case 6:2)-cv-O10S8-ADA Document Liy Filed OG/20/23 Page lat2
`
`AQ 126 (Rev. 08/10}
`
`10.
`‘
`
`Mail Stop 8
` Directer ofthe U.S, Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1430
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`|
`
`:
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORTON THE
`KILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT GOR
`
`fn Comphanve with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 ULS.C. § 1136 vou are hereby advised that a court actor has been
`
` Aled in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas
`on the following
`(] Trademarks or
`MfPatents.
`¢
`[7] the patent achon involves 34 U.S.C. § 292):
`
`La. DISTRICT COURT
`
`Western District of Texas
`
`[DEFENDANT
`| GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY and GENERAL
`| MOTORS LLC
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`NO.
`6:21-cv- 1088
`PLAINTIFF
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES [LL and
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I} LLC
`
`PDATE FILED
`i
`10/19/2024
`
`ven Kiarx>
`LIASTMU DN,
`1 6,832,283
`
`2 7,891, Q04
`
`3 9,834,628
`
`4 9,291,475
`
`|
`{
`
`i
`
`PATE
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES IELLC
`
`2/43/2011
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES [LLC
`
`AIH2018
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES IPLLG
`
`S22/2016
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES IPLLC
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENT OR
`MARK NO.
`
`4
`
`ATE
`—_
`
`OF PATENT
`ARI
`
`f
`
`MCW
`
`TVET CUE
`
`DATEROT
`
`OI TR
`
`CL] Other Pleading
`ATIOR
`FARE
`
`{n the above--entidled case, the Followdecision fas been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECISIONJUDGEMENT
`
`6/19/23-Order granting joint motion ta dismiss. Document 116.
`
`06/20/2023
`
`PHILIP J, DEVLIN
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERke
`WAV
`
`|
`
`IL
`
`DATE
`
`Capy i-—-Unon initistion of action, mail this capy te Director Copy 3-—Upon terminationof action, mail this copy te Directar
`Copy 2-—Upon filing document adding patent(s}, mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 1 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 1 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Case EU-eTLOSS-ADA Ehooument S27 bed SRPASS Page 2 of 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`C_A. Na. 6:21-cv-1088
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`)
`) ADDENDUM TO
`) REPORT ON THE FILING OR
`) DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION
`) REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC and
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES IT LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`GENERAL MOTORS COMPANYand
`GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10,292,138
`
`
`382,7
`[63/2008 |INTELLECTUAL
`VENTURES IILLC
`9,232,158
`1/5/2016
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESII LLC
`3/21/2017
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`5/14/2019
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`3/23/2010
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES ILLC
`2/10/2015
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESIIT LLC
`6/13/2017
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESIT LLC
`8/19/2014
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESIT LLC
`
`8,953,641
`9,681,466
`8,811,356
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 2 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 2 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`mase G:28-cv-00429-ADA Document S Filec Q6/G/23 Page Lote
`
`AO 120(Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDINGA PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are herebyadvised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Western District of Texas, Waco Division
`on the following
`CD Trademarks or
`[MW Patents.
`( [1 thepatent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES | LLC and
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`
`VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, VOLVO CARS OF
`NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and VOLVO CAR USA LLC
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`
` Caee
`
`pseamows[|
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`CL] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`CD Answer
`
`CD Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`2B
`
`e
`CS
`Bo
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 3 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 3 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`CARESeC Do CoteSed 8 PSGOR3 Paap Bint 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACODIVISION
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC and
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 6:23-cv-00429
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`VOLVO CAR CORPORATION,
`VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA,
`LLC, and VOLVO CAR USA LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ADDENDUM TO
`REPORT ON THEFILING OR
`DETERMINATIONOF AN ACTION
`REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8,953,641
`
`9,232,158
`
`9,602,608
`
`10,292,138
`
`2/10/2015
`
`1/5/2016
`
`3/21/2017
`
`5/14/2019
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESIT LLC
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESIT LLC
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURESIT LLC
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 4 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 4 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

` fo. gov
`571-272-7822.
