Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 November 2014
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2:13-CV-883-JRG-RSP
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
• Parties: MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-883-JRG-RSP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

November 5, 2014

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On October 17, 2014, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 5,754,946 and 5,809,428. After considering the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in the parties' claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 58, 64, and 67),¹ the Court issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.

Page 2

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 3

LEGAL PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................. 4

THE PARTIES' STIPULATED TERMS................................................................................... 7

CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS............................................................................. 7

A. "probe message" ................................................................................................................... 7

B. "a portion of the [displayed] message"............................................................................... 10

C. Claim 8 of the '428 Patent.................................................................................................. 17

D. "means for extracting a corrected message from the radio frequency signal"................... 20

E. "means for determining whether an acknowledgment message is an acknowledgment to a data message or an acknowledgment to a probe message".............................................. 26

F. "means for generating upon receiving a data message, a data acknowledgment message" and "means for generating upon receiving a probe message, a probe acknowledgment message"................................................................................................. 41

G. "means for generating, upon power restoration to the transmitter, a registration message if a probe message has been received while the transmitter was powered off" ... 46

H. "means for marking a data message as undelivered and storing the undelivered data message if, after transmitting a probe message to the mobile unit, no probe acknowledgment message is received"............................................................................... 51

I. "means for automatically transmitting undelivered data messages to the mobile unit upon receiving a registration message from the mobile unit" ............................................ 56

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................. 62

Page 3

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patents No. 5,754,946 ("the '946 Patent"), 5,786,748 ("the '748 Patent"), and 5,809,428 ("the '428 Patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit"). In general, the patents-in-suit relate to wireless messaging systems. The disputed terms appear in only the '946 Patent and the '428 Patent.

The '946 Patent is titled "Nationwide Communication System." The '946 Patent issued on May 19, 1998, and bears a filing date of September 21, 1993. In general, the terms of the '946 Patent that are in dispute here relate to avoiding retransmission of unneeded information. The Abstract of the '946 Patent states:

A two-way communication system for communication between a system network and a mobile unit. The system network includes a plurality of base transmitters and base receivers included in the network. The base transmitters are divided into zonal assignments and broadcast in simulcast using multi-carrier modulation techniques. The system network controls the base transmitters to broadcast in simulcast during both systemwide and zonal time intervals. The system network dynamically alters zone boundaries to maximize information throughput. The system also uses a mobile unit which receives messages from the network and transmits messages to the network. The mobile unit includes a switch that allows a user to request the network to retransmit a received message that contains errors.

The '428 Patent is titled "Method and Device for Processing Undelivered Data Messages in a Two-Way Wireless Communications System." The '428 Patent issued on September 15, 1998, and bears a filing date of July 25, 1996. In general, the '428 Patent relates to acknowledging receipt of data messages and probe messages. The Abstract of the '428 Patent states:

A network operations center transmits a data message to a wireless mobile unit and waits for a data acknowledgment message. If no acknowledgment is received within a specified time, the network operations center sends a probe message to attempt to locate the mobile unit and waits for a probe acknowledgment message. If still no acknowledgment, the network operations center marks the data message as undelivered and stores it for future delivery. If a mobile unit receives a probe message while its transmitter is powered off, it displays an indication to the

Page 4

subscriber that there is a message waiting to be delivered. The subscriber can then dial into the network operations center to retrieve the message. Or, when the transmitter of the mobile unit is powered back on, the mobile unit sends a registration message to the network operations center; and upon receiving the registration message, the network operations center automatically re-transmits the undelivered data message to the mobile unit.

The Court previously addressed the patents-in-suit in Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., No. 2:12-CV-832-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 162, (E.D. Tex. May 2, 2014) ("Sprint Order" or simply "Sprint"); see Civil Action Nos. 2:13-CV-258-JRG-RSP, 2:13-CV-259-JRG-RSP (consolidated with Sprint).

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

"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) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term's context in the asserted claim can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the

Page 5

claim's meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term's meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.

"[C]laims 'must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.'" Id. at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). "[T]he 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.'" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor's lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim terms "where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone." Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, "[a]lthough the specification may aid the...