Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-2020
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Central District of California in No. 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-
`GJS, Judge John A. Kronstadt.
`______________________
`
`Decided: August 14, 2023
`______________________
`
`DOUGLAS GLEN MUEHLHAUSER, Knobbe, Martens, Ol-
`son & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
`Also represented by PAYSON J. LEMEILLEUR.
`
` HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
`for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DENA CHEN,
`BENJAMIN S. LIN, LOWELL D. MEAD.
` ______________________
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`2
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Chief Judge.
`One-E-Way, Inc. (One-E-Way) appeals from the U.S.
`District Court for the Central District of California’s grant
`of summary judgment that Apple Inc.’s (Apple) accused
`products do not infringe the asserted claims of One-E-
`Way’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,129,627 and 10,468,047. We af-
`firm.
`
`BACKGROUND
`One-E-Way’s asserted patents relate to “a wireless dig-
`ital audio system for coded digital transmission of an audio
`signal from any audio player with an analog headphone
`jack to a receiver headphone located away from the audio
`player.” ’627 patent at 1:66–2:3.1 The written description
`explains the system “provides private listening without in-
`terference from other users or wireless devices and without
`the use of conventional cable connections.” Id. at 2:10–13.
`The system includes, among other things, a battery-pow-
`ered transmitter connected to an audio source and a bat-
`tery-powered receiver connected to headphone speakers.
`Id. at 2:40–64, Fig. 1. The transmitter contains a code gen-
`erator which may generate a unique user code “specifically
`associated with one wireless digital audio system user.” Id.
`at 2:64–3:1. The unique user code is used to pair the trans-
`mitter and receiver such that each headphone user “may
`be able to listen (privately) to high fidelity audio music . . .
`without interference from any other receiver headphone
`user.” Id. at 3:42–46.
`Claim 1 of the ’627 patent is representative and recites:
`
`
`1 Because the ’627 and ’047 patents share the same
`specification, we cite only to the ’627 patent.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.
`
`3
`
`A wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver,
`capable of mobile operation, configured to receive a
`unique user code and a high quality audio signal
`representation with a frequency range of 20 Hz to
`20 kHz from a digital audio spread spectrum trans-
`mitter, said audio signal representation repre-
`sentative of audio from a portable audio source,
`said digital audio spread spectrum receiver opera-
`tive to communicate wirelessly with said digital au-
`dio spread spectrum transmitter, said digital audio
`spread spectrum receiver comprising:
`a direct conversion module configured to
`receive wireless spread spectrum signal
`transmissions representative of the unique
`user code and the high quality audio signal
`representation, wherein the received trans-
`missions are encoded to reduce intersymbol
`interference, wherein the wireless digital
`audio spread spectrum receiver is capable
`of processing the high quality audio signal
`having a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20
`kHz;
`a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) config-
`ured to generate an audio output from said
`receiver audio signal representation; and
`a speaker configured to reproduce said gen-
`erated audio output, wherein said repro-
`duction does not include audible audio
`content originating from any transmitted
`audio signals in the wireless digital audio
`spread spectrum transmitter spectrum
`that do not originate from said digital audio
`spread spectrum transmitter;
`wherein the wireless digital audio spread
`spectrum receiver is configured to use inde-
`pendent code division multiple access
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`4
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.
`
`communication and to use the received
`unique user code to communicate with only
`said wireless digital audio spread spectrum
`transmitter for the duration of a wireless
`connection; and
`wherein the wireless digital audio spread
`spectrum receiver is further configured to:
`demodulate a received modulated
`transmission, and
`generate a demodulated signal
`based on the received modulated
`transmission by performing at
`least one of a plurality of demodu-
`lations, wherein the plurality of de-
`modulations includes a differential
`phase shift keying (DPSK) demod-
`ulation and also includes a non-
`DPSK demodulation.
`’627 patent at claim 1 (emphases added).
`After One-E-Way sued Apple for infringement, the par-
`ties agreed the term “unique user code” means “fixed code
`(bit sequence) specifically associated with one user of a de-
`vice(s).” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Claim Construction
`Order), 2022 WL 2189529, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022).
`The district court accepted the construction and issued an
`order stating the construction was binding on the parties.
`Id. Apple moved for summary judgment of noninfringe-
`ment contending its accused Bluetooth-compliant devices
`do not include a “unique user code” under the agreed-upon
`construction because its devices contain codes associated
`with devices, not users. One-E-Way responded that the
`“unique user code” is associated with a user through the
`operation of the device and the accused Bluetooth-compli-
`ant devices therefore infringe the asserted claims. See gen-
`erally J.A. 1327–54.
