United States District Court, D. Delaware
Richard G. Andrews United States District Judge
before the Court is ADTRAN's Motion for Reargument and
Claim Construction in light of the Court's Opinion (D.I.
804) on ADTRAN's Motion for Claim Construction and
Summary Judgment on the '956 and '411 Patents. (D.I.
831). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and related papers. (D.I. 831, 859).
motion arises from an ongoing dispute between the parties as
to ten of the patents-in-suit (the "Disputed
Patents"). I summarized the relevant background in my
September 11, 2019 Summary Judgment Opinion and incorporate
that background here. (D.I. 804 at 1-2).
"[T]he [first/second] allocated portion of the shared
memory" in '956 patent, claim 31
requests that I construe the term "the [first/second]
allocated portion of the shared memory" in claim 31 of
the '956 patent to mean "the total amount of the
shared memory allocated during the allocating to the
[deinterleaving/packet retranmission] function." (D.I.
831 at 3). ADTRAN argues that because TQ Delta disagrees with
exactly what is included in the "shared memory," I
must construe the term. (Id. at 2). This dispute,
however, is not one of claim scope, but instead about how the
term is applied to the accused products. (See D.I.
804 at 7-8). This fact question is reserved for the jury,
thus ADTRAN's motion is DENIED as to this term.
"[T]he memory" in '411 patent, claim
asks that I construe the term "the memory" in claim
10 of the '411 patent to mean the "total amount of
memory allocated during the allocating of the memory."
(D.I. 831 at 4). Similar to above, the issue here is not of
the scope of "the memory" but rather how "the
memory" applies to the accused products. (See
D.I. 804 at 8). This too is a question of fact for the jury
and ADTRAN's motion is DENIED as to this term.
"[H]as been allocated" in '411 patent, claim
September 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion, I construed the term
"memory . .. allocated" to have its plain and
ordinary meaning. (D.I. 804 at 7). Because the phrase has
multiple plain and ordinary meanings, the instant meaning
must be ascertained from the context of the particular claim.
(Id. at 6). The parties now contend that there is a
dispute as to what the plain and ordinary meaning of
"memory . . . allocated" is in the context of
'411 patent, claim 10. (D.I. 831 at 4-5; D.I. 859 at 7).
"[T]he plain and ordinary meaning may be inadequate when
a term has more than one 'ordinary' meaning or when
reliance on a term's 'ordinary' meaning does not
resolve the parties' dispute." 02 Micro
Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521
F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This dispute is over claim
scope, not of the surrounding facts, and so I must resolve
10 of the '411 patent reads:
A transceiver capable of packet retransmission
a transmitter portion capable of: transmitting a
plurality of packets, identifying at least one packet of the
plurality of packets as a packet that should be retransmitted
and allocating a memory between a retransmission function and
an interleaving and/or deinterleaving function, wherein at
least a portion of the memory may be allocated to the
retransmission function or to the interleaving and/or
deinterleaving function at any one particular time, and
wherein a message transmitted during initialization indicates
how the memory has ...