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: February 7, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTORCO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00020
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, FREDERICK C. LANEY,and
`MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial
`37 CER. § 42.74
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 5 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 5 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00020
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`With our authorization, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate
`
`Proceeding. Paper 6. The parties assert that they “have resolved their
`
`dispute and jointly request termination of IPR2023-00020 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 317(a).” Id. at 1. The parties represent that, as a result of the parties’
`
`resolution of their dispute, they also are filing a motion to dismiss the co-
`
`pending lawsuit related to U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 B2 (“the ’138
`
`Patent”), whichis the patent at issue in this proceeding.
`
`/d. at 3. The parties
`
`also represent that “[a] true copy of the document resolving the disputes
`
`related to the “138 Patent 1s filed concurrently herewith,” which wasfiled as
`
`Exhibit 2001.
`
`/d. at 4. We have reviewed that “Resolution Document,”
`
`which indicatesthat it is the entire agreement betweenthe parties.
`
`In a separate paper, the parties also jointly request that the Board
`
`“treat the [Resolution Document] resolving the proceeding .
`
`.
`
`. as business
`
`confidential information” and “that the confidential Resolution Document be
`
`kept separate from thefile of the subject patent in the captioned proceeding
`
`and be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written
`
`request or to persons showing good cause.” Paper7, 1.
`
`The Board has not yet entered a decision on institution of a trial, and
`
`we determine that good cause exists to dismiss the Petition (Paper 2) and to
`
`terminate the preliminary proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. After
`
`reviewing the parties’ Resolution Document, wefind that the agreement
`
`contains confidential business information regarding the terms of settlement,
`
`and we determine that good cause exists to treat the Resolution Document as
`
`business confidential information.
`
`It is
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 6 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 6 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00020
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`ORDEREDthat the Joint Motion to Terminate Proceeding 1s granied,
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat the Petition (Paper 2) is dismissed and the
`
`preliminary proceedingis terminated; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat the filed confidential Resolution
`
`Document (Ex. 2001) be treated as business confidential information
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and also remain designated as available
`
`only to “Parties and Board”in the Board’s E2E system.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 7 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 7 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00020
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Reza Dokhanchy
`Adam R. Alper
`Akshay S. Deoras
`Michael W. De Vries
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`akshay .deoras@kirkland.com
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel H. Golub
`Michael F. Snyder
`Jeffrey G. Glabicki
`Robert D. Leonard
`Dawn C. Kerner
`Ryan W.O’Donnell
`VOLPE KOENIG
`DGolub@vklaw.com
`MSnyder@vklaw.com
`JGlabicki@vklaw.com
`RLeonard@vklaw.com
`DKerner@vklaw.com
`RODonnell@vklaw.com
`
`Russell J. Rigby
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`RRigby@intven.com
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 8 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 8 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Trials @uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper14
`Date: January 3, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TOYOTA MOTORCORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES IT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01127
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 B2
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
`MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Revicw
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of clams 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 B2
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 9 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 9 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ?138 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Intellectual VenturesIT
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner’)filed a Preliminary Responseto the Petition. Paper
`
`10 (Prelim. Resp.”). Petitionerfiled a Reply to the Prelimmary Response.
`
`Paper 12 (“Reply”). Patent Ownerfiled a Sur-Replyto Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Paper 13 (“Sur-Reply”).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an interpartes review may notbeinstituted
`
`“unless ... there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respectto at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`
`consideration of the arguments and evidence presented byPetitioner, we are
`
`not persuadedthat Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihoodthat it
`
`would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the
`
`challenged clams. See 35 U.S.C. §314(a). Accordingly, we do notinstitute
`
`an interpartes review of the challenged claims.
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner states that Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North
`
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
`
`Inc., and Toyota MotorSales, U.S.A., Inc., are the real parties in interest.