` The parties disputed
`the
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.
`
`5
`
`interpretation and application of the stipulated construc-
`tion. The district court held the plain meaning of the stip-
`ulated construction of “unique user code” “means that the
`code is ‘associated with one user of a device(s),’ and not the
`device itself.” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Summary
`Judgment Order), 2022 WL 2564002, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June
`15, 2022). The court granted summary judgment because
`the accused Bluetooth-complaint devices are “user-agnos-
`tic,” which cannot meet the “unique user code” limitation.
`Id. at *9. One-E-Way appeals. We have jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We review the district court’s grant of summary judg-
`ment according to the law of the regional circuit. Neville v.
`Found. Constructors, Inc., 972 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`2020). The Ninth Circuit reviews summary judgment de
`novo. Id. (citing Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851
`F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2017)). “[T]he ultimate question of
`the proper construction of the patent [is] a question of law.”
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 325
`(2015). “[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence in-
`trinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications,
`along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s de-
`termination will amount solely to a determination of law,
`and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de
`novo.” Id. at 331.
`The parties dispute whether the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the agreed-upon construction for “unique user
`code” means the code is associated with a user or device.
`One-E-Way argues the district court narrowly interpreted
`the construction to require additional, unclaimed features.
`Apple argues the district court correctly interpreted the
`construction under the plain meaning of the term. We
`agree with the district court that, under the plain meaning
`of the phrase “associated with one user of a device(s),” the
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`6
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.
`
`unique user code is associated with one user of a device and
`not the device itself.
`Claims are generally given their “ordinary and custom-
`ary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the
`context of the claim, specification, and prosecution history.
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Here, the specification
`supports the conclusion that the plain meaning of “one user
`of a device” refers to a code associated with the user of a
`device rather than the device itself. The patents distin-
`guish between users and devices when describing the pur-
`pose of the invention. See ’627 patent at 2:10–13 (“The
`wireless digital audio music system provides private listen-
`ing without interference from other users or wireless de-
`vices. . . .”).
` Additionally,
`the written description
`consistently associates the “unique user code” with a
`“user.” For example, when describing aspects of the inven-
`tion, the specification states “[t]he unique user code gener-
`ated is specifically associated with one wireless digital
`audio system user, and it is the only code recognized by the
`battery powered headphone receiver 50 operated by a par-
`ticular user.” Id. at 2:66–3:3 (emphases added). Other por-
`tions of the specification also describe the user code as
`associated with a particular user. See, e.g., id. at 3:23–26
`(“The receiver code generator 60 may contain the same
`unique wireless transmission of a signal code word that
`was transmitted by audio transmitter 20 specific to a par-
`ticular user.”). The patents’ consistent reference to “user”
`and “device” as distinct entities and association of the
`unique user code with “user” supports the district court’s
`conclusion that “one user of a device” does not mean the
`device itself.
`The prosecution history further supports this under-
`standing of “one user of a device.” For example, in the pros-
`ecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/648,012—a
`parent application with the same written description as the
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 7 Filed: 08/14/2023
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. APPLE INC.
`
`7
`
`asserted patents—the applicant overcame prior art by dis-
`tinguishing between user codes and device codes. J.A. 928,
`941–42. Specifically, the applicant contended U.S. Patent
`No. 5,491,839 (Schotz) uses “codes [that] are assigned to
`specific devices for a single household—not individual us-
`ers.” J.A. 942. Because the codes were assigned to devices,
`the applicant explained “the Schotz code may be properly
`deemed a ‘device code’ as opposed to a ‘user code’ as in the
`present invention.” Id. The applicant’s own description of
`the term “user code” supports the conclusion that a skilled
`artisan would understand the ordinary meaning of the
`term, in the context of the intrinsic record, does not mean
`device code. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“[A] court should
`also consider the patent’s prosecution history. . . .” (cita-
`tions omitted)). Because the prosecution history supports
`the district court’s understanding, we need not decide
`whether such statements rise to the level of prosecution
`history disclaimer. See Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson
`Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`We conclude “unique user code” is associated with one
`user of a device, and not the device itself. Because the par-
`ties agreed there is no genuine dispute of material fact that
`Apple’s accused Bluetooth-complaint devices do not in-
`fringe under such construction, we therefore affirm the dis-
`trict
`court’s
`grant
`of
`summary
`judgment
`of
`noninfringement.
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered One-E-Way’s remaining argu-
`ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given,
`we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment
`of noninfringement.
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`Costs awarded to Apple.
`
`