slot
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`Huawei’s Construction
`“symbol(s) with the same number of
`symbols on each side”
`The term “a middle symbol in the slot” appears in all of the asserted claims of the ’130 patent.
`Exemplary claim 13 is reproduced below:
`9. A method for transmitting a signal in a slot of a subframe in a wireless
`communication
`system,
`the
`signal
`including
`data
`information
`and
`acknowledgement information, the method comprising:
`mapping a reference signal to a middle symbol in the slot;
`mapping the data information to remaining symbols in the slot that are not used to
`map the reference signal;
`mapping the acknowledgement information to first symbols among the remaining
`symbols in the slot, the first symbols not being used to map reference signals and
`the first symbols being directly adjacent to the middle symbol; and
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 9 of 30
`
`transmitting the signal including the mapped data information, the mapped
`acknowledgement information, and the mapped reference signal,
`wherein some of the data information is mapped to the first symbols which are
`directly adjacent to the middle symbol, and
`wherein CQI information is multiplexed with the data information.
`’130 patent at claim 13 (emphasis added).
`
`Claim construction begins with the claim language itself. The terms “middle,” “symbol,” and
`
`“slot” are not coined terms. They have an ordinary meaning readily understood by those skilled in the
`
`art, and lay persons alike. Huawei’s construction does not seek to clarify the meaning of “symbol” or
`
`“slot.” Rather it seeks to redefine “middle” to mean less than its ordinary meaning. Huawei’s
`
`proposed construction also omits the term “slot,” begging the question of where the counting of
`symbols should start and stop. While it is clear from the claim language and specification that the
`term references a middle symbol in the slot, Huawei’s construction introduces unnecessary confusion.
`Using the example of seats on an airplane or at a movie theater, whether there is an even
`number of seats or odd number of seats, if there are more than 3 seats, it necessarily follows that there
`must be a middle seat. It does not necessarily follow that a middle seat only exists if there are an odd
`number of seats. The middle seat could be closer to the left edge, or closer to the right edge, as long
`as they are about the middle. See e.g., Ex. 7 (definition of “middle” (“being at neither extreme”)). In
`a row of six seats, it would be mathematically impossible for a person to sit in seat “with the same
`number of [seats] on each side.” But the third or fourth seat, out of six seats, would be considered a
`middle seat by any traveler or theater patron.
`And so it is with the claims of the ’130 patent. The claims refer to “a middle symbol.” It does
`not follow that the middle slot only exists with an odd number of slots. A middle slot can and does
`exist if there are six slots. Huawei’s attempts to impose a narrower definition than intended is
`contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of what it means to be a middle slot. And the fact that the
`drafters could have used narrower language, but chose not to, is compelling evidence that Huawei's
`construction is not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning.
`Huawei’s construction thus excludes a known slot structure. While the ‘130 patent describes
`its inventions in reference to an exemplary seven-symbol slot structure, it was well known that the
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 10 of 30
`
`slots may contain six or seven symbols, depending on the length of the cyclic-prefix used. See e.g.,
`Zyren at 8-9 (“Slots consist of either 6 or 7 ODFM symbols, depending on whether the normal or
`extended cyclic prefix is employed.”) As it is mathematically impossible to have a “symbol(s) with
`the same number of symbols on each side” in a system with an even number of symbols per slot,
`
`Huawei’s construction inappropriately precludes application of the invention to slots with an even
`number of symbols, even though there are clearly symbols that can be characterized as being a middle
`symbol of a slot.
`Limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims absent clear disavowal.
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is improper to read
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only
`embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
`intended the claims to be so limited.”); see also id. at 906. Though an exemplary embodiment is
`disclosed where the RS is surrounded in the slot by an equal number of symbols on each side, neither
`the language of the claims nor the specification demands such precision.