`
`Pet. 73. Patent Ownerstates that Intellectual Ventures II LLC 1s the real
`
`party in interest. Paper5, 2.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Theparties indicate that the °138 patent is asserted in the following
`
`lawsuits, including, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`et al., 2:21-cv-00389 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas; Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. General Motors Company, 6:21-
`
`cv-01088 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; and
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. et al.,
`
`3:22-cv-00761 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas;
`
`2
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 10 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 10 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`and Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures IT LLC, v. Honda
`
`Motor Co., Ltd. et al. 2:21-cv-00390 in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Petitioner also indicates that the ’?138 patent has been involvedin the
`
`following interpartes review proceedings: Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericssony. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2018-
`
`01289; and Sprint Spectrum L.P., SprintCom, Inc., TMobile USA, Inc., and
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures IT LLC, TIPR2018-01765. Pet. 74.
`
`C.
`
`The ’138 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ? 138 patent, titled “Determining Buffer Occupancy and Selecting
`
`Data for Transmission on a Radio Bearer,” relates to allocation of bandwidth
`
`resources for Internet Protocol data flows in a wireless network. Ex. 1001
`
`code 54, 1:23—25. The ’138 patent explains that “[t]he invention is
`
`applicable to, but not limited to, gateway qucuing algorithms in packet data
`
`transmissions, for example, for use in the universal mobile
`
`telecommunication standard.” /d. at 1:25—28.
`
`Figure | of the ’138 patent, as annotated by Petitioner, is reproduced
`
`belowillustrating standard radio access network system 100.
`
`/d. at 6:12—13.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 11 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 11 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`FO,
`
`*
`
`tains RB mepging aa
`
`oopennesietpnnnnennennnannannnnnnmnananannanannnniinnnnannannannnenanaanAnananRANTS,
`
`lament manager
`
`‘Teoriresaear
`aguinmerd damein
`‘
`440
`
`Rabe: weer
`TELWOTK CORSE
`\
`428
`FIG. 1
`
`Tanes Meta
`ATAd:
`
`te
`
`Figure | illustrates user equipment (UE) 118 communicating data with Node
`
`— B 122 which,in turn, communicates data with radio network controller
`
`(RNC) 124 within UTRAN (UMTS Radio Access Network) 126. The ’138
`
`patent explains that
`
`[t]he UE may be for example a remote unit, a mobile station, a
`communication terminal, a personal digital assistant, a laptop
`computer, an embedded communication processor or any
`communication element communicating overthe air interface of
`the cellular communication system.
`Id. at 6:22—27. The ’138 patent describes that within the RNC 124, “a
`
`Mapper 128 is responsible for mapping IP packets to scparatc RBs [radio
`
`bearer’s].. . [a] scheduler 129 is responsible for allocating a certain
`
`proportion ofthe radio resource to each of the RBs.” Id. at 749-53.
`
`(emphasis added). In addition, the ’138 patent provides that
`
`‘ Radio bearers, “RBs,”are also understood by those ofordinary skill in the
`art as Radio Access Bearer’s, “RABs.” Ex. 1003 4 39.
`
`4
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 12 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 12 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`element manager logic 140 has been incorporated into the
`system, which is used to contain the database that defines the
`mapping characteristics for IP packets to RBs. The element
`manager logic 140 also contains the values of the queue
`weighting parameters, Szier, as 60 described in more detail later.
`
`Id. at 7:56-61.
`
`The ’138 patent describes a particular embodimentof the radio
`
`resource allocation in Figures 5 and 6 reproduced below.
`
`840
`590
`3
`Stier paranwter signalled
`~~) to UEin separate message
`S19.
