InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Data_Rox]

InterDigital Objections to Special Master’s Report, as summarized by Ericsson

(posted by brokentrade on RB club)

Sooner or later, unless there is a settlement, we will learn how the Court ruled on the objections by InterDigital and Ericsson to the Special Master’s Report. Some clues may be in the recent unsealed documents filed by Ericsson, and the following may help those who will be keeping score. It is quoted from Ericsson’s Response to InterDigital’s Objections to the Special Master’s Final Report on Claim Construction, (Oct. 25, 2000) and provides a summary of InterDigital’s objections from Ericsson’s point of view. I have left out the arguments and citations, for the most part.
-------------
Defendant InterDigital globally objects to anything and everything in the Special Master’s Final Report and Recommendations on Claim Construction that differs from InterDigital’s proposed constructions. It then goes on to particularize its objections to fifteen of the twenty-plus claim constructions recommended by the Special Master.

A. The Claims are limited to one and only one base station.

The Special Master correctly determined that the asserted claims of the ‘089, ‘705, and ‘358 patents and Claims 4 and 7 of the’194 patent are limited to “a single base station, i.e., a single cell system.” See Report at 19-56. InterDigital asserts a variety of old and new arguments as objections to that construction.

[footnote: Ericsson acknowledges that the Special Master did not limit Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘194 Patent to one and only one base station]

InterDigital objects to the Special Master’s construction based upon its old arguments that (1)the term “a base station” should not be limited to the singular and (2) the Special Master’s use of the language “single cell system” is not supported by the intrinsic evidence and “may be subject to further dispute.” ... In particular, during the prosecution of the System Patents, InterDigital expressly limited its invention to a single base station/single cell system in order to distinguish over the prior art.

InterDigital’s second objection is a last ditch effort to evade the enormous impact of the Special Master’s recommendation. InterDigital argued below that the claims should not be limited to a single base station, based on its view of the claim language. It now asserts erroneously that the term ‘single cell’ is not in the intrinsic evidence. To the contrary, the term is easily located among the representations InterDigital made to the Patent Office during prosecution of the System Patents. The Special Master’s ruling that the patentee expressly limited the claims to one and only base station, i.e. a single cell system, is based upon InterDigital’s own words.

InterDigital now argues, for the first time, that the term ‘cell’ is unclear and subject to further dispute. Underlying this new argument is a belated effort to avoid non-infringement as a matter of law. There is , however, no genuine dispute over the term ‘cell’. InterDigital must face the consequence of the definitions it used during prosecution.

B. Other Objections Concerning Claims 8 and 11 of the ‘089 Patent

InterDigital has also objected to three of the Special Master’s other constructions for Claims 8 and 11 of the ‘089 Patent. In particular, InterDigital objects to the construction (1) that the term ‘analog information signals” means information signals in analog format, (2) that the corresponding structure for the “conversion means” element is unspecified conversion devices in a model UTX-250 system, and (3) that the corresponding structure for the “signal compression means” element is codecs using either a RELP or SBC compression algorithm.

C. Claim 1 of the ‘705 Patent

With respect to the ‘705 Patent, InterDigital raises the same objections it raised against the Special Master’s construction of the asserted claims of the ‘089. (Recall that Claim 1 of the ‘089 patent is the same as Claim 1 of the ‘705 patent, except for the last element in each respective claim.) These objections should be overrruled for the same reasons set forth above in connection with the ‘089 Patent.

InterDigital also objects to the Special Master’s construction that the corresponding structure for the “means to determine synchronization” element of the ‘705 Patent includes a 12-bit code word. The Special Master found that “the specification expressly states that the twelve-bit code word is used to determine synchronization between the subscriber and the base station, i.e., the twelve-bit code word is, per the express language of the specification, the ‘corresponding structure’ that performs the claimed function of determining synchronization.”

D. Claims 9 and 11 of the ‘358 Patent
InterDigital objects to the Special Master’s construction of the asserted claims of the ‘358 Patent on two grounds. First, InterDigital objects to the Special Master’s construction limiting Claims 9 and 11 to one and only one base station (see InterDigital Objections at 19-21 and 23-25). Second, InterDigital objects to the Special Master’s ruling that the 12-bit code word is part of the corresponding structure of the ‘means to provide a periodic exchange’ element in Claims 9 and 11.

E. Claims 1 and 4 of the ‘194 Patent
1. The Special Master construed the claim term “assigning pathing” in Claim 1 of the ‘194 Patent to mean assigning a call to a “hardware-mapped signal path.” InterDigital objects to this construction to the extent the “pathing” being assigned is a “hardware-mapped signal path.”

2. InterDigital objects to the Special Master’s construction limiting Claim 4 of the ‘194 Patent to one and only one base station.

F. Claim 3 of the ‘420 Patent
1. The Special Master construed the term “selective communication” in Claim 3 of the ‘420 Patent to mean that subscriber stations may be a predefined member of more than one network, but a subscriber station can communicate directly with only one network at a time. InterDigital objects to the construction that a subscriber station can communicate directly with only one network at a time.

2. InterDigital also objects to the Special Master’s construction of the corresponding structure for the “means coupled to the internal timing generator for processing the offset value” (i.e. the last element of Claim 3). In particular, InterDigital argues that the corresponding structure should not include the internal timing generator.... InterDigital’s proposed modification to the Special Master’s construction improperly seeks to remove the “associated software” from the corresponding structure. As the Special Master properly found, the associated software is a necessary part of the corresponding structure to perform the claimed function of the “means-plus-function” element. The ruling that software is part of the corresponding structure is key to the underlying dispute about this claim element.

G. Claim 1 of the ‘450 Patent
In connection with the “assignment means” element of Claim 1 of the ‘450 Patent, the Special Master determined that the corresponding structure must be capable of performing the claimed assignment function in the event of either of two recited conditions, i.e. (1) “the coming on line of an additional subscriber” or (2) “a deterioration in transmission between the base station and a subscrib er station in communication therewith.” InterDigital objects to the Special Master’s construction and argues that, because the claim element was drafted in the disjunctive, the corresponding structure need only be capable of performing assignment function in the event of only one of the recited conditions. The Special Master correctly found that the corresponding structure must be capable of performing the claimed function in the event of either of the two recited conditions in the claimed function.