`Huawei relies entirely on two passages from the specification. Those passages, which
`describe Figure 1, state: “the middle symbol in each slot carries the transmission of reference signals
`(RS)” and that “[a] first observation for the sub-frame structure illustrated in FIG. 1 is that the
`reference signal (RS) exists only in the middle symbol of each slot.” Id. at 1:52-65; 4:40-42. Huawei
`
`ignores, however, that the language immediately preceding Huawei’s citation identifies Figure 1 as
`exemplary and non-limiting. Id. at 1:53-55; see also id. at 3:54-55 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram
`illustrating an exemplary subframe structure for the SC-FDMA communication system.”). Moreover,
`while the figures use the same exemplary frame structure, the specification makes clear that the
`invention is not limited to a single embodiment. Id. at 4:28-33; see also id. at 4:20-24; 6:51-56. Such
`use of a preferred embodiment does not and cannot rise to the level of disclaimer needed to limit the
`claims to a particular embodiment. Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at 1371-73.
`Finally, the doctrine of claim differentiation strongly counsels against Huawei’s construction.
`Dependent claim 16 recites “[t]he method as in claim 13, wherein the slot consists of 7 symbols, the
`reference signal is mapped to a 4th symbol among the 7 symbols, and the acknowledgement
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 11 of 30
`
`information is mapped only to 3rd and 5th symbols among the 7 symbols.” ’130 patent at 8:53-56.
`Federal Circuit case law is clear on this point; reading a limitation from a dependent claim into an
`independent claim is strongly disfavored. See InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`690 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest in this
`type of case, “where the limitation that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim already
`appears in a dependent claim.”) (quoting Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 910). As Huawei is
`apparently seeking a construction that would limit the RS to the fourth of seven symbols in a slot, and
`that limitation already appears in dependent claim 16, this Court should reject Huawei’s unwarranted
`limitation.
`IV.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,619,726
`A.
`Overview of the ’726 Patent
`As explained in the ’726 patent, one of the important features of LTE is that it supports Voice
`over Internet Protocol (VoIP) where the person’s voice is converted into small data packets that are
`transmitted over the network. Ex. 2, ’726 patent at 1:38-42. For a typical phone call, there will be
`hundreds of millions of packets. In order to accommodate the large number of packets, the Node B
`allocates time and frequency blocks (i.e., resources) for the UE to receive the packets. Id. at 1:46-51.
`
`Because the resources repeat periodically, they are called a “persistent resource allocation,” and the
`
`intervals are called a “persistent resource allocation interval.”
`Unfortunately, LTE packets are corrupted as they travel over the air. To account for inevitable
`errors, the UE uses what is called a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) process. Id. at 1:62-
`65. When the UE receives a new packet, the UE checks the packet for errors and tries to fix them. Id.
`at 2:4-15. If the UE cannot fix the errors, the UE stores a copy of the packet and transmits a negative
`acknowledgement (NACK) back to the Node B. Id. This NACK tells the Node B to retransmit the
`packet or a portion thereof. 1 When the retransmitted packet arrives, the UE combines the
`retransmitted packet with the stored packet and checks the packet for errors. Id. at 2:4-15. If the
`
`1 After transmitting the NACK, the UE monitors a control channel “to check if there is any HARQ
`packet scheduled … in order to receive the HARQ packet transmitted.” Id. at 6:22-27; see also id. at
`1:66-2:14.
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 12 of 30
`
`combined packet is not error free, the UE stores an updated copy of the packet and sends another
`NACK requesting another HARQ packet. Id. This HARQ process continues until all of the errors are
`fixed or a retransmission limit is reached. Id.
`Meanwhile, newer, different packets are arriving at the UE. Id. at 2:40-47. Because the new
`packets may also contain errors, the UE may have to handle several HARQ processes at the same
`time. Id. at 2:48-53. A problem arises when multiple HARQ processes have to use the same interval.
`Id. at 2:54-60. In order for the UE to process all of the incoming packets and ultimately reassemble
`the phone conversation, the UE has to determine the corresponding HARQ process for each packet.
`Figure 1, below, illustrates this problem, which the ’726 inventors solved.