`|[Stier
`when UEfirat connects
`SinglePOPcontext
`ae
`
`
`|
`[parameters |
`i
`—
`Split into separate |
`UE indicates separate buffer| [nal
`services/RBs
`_GecupancyfforailRBs t
`7{
`| Single aliccation of physical|
`~~
`resourcesto WE
`
`3
`q
`TN560
`|
`UETXs uses physical
`allocation io TX date in
`each RB in proportion
`to stler parameters
`
`
`
`Scheduler
`
`OS—
`Bas
`
`i i(
`
`S05
`
`UE mirror
`|
`scheduler
`
`825
`
`
`
`
`UE
`
`835
`
`UTRAN
`
`FIG. 5
`
`Figure 5 illustrates “the communication between an UE 505 and the UTRAN
`
`540 to support an uplink scenario.” Jd. at 10:3-5. The’ 138 patent explains
`
`that “the UE 505 mayreccive a single PDP [packct data protocol] context
`
`510 and split the single PDP context 510 into separate services on individual
`
`radio bearers in divider logic 515.” Jd. at 10:5-8. The UEthen informs
`
`scheduler 545 of buffer occupanciesfor the individual radio bearers, and
`
`scheduler 545 returns a single allocation of physical resources to UE based
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 13 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 13 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`on Stier parameters 550. Id. at 10:8-18. Subsequently, “[t]he UE mirror
`
`scheduler 525 is then able to inform the UTRAN 540 in a message 535 onits
`
`use of the physical allocation, in order to transmit data in each radio bearer
`
`in proportion to the informed S,ie, parameters 550.” Id. at 10:18—22.
`
`The ’138 patent describes that W’ ier weight values are computed for
`
`each radio bearer data queue from the S:ier parameter (id. at 8:44-54) and
`
`that uplink data for cach radio bearer is transmitted by dividing up the
`
`allocated bandwidth based on the W’ie values (id. at 8:55—59, 10:23—28).
`
`Figure 6, reproduced below as annotated by the Board,is a flow chart
`
`illustrating algorithm 600 that “describes one mechanism to limit a number
`
`of queuesserved at a single instant of time.” Jd. at 10:49—S0.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 14 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 14 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`500~,
`
`
`-
`-
`—
`Dstermine normalised queue weighting
`parameter Wi" q
`
`oo
`t
`605
`-
`,
`
`
`ne Ostermine the number of RAAU allocated
`
`to Bach queues
`:
`r
`=
`"
`615
`¥
`610
`is na”.
`|620- _.
`OF quauas “_
`_’ faving afiocated |
`resources > EM
`
`\.
`
`“parameter ? fe Select first max_number_queues_serviced
`
`N, a
`
`Ne
`
`
`Set Na’ to zero
`
`in all tiers selected above set Na’ te Ng
`aenee
` ¥
`allocated to each queue
`|
`
`828
`
`Determine the modified number af RAAU
`
`
`
`Modify the RAAUg
`a
`
`855 "Bet RAALIGg"for one of the queues fhere may
`be multiple queues below thea minimum) which
`
`has RAAUG" fess than the minimum to zerm
`i
`
`wo
`
`660
`
`
`
`
`
`Allocate thase spare resources first to any other
`queues whish are below the minimum. if there are
`still gpare resources then allocate in tum 1 RAAU
`
`each to the queues that currently have
`
`RAAUg">zero
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Update RAAUG
`
`Update the running difference between the actually
`allocated RAAU (RAAUQ" } and the originally
`determined allocated RAAL RAAUG:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 details an algorithm that is run “when a numberof active users(i.e.
`
`those users knownto have a buffer occupancy greater than zero in any
`
`queue) is greater than a knownfixed parameter, for example
`
`“max_number_queues_serviced’, as defined by the Element Manager (EM).”
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 15 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 15 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`Td. at 10:51—-55. After determming the number of resources RAAUallocated
`
`to each queueat step 610,
`
`[t]he algorithm may then determine whether the number of
`queues that have resources allocated greater than the EM
`parameter-max_number_queues_serviced, as shownin step 615.
`If the number of queues that have resources allocated is greater
`than
`a_
`threshold,
`for
`example
`the EM parameter
`max_number_queues_serviced, the process movesto step 620.
