Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

M2m Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

United States District Court, Third Circuit

November 12, 2013

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC. and SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., Defendants. M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES GMBH and CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES NAFTA LLC, Defendants. M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ENFORA, INC., NOVATEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, INC., and NOVATEL WIRELESS, INC., Defendants. M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. TELIT COMMUNICATIONS PLC, and TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants. M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SIMCOM WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO., LTD., SIM TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD., MICRON ELECTRONICS L.L.C., and KOWATEC CORPORATION, Defendants.

Richard D. Kirk, Esq., BAYARD, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Marc N. Henschke, Esq. (argued), FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Boston, MA. Attorneys for Plaintiff M2M Solutions LLC.

Thomas C. Grimm, Esq., MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher Mooney, Esq., NIXON PEABODY LLP, Palo Alto, CA. Attorneys for Defendants Sierra Wireless America, Inc. and Sierra Wireless, Inc.

Richard L. Horwitz, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian A. Rosenthal, Esq. (argued), MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, DC; Bryon T. Wasserman, Esq., MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, DC. Attorneys for Defendants Cinterion Wireless Modules GmbH and Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC.

Francis DiGiovanni, Esq., NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE & QUIGG, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Bettinger, Esq. (argued), K&L GATES LLP, San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for Defendants Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc. and Novatel Wireless, Inc.

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; David A. Loewenstein, Esq. (argued), PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER, New York, NY. Attorneys for Defendants Motorola Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications PLC, and Telit Wireless Solutions Inc.

George Pazuniak, Esq., O'KELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Wenye Tan, Esq., Anova Law Group, PLLC, Sterling, VA. Attorneys for Defendant Kowatec Corporation.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.

Pending before this Court is the issue of claim construction of various disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 094, 010 ("'010 patent") and 7, 583, 197 ("'197 patent").[1]

I. BACKGROUND

On January 1, 2012, M2M Solutions LLC ("Plaintiff') filed five patent infringement actions.[2] (Nos. 12-30, 12-31, 12-32, 12-33, and 12-34). The defendants are Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc., Cinterion Wireless Modules GmbH, Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC, Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., Novatel Wireless, Inc., Motorola Solutions, Inc., Telit Communications PLC, Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., Simcom Wireless Solutions Co., Sim Technology Group Ltd., [3] and Kowatec Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"). The patents in suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 094, 010 and 7, 583, 197. The Court has considered the parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 54), appendix (D.I. 55), Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement (D.I. 60), and oral argument on September 12, 2013. (D.I. 70).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). " [T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324). When construing patent claims, a matter of law, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Furthermore, "the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning... [which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). "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." Id. at 1314 (internal citations omitted).

A court may consider extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, " in order to assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art and how the invention works. Id. at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, extrinsic evidence is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history. Id.

Finally, "[a] claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS

A. U.S. Patent No. 8, 094, 010

1. "permitted caller"

a. Plaintiff's proposed construction: "A network-connected device from which the programmable communicator device is permitted to receive incoming transmissions for processing, and/or to which the programmable communicator device is permitted to send outgoing transmissions."

b. Defendants' proposed construction: "A telephone number or IP address on a list of numbers that are designated to cause the programmable communicator to ring or answer when an incoming call is received from that number."

c. Court's construction: "A telephone number or IP address on a list of numbers that are designated to cause the programmable communicator to accept an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.