olddog967, thanks.
At least it looks like IDCC won some. As we know, it's
never good when the defendant wins everything. Here's an example
of what could be considered a 'partial win':
I do not agree with Defendants that interpreting the plurality of channels to exclude control channels renders claim 7 superfluous. Plaintiffs interpretation of the plurality includes data channels and voice channels. Claim 7 limiting it to data channels is therefore not superfluous. Defendants' interpretation, on the other hand, would require a device to perform an action that it is literally incapable of performing. Subscriber units cannot release control channels; claims 5 and 21 would require the subscriber unit's processor to do so if Defendants' interpretation were adopted.
I do not, however, entirely agree with Plaintiffs' construction. Plaintiffs propose to replace "via" with "over." (D.1. 473 at 1). They have presented no persuasive justification for doing so. In addition, "transfer data" does not clearly communicate that the transceiver both
sends and receives data. As Defendants note, the channels are bidirectional. The specification notes that the "cellular base station 605 transmits and receives data .... " ('244 patent, col. 8, ll. 26-27). Since the station is communicating with the subscriber unit, the subscriber unit must also send and receive data. In addition, the specification states that "data signals travel bidirectionally across the CDMA radio channels." ('244 patent, col. 10, 11. 21-22). I will therefore construe "configured to communicate ... via a plurality of assigned physical channels" as "configured to send and receive data ... via a plurality of assigned physical channels.">>
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