`
`Id. at 11:11-17.
`
`Asdepicted in Figure 6, from step 620 inafirstiteration the algorithm
`
`begins a scheduling processfor data packets where an amountof resources
`
`RAAUgare allocated according to a weighted average of the priority level
`
`of each input flow. 7d. at 10:47—11:10. The weighting of each input flow
`
`using a counter or running backlog, running_RAAU_delta, tracks flows that
`
`have been previously denied transmission.
`
`/d. at 11:22—11:30. In a second
`
`itcration, the running backlog, addedto the resourecs (RAAUg@)allocated to
`
`a given radio bearer provides an adjusted RAAUq’at step 625. Jd. at 11:31—
`
`33. Then, flows with lowest adjusted resource allocations RAAUq’are
`
`dropped, and the remaining resources RAAU@’are divided up amongthe
`
`surviving radio bearers.
`
`/d. at 11:38-44.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims | and 8 are independent. Claims 2—7 each dependdirectly
`
`from claim 1, and claims 9-14 each depend directly from claim 8. Claim 1
`
`is a method claim andillustrates the claimed subject matter andis
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. 1[preamble] A user equipment (UE) comprising:
`
`l[a] a processor communicatively coupled to a
`transmitter and circuitry configured to receive; and
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 16 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 16 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`the processoris configured to:
`
`I[b] cause the circuitry to receive parameters
`associated with a plurality of radio bearers,
`
`1[c] determine a plurality of buffer occupancies,
`wherein each of the plurality of buffer occupancies is
`associated with one or moreradio bearers of the plurality
`of radio bearers,
`
`1[d] cause the transmitter to transmit a message
`including theplurality of buffer occupancicsto a nctwork,
`
`1[e] cause the circuitry to receive a single allocation
`of uplink resources,
`
`1[f] select data from the plurality of radio bearers
`for transmission using the single allocation of uplink
`resources, wherein the selection of the data occurs using a
`first iteration and a seconditeration,
`
`1[g] wherein in the first iteration, the selection of
`the data is selected from a subsetof the plurality of radio
`bearers based on the received parameters,
`
`1[h] wherein in the seconditeration, the selection of
`the data is based on buffered data for respective radio
`bearers, and
`
`1f;] cause the transmitter to transmit
`meluding the selected data.
`
`a_
`
`signal
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:58-14:16.? Independentclaim 8 is a methodclaim reciting “[a]
`
`method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising.” Jd.
`
`at 14:33-34. Otherwisc, independent claim 8 contains the same andsimilar
`
`limitations as claim 1, for example limitation 8[b] “receiving, by the VE,
`
`parameters associated with a plurality of radio bearers.” Id. at 14:35—36.
`
`For consistency, we refer to Petitioner’s claim limitations references
`1[preamble]}-1 [i].
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 17 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 17 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`E.
`
`Prior Artand Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1—14 would have been unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`4, 6-11, and 13-14.|103(a)
`-4, 6-11, and 13-14.[|103(a)
`4 103(a)|Peisa and TS 24.0087
`
`
`1 1
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`Il.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A “prior art reference—in orderto anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—
`
`must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of
`
`the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the
`
`claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (quoting Connelly. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1983)). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing
`
`a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or
`
`* Petitioner supports its challenges with a Declaration of Robert Akl, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003). See infra.
`* The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011 amended 35 U.S.C. §8§ 102-103, effective March
`16, 2013. Because the application from which the *138 patent issued has an
`effective filmg date prior to March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA version of §§ 102-—
`103 applics. See Ex. 1001, code (63).
`> Ex. 1004, US Patent No. 6,850,540 B1 (Feb. 1, 2005).
`° Ex. 1029, US Patent Publ’n No. 2005/0047416A1 (Mar. 3, 2005).
`7 Ex. 1005, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT; TECHNICAL
`SPECIFICATION GROUP CORE NETWORK; MOBILE RADIO INTERFACE LAYER 3
`SPECIFICATION; CORE NETWORK PROTOCOLS; STAGE 3 (Release 6), Global
`System for Mobile Communications, (2004).
