Interdigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
| Decision Date | 01 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010–1093.,2010–1093. |
| Citation | 34 ITRD 1841,690 F.3d 1318,103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1610 |
| Parties | INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Allen M. Sokal, Don O. Burley, Smith R. Brittingham IV, and Houtan Khalili Esfahani; and Christopher P. Isaac, of Reston, Virginia. Of counsel was Kara F. Stoll. Of counsel on the brief were Seth P. Waxman, William G. McElwain, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Washington, DC; and Mark C. Fleming and Lauren B. Fletcher, of Boston, Massachusetts.
Megan M. Valentine, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were James M. Lyons, General Counsel, and Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel.
Patrick J. Flinn, Alston & Bird LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for intervenors. With him on the brief were John Haynes; and Ross R. Barton, of Charlotte, North Carolina. Of counsel were Paul F. Brinkman, of Washington, DC; and Madison C. Jellins, of Palo Alto, California.
Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON.
InterDigital Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation (collectively, “InterDigital”) appeal from an order of the International Trade Commission finding that InterDigital's patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 (“the '966 patent”) and 7,286,847 (“the '847 patent”), were not infringed by Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”). We hold that the Commission erred in construing certain critical claim terms in both patents. We therefore reverse the Commission's order finding no infringement and remand this case to the Commission for further proceedings.
The patents in suit, which are directed to wireless cellular telephone technology, are both entitled “Method and Apparatus for Performing an Access Procedure.” They share a common specification. The patents focus on apparatus and methods for controlling transmission power during the “handshake” portion of a wireless cellular communication, which is the portion of the communication in which a cellphone establishes contact with a cellular base station in order to initiate a cellphone call. The claimed invention operates within a system that uses Code Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) to allow multiple cellphones (referred to as “subscriber units”) within a certain geographical area to use the same portion of the radio frequency spectrum simultaneously. Unlike its predecessor systems, CDMA does not separate communications from different subscriber units by assigning them different time slots or different frequencies on the radio frequency spectrum. Instead, it assigns a unique code to each communication link, which is known as a CDMA channel. That code is then used to encode and decode the data-carrying signal that transmitsthe telephonic messages between the cellphone and the base station. The encoding process allows data signals from multiple sources to be transmitted at the same time and over the same frequency, while enabling the base station to use the special codes to separate the data signals from each source for further processing.
The CDMA system is able to use a single portion of the frequency spectrum for multiple simultaneous communications by employing a process known as “spreading.” As described in the common specification, each subscriber unit's baseband data signal (the signal that carries the telephonic communications) “is multiplied by a code sequence, called the ‘spreading code,’ which has a much higher rate than the data.” '966 patent, col. 2, ll. 3–5. In other words, the spreading code modifies the data signal so that the modified signal is transmitted at a faster rate and contains more information. That process results in “a much wider transmission spectrum than the spectrum of the baseband data signal,” id., col. 2, ll. 7–9, which enables the system to carry multiple communications over the same frequency at the same time and allows the base station to more easily extract the constituent baseband data signals.
One problem associated with such a system is that signals within the same geographical area can interfere with one another, causing data loss. To combat that problem and to reduce unnecessary power consumption, the '966 and ' 847 patents use a “power ramp-up” strategy, which limits the power level of initiation messages sent during the handshake period. The power ramp-up begins when the subscriber unit transmits a unique code signal at a power level known to be below the power level needed for detection by the base station. The subscriber unit then transmits the code signal at successively higher power levels; once the power level reaches the point at which the base station is able to detect the signal, the base station sends an acknowledgement signal to the subscriber unit. When the subscriber unit receives the acknowledgment signal, it fixes the current power level as the designated power level for future communications. The connection is then completed, the subscriber unit and the base station are synchronized, and the data constituting the telephonic message is ready to be transmitted.