`
`The rectangles depict packets arriving at a UE from a Node B (i.e., downlink) in a persistent resource
`allocation. Id. at 1:55-56. This persistent resource allocation has recurring intervals (shown as
`reference numeral 165). Id. at 1:56-58. The x axis shows the amount of elapsed time. Starting on the
`left hand side of Figure 1, the UE receives a packet 105. Id. at 1:58-62. Because the packet contains
`errors that the UE could not fix, the UE transmits a NACK 110. Id. at 1:62-65. The HARQ process
`continues with the NACKs (125 and 140) and retransmitted packets (120, 135, and 160). Id. at 1:66-
`2:4. The problem occurs in the next interval when a new, different packet 145 is received. Id. at
`2:45-47. When the UE transmits NACK 150 for packet 145, there are now two HARQ processes
`occurring in the same interval, and the UE has to match each incoming packet to the correct HARQ
`process. Id. at 2:48-60.
`To solve this problem, the ’726 inventors invented a way to calculate a HARQ process
`identifier for each packet as a function of three things: (1) the number of HARQ processes; (2) the
`length of the interval; and (3) the time that the interval began. Id. at 3:13-24; 4:58-5:2. Noting that
`this calculation can be performed a number of different ways, and that the described embodiments are
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 13 of 30
`
`not intended to be limiting, the specification discloses an exemplary equation for calculating the
`HARQ process index:
`
`Id. at 9:4-18. In Equation 3, n denotes the number of HARQ processes, i denotes the length of the
`interval, and t denotes the time that the interval began. Id. This HARQ process index is then used to
`determine the HARQ process identifier. Id. at 9:4-9.
`B.
`[Calculating/Calculates] a HARQ Process IDentifier (ID) . . .
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`Huawei’s Construction
`“Calculating a HARQ process ID using Equation 3:
`persistent resource-dedicated HARQ process’s
`index=MOD[s, n], s=ceiling[t/i, 1]”
`
`The “calculating” term appears in independent claims 1 and 11 of the ’726 patent. Exemplary
`claim 1 is reproduced below with the proposed term to be construed in bold:
`1. A method for operating Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) in a mobile
`communication system, the method comprising:
`receiving a number of HARQ processes of a persistent resource allocation and
`persistent resource allocation interval information;
`receiving data according to the persistent resource allocation interval information;
`calculating 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; and
`associating a HARQ process with the calculated HARQ process ID.
`’726 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).
`The meaning of this term is clear from the language of the claim itself and the related
`disclosure in the specification. The claim specifies that the HARQ process ID is calculated using
`three things: (1) the number of HARQ processes; (2) interval information; and (3) time information.
`The claim is not limited to a specific equation, as long as these three things are used in the calculation.
`Huawei is attempting to impose additional limitations that were not intended to be in the claim. If the
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Ex. 1010 p. 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 140 Filed 05/19/17 Page 14 of 30
`
`drafters had intended to limit claim 1 to a specific equation, they could have easily done so, as they
`did in several of the dependent claims.
`While there is no dispute that Equation 3 represents one embodiment of the invention,
`Huawei’s error lies again in attempting to read in a limitation from the specification. See, e.g., Liebel-
`Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 913. Courts should “interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without
`unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v.
`3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Tex. Digital Sys. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308
`F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed.Cir.2002)). Huawei’s construction—selecting a single, exemplary equation
`from the specification and then importing it into the claims—flouts this well-established canon of
`claim construction.
`There is simply no limiting language or corresponding disclaimer to support such a limitation.
`See Hill-Rom Services, 755 F.3d at 1371-73. Huawei relies entirely on the paragraph where Equation
`3 appears, and ignores the rest of the specification. But even the language that Huawei relies on
`makes clear that Equation 3 is merely one possible way to calculate the HARQ process identifier. Id.
`at 9:4-9 (“For example….”) (emphasis added). Moreover, the paragraph immediately preceding
`Huawei’s citation provides a more general equation for calculating the HARQ process identifier. Id.
`