`
`10
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 18 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 18 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. , 754 F.3d 952, 958
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`differences betweenthe claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103; KSRint’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550
`
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already knownin
`
`the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for
`
`another knownin the field, the combination must do more thanyield a
`
`predictable result.” KSR,550 U.S. at 416 (citing United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). The question ofobviousnessis resolved based
`
`on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subjcct matter and the
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence,
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383
`
`U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`B.—Levelof Ordinary Skillin the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the 138 patent
`
`[wlould would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical
`engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as
`well as three years of experience in wireless communication
`technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or
`other equivalent degree .
`.
`.
`[a]dditional education could
`substitute for professional experience andvice versa.
`
`Pet. 3 (citmg Ex. 1003 J] 47-49).
`
`11
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 19 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 19 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`Patent Ownerdoesnot expressly dispute Petitioner’s definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`Onthis record, Petitioner’s proposedlevel of ordinary skill in the art
`
`is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the
`
`technology and descriptions in the’ 138 patent and the asserted prior art
`
`references. Okajimav. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`For purposesofthis Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposedlevel of
`
`ordinary skill in theart.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Weinterpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that
`
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Underthis standard, we construe
`
`the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`claim as understood by oncof ordinary skill in the art and the prosccution
`
`history pertaining to the patent.” /d. Furthermore,at this stage in the
`
`proceeding, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to
`
`determine whetherto institute interpartes review. See Nidec Motor Corp.v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. , 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“[W]e need only construe terms “that are in controversy, and only to the
`999
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & ling’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`Petitioner contendsthat “[h]ere, no terms need construction because
`
`the claims read on the priorart identified below underany construction
`
`consistent with Phillips.” Pet.4. Patent Owner, on the other hand, proposes
`
`that the claim term “a subset of the plurality of radio bearers” means“less
`
`thanall of the plurality of radio bearers.” Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner
`
`arguesthat
`
`12
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 20 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 20 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`[t]he “subset of the plurality of radio bearers” referred to in
`independent claim 1 of the ‘138 Patent (and independent claim
`8) correspondsto the ‘maxnumberqueuesserviced’ parameter
`discussed above in connection with, e.g., Step 628. The
`‘maxnumberqueuesserviced’ value clearly corresponds to
`less than all queues, becauseit is used when the numberofactive
`users “is greater than” the ‘max_number_queues_serviced’
`value.
`
`/d. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:52—54). Based on the written description,
`
`Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Lomptestifies that the subsct of radio bearers
`
`correspondsto “the ‘maxnumberqueuesserviced’ parameter discussed
`
`above in connection with, e.g., Step 628.” Ex. 2001] 47. Dr. Lomp
`
`testifies further that “[t]he “maxnumberqueuesserviced’ value
`
`correspondsto less than all queues, becauseit is used when the number of
`
`active users ‘is greater than’ the ‘max_number_queues_serviced’ value.”
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 10:52—54). Dr. Lomp concludesthat “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, reading the claim in hight of the specification, would
`
`understandthe ‘subsetof the plurality of radio bearers’ referred to in Claim
`
`1 to mean‘less than all of the plurality of radio bears.’” Id.
`
`Petitioner responds, arguing that “Patent Owner’s plain-meaning
`
`construction in district court covers both less than and all of the plurality of
`
`radio bearers.” Reply 1. Petitioner argues, specifically, that Patent Owner
`
`has indicated byits infringement contentions,that “subset” covers even the
`
`situation where,in the accused instrumentalities,“[a]ll the logical channels
`
`with Bj>0 are allocated resources tn a decreasing priority order.” /d. (citing
`
`Ex. 1008, 30). We appreciate that within the context ofits infringement
`
`contentions Patent Owner may be advocating fora broader scope of “subset”
`
`in the district court litigation, perhaps in an attempt to encompassccrtain
`
`accused devices and functionality. Ex. 1008, 30. However, such
`
`13
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 21 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 21 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`infringement contentions, and any relevant claim constructions with respect
`
`to infringement, are the purview ofthe district court. Our jurisdictionis
`
`confined mainly to patentability, and in this proceeding Patent Owner
`
`expressly argues that the “subset” limitation means“less than all of the
`
`plurality of radio bearers.” For the reasons below, we agree with Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction that “a subset of the plurality of radio
`
`bearers,” means“less than all of the plurality of radio bearers.”