The 966 patent, which is representative in pertinent part of all the claims asserted in this action, recites:
1. A wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber unit comprising:
a transmitter configured such that, when the subscriber unit is first accessing a CDMA network and wants to establish communications with a base station associated with the network over a communication channel to be indicated by the base station, the transmitter successively transmits signals until the subscriber unit receives from the base station an indication that a transmitted one of the signals has been detected by the base station, wherein each transmission of one of the signals by the transmitter is at an increased power level with respect to a prior transmission of one of the signals;
the transmitter further configured such that the transmitter transmits to the base station a message indicating to the base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the communications with the base station over the communication channel to be indicated by the base station, the message being transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the indication, wherein each of the successively transmitted signals and the message are generated using a same code; and
wherein each of the successively transmitted signals is shorter than the message.
The common specification describes an embodiment of the invention in which the base station transmits a “pilot code” to all of the subscriber units within the transmitting range of the base station. The “pilot code” is described as a “spreading code which carries no data bits.” '966 patent, col. 5, line 10. The subscriber unit then synchronizes its “transmit spreading code” to the base station pilot code. Id., col. 5, ll. 22–32. Once the subscriber unit and the base station are synchronized, the subscriber unit can initiate a communication by transmitting an “access code,” which is “a known spreading code transmitted from a subscriber unit ... to the base station ... during initiation of communications and power ramp-up.” Id., col. 6, ll. 21–23. Upon receipt of the access code, the base station searches through the possible phases of the access code in order to acquire the correct phase so as to enable the initiation of data communication. Id., col. 6, ll. 23–38.
When initiating a communication in that embodiment, the subscriber unit “continuously increases the transmission power while retransmitting the access code ... until it receives an acknowledgement from the base station.” '966 patent, col. 6, ll. 57–62. After the minimum power for reception is reached and the base station acquires the access code, the base station transmits an access code detection acknowledgment signal to the subscriber unit. Upon receipt of that signal, the subscriber unit stops the power increase, and two-way communication is established. Id., col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 5.
Because the access code is long and the base station must acquire the correct phase of the access code before it can proceed with the initiation process, the specification explains that the previously described embodiment can lead to “power overshoot,” i.e., usage of a power level that is substantially higher than that needed for reliable communication. Power overshoot can result in interference with the communications from other subscriber units in the same geographical area. '966 patent, col. 7, ll. 11–34. To address that problem, the specification describes a preferred embodiment of the invention that uses “short codes” and a “two-stage communication link establishment procedure to achieve fast power ramp-up without large power overshoots.” Id., col. 7, ll. 41–44.
In that embodiment, when the subscriber seeks to establish a communication link, the subscriber unit starts transmitting a short code at a power level known to be below the power level required for detection by the base station. The subscriber unit then “continuously increases the transmission power level while retransmitting the short code” until it receives an acknowledgement from the base station that the short code has been detected. '966 patent, col. 7, line 65, to col. 8, line 4. Because the short code can be transmitted much more frequently during a particular period of time, the short code is quickly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc.
...of the invention." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also InterDigital Comm'cns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 690 F.3d 1318, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit teaches that "[i]mportantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to......
-
Easyweb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 11-CV-4550 (JFB)(SIL)
...of the Court's construction. 10. As the Federal Circuit explained in InterDigital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), "[t]he doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest in this type of case, 'where the limitation that is sought to......
-
Dunnhumby United States, LLC v. Emnos U.S. Corp.
...skill in the art in question at the time of the invention." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; see also InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Commc'n, 690 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit teaches that courts should focus on the intrinsic record in construing claims, sta......
-
Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...disfavors reading a limitation from a dependent claim into an independent claim. See InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 690 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2012). Although courts are permitted to consider extrinsic evidence, like expert testimony, dictionaries, and treatises, such e......
-
Interdigital v. International Trade Commission
...examines the significance of the InterDigital holding and how it will affect the future of patent law.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006).3 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012).19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) (2006) (stating that it is unlawful to import for sale articles that infringe a valid and enfor......