United States District Court, D. Delaware
E. Farnan, Esq., Michael J. Farnan, Esq., FARNAN LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Peter J. McAndrews, Esq., Paul W. McAndrews,
Esq., MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, Chicago, IL; David
Prange, Esq., ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Attorneys
C. Connolly, Esq., Jody C. Barillare, Esq., MORGAN LEWIS
& BOCKJUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esq.,
MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott Burnett Smith, Esq.,
BRADLEY ARANT, Huntsville, AL; Ross Barton, Esq., ALSTON
& BIRD LLP, Charlotte, NC; Garland T. Stephens, Esq.,
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, Houston, TX. Attorneys for
ANDREWS, U.S DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the issue of claim construction of
multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 462, 835 ("the
'835 patent") and 8, 594, 162 ("the '162
patent"). The Court has considered the Parties'
Joint Claim Construction Brief (Civ. Act. No. 13-01835-RGA,
D.I. 459; Civ. Act. No. 13-02013-RGA, D.I. 443; Civ. Act. No.
14-00954-RGA, D.I. 298; Civ. Act. No. 15-00121-RGA; D.I.
299). The Court heard oral argument on June 21,
patents-in-suit represent "Family 6" of the patents
that Plaintiff has asserted against Defendants. (D.I. 459 at
1). The parties divide the contested patents into ten patent
families. (e.g. D.I. 269). The Family 6 patents
provide a "solution for impulse noise protection
adaptation," namely, "features that improve a
communication system's ability to deliver a sufficiently
low error rate in the presence of impulse noise without (a)
compromising high data rate and low latency performance more
than necessary, or (b) requiring repeated and lengthy
reinitialization procedures that interrupt steady-state data
transmission." (D.I. 459 at 17, 20).
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, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4,
2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324)
(alteration in original). When construing patent claims, 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 quotation marks omitted).
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."
Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal 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.
court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent
claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the
court's construction is a determination of law. See
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831,
841 (2015). The court may also make factual findings based
upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which
"consists of all evidence external to the patent and
prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1317-19. Extrinsic evidence may assist the court
in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of
terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.
Id. Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable
and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its
prosecution history. Id.
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) (citation
TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
asserted '835 patent claims read as follows:
8. An apparatus configurable to adapt forward error
correction and interleaver parameter (FIP) settings during
steady-state communication or initialization comprising:
a transceiver, including a processor, configurable to:
transmit a signal using a first FIP setting,
transmit a flag signal, and
switch to using for transmission, a second FIP
setting following transmission of the flag
wherein: the first FIP setting comprises at least
one first FIP value,
the second FIP setting comprises at least one second
FIP value, different than the first FIP value, and
the switching occurs on a pre-defined forward error
correction codeword boundary following the flag
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein a first interleaver
parameter value of the first FIP setting is
different than a second interleaver parameter value
of the second FIP setting.
('835 patent, claims 8, 10) (disputed terms italicized).
The asserted '162 patent claims read as follows:
an interleaver configured to interleave a plurality of bits;
and a transmitter portion coupled to the interleaver and
transmit using a first interleaver parameter value;
transmit a flag signal; and
change to transmitting using a second interleaver
parameter value that is different than the first
interleaver parameter value,
wherein the second interleaver parameter value is used
for transmission on a predefined forward error correction
codeword boundary following transmission of the flag
9. The device of claim 8, wherein the flag signal is
an inverted sync symbol.
('162 patent, claims 8, 9).
parties represented at oral argument that they agree to be
bound by the Court's construction of