`
`First, the plain language itself supports Patent Owner’s construction.
`
`See TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC,929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019) (“We begin our analysis with the claim language.”). Read in context,
`
`claim | recites in part:
`
`the processor 1s configured to:
`
`1[b] cause the circuitry to receive parameters associated
`with a pluralityofradio bearers,
`
`1[f] select data from the plurality of radio bearers for
`transmission using the single allocation of uplink resources,
`wherein the selection of the data occursusinga first iteration and
`a seconditeration,
`
`1[g] wherein in the first iteration, the selection of the data
`is selectedfrom a subset of the plurality of radio bearers based
`on the received parameters,
`
`Id. at 13:61—14:11 (emphasis added).
`
`Claim 1 initially recites “a plurality of radio bearers”in limitation 1[b]
`
`which plainly means more than one radio bearer.
`
`/d. at 13:63. With this
`
`antecedentbasis, the processorwill at limitation 1[f] “select data from the
`
`plurality of radio bearers.” Jd. at 13:6. Whatis notclear, initially,
`
`is
`
`whetherdata 1s required to be selected from all radio bearers, or less thanall
`
`radio bearers, because the claim does not specify, e.g., “all,” “each,” or “at
`
`14
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 22 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 22 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`least one of”the plurality of radio bearers. A plain reading ofthe claim, up
`
`until this point, is that the processor can select data from all orless thanall
`
`radio bearers.
`
`/d. at 14:5-6.
`
`The following limitation I[g], however, providesthat “in thefirst
`
`iteration .. . datais selected from a subset of the plurality of radio bearers.”
`
`Id. at 14:10—-11 (emphasis added). This clause does not simply reiterate “the
`
`plurality of radio bearers,” but expressly adds “a subset.” The word “subset”
`
`plainly modifies “a plurality of radio bearers,” and must have somelimiting
`
`meaning. For example, if we wereto interpret “subset” as encompassingall
`
`or less than all of the radio bearersas Petitioner asserts, than the word,i.c.,
`
`limitation, “subset”is entirely unnecessary, given that the claim already
`
`provides such broader meaning. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc. , 508
`
`F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructionsthat
`
`renderphrascs in claims superfluous). See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441
`
`F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward
`
`giving effect to all terms tn the claim’).
`
`Indeed,if “a subset” can include
`
`data selected from a// the radio bearer’s then Petitioner’s interpretation
`
`reads the term “subset”essentially, if not entirely, out of the claim.
`
`Weacknowledgethat dictionary definitions of“subset” often provide
`
`twointerpretations. For example, Dictionary.com providesthat subset
`
`means “a set that is a part of a larger set,” and alternatively, in
`
`mathematics, “a set consisting of elements of a given set that can be the
`
`sameas the given set or smaller.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse
`
`/subset(last visited December 26, 2022). Despite the mathematical concept
`
`that a subset can includeall, or fewer, membersofa given set, a plain
`
`reading ofclaim|is that “subset” must be somethingless thanall radio
`
`bearer’s,at least because as discussed above, we give credence to the word
`
`15
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 23 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Ex.1002 / Page 23 of 337
`TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01 127
`Patent 10,292,138 B2
`
`“subset” as an express claim limitation. See Becton, Dickinson & Co.v.
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (The
`
`Federal Circuit refusing to adopt a claim construction which would render a
`
`claim limitation meaningless).
`
`In addition, we disagree with Peti