Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

August 12, 2016, Decided; August 12, 2016, Filed

C.A. No. 13-1668-LPS; C.A. No. 13-1669-LPS; C.A. No. 13-1670-LPS; C.A. No. 13-1671-LPS; C.A. No. 13-1672-LPS; C.A. No. 14-1229-LPS; C.A. No. 14-1230-LPS; C.A. No. 14-1231-LPS; C.A. No. 14-1232-LPS; C.A. No. 14-1233-LPS

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

/s/ Leonard P. Stark

STARK, U.S. District Judge:

Plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC ("Plaintiffs") filed this patent infringement suit against AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., Cricket Communications, Inc., Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., and United States Cellular Corporation (collectively, "Defendants") on October 7, 2013. (D.I. 1)1 Pending is the issue of claim construction for several disputed terms in the patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (-the '831 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,952,408 ("the '408 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,640,248 ("the '248 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994 ("the '994 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 ("the '431 patent").2

The parties submitted a joint claim construction brief ("JCCB") on March 9, 2016. (D.I. 208) The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 4, 2016. (D.I. 239) ("Tr.") After the hearing, the Court ordered additional briefing regarding the '408 patent (D.I. 226), which was completed on April 25, 2016 (D.I. 230, 232, 236, 237).

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Claim construction is a question of law. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837, 190 L. Ed. 2d 719 (2015) (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-91, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996)). "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) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction." Id. at 1324. Instead, the court is free to attach appropriate weight to sources "in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law." Id.

"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and [*4]  customary meaning . . . . [This 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 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). The patent 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." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107273 *

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC; AT&T MOBILITY II LLC; and NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff, v. LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff, v. NEXTEL OPERATIONS, INC. and SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION, Defendant, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC; AT&T MOBILITY II LLC; and NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, v. LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, v. NEXTEL OPERATIONS, INC. and SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendants, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION, Defendant, and ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Intervenors.

Prior History: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125280 (D. Del., Sept. 8, 2014)

CORE TERMS

packets, tier, patent, preamble, Means-plus-function, signal, users, frequency, algorithm, bandwidth, digital, proportion, queues, layer, hopping, indefinite, invention, channels, radio, blocks, drop-out, sequence, equation, optimize, software, corresponding, transmission, intrinsic, queued, extrinsic