TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2:21-CV-309-JRG,2:21-CV-310-JRG
• Parties: TQ DELTA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., COMMSCOPE INC., ARRIS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ARRIS GLOBAL LTD., ARRIS U.S. HOLDINGS INC., ARRIS SOLUTIONS, INC., ARRIS TECHNOLOGY, INC., and ARRIS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants. TQ DELTA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NOKIA CORP., NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY, and NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP., Defendants. first multicarrier transceiver to modulate the same bit value&rdquo
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

TQ DELTA, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., COMMSCOPE INC., ARRIS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ARRIS GLOBAL LTD., ARRIS U.S. HOLDINGS INC., ARRIS SOLUTIONS, INC., ARRIS TECHNOLOGY, INC., and ARRIS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants.

TQ DELTA, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
NOKIA CORP., NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY, and NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP., Defendants.

Nos. 2:21-CV-310-JRG, 2:21-CV-309-JRG

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

June 8, 2022

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 107) filed by Plaintiff TQ Delta, LLC (“Plaintiff' or “TQ Delta”). Also before the Court are the Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 135) filed by Defendants CommScope Holding Company, Inc., CommScope Inc., ARRIS U.S. Holdings, Inc., ARRIS Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Technology (collectively, “CommScope Defendants”), Nokia of America Corp., Nokia Corp., and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy (collectively, “Nokia Defendants”) (all, collectively, “Defendants”), Plaintiff's reply (Dkt. No. 140), and Defendants' supplemental brief (Dkt. No. 157).

The Court held a hearing on June 1, 2022.

1

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 6

III. AGREED TERMS............................................................................................................... 11

IV. DISPUTED TERMS IN MULTIPLE PATENT FAMILIES .......................................... 11

1. “transceiver” ........................................................................................................................ 12

2. “configurable to, ” “operable, ” and “operable to” ................................................................ 16

V. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 1” PATENTS ................................................... 23

3. “each bit in the diagnostic message is mapped to at least one DMT symbol, ” “DMT symbols that are mapped to one bit of the diagnostic message, ” and “at least one bit in the diagnostic message is mapped to at least one DMT symbol” ....................................... 24

4. “array representing frequency domain received idle channel noise information” ............... 28

VI. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 2” PATENTS ................................................. 32

5. “plurality of bonded transceivers” ....................................................................................... 33

6. “reduce a difference in latency between the bonded transceivers”...................................... 38

7. “each bonded transceiver [utilizing/selecting] at least one transmission parameter value to reduce a difference in latency between the bonded transceivers” and “[utilize/select] at least one transmission parameter value, for each transceiver in a plurality of bonded transceivers, to reduce a difference in latency between the bonded transceivers” ............. 45

VII. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 3” PATENTS................................................ 46

8. “shared memory, ” “sharing the memory, ” and “operable to be shared / sharing” .............. 47

9. “wherein the generated message indicates how the memory has been allocated between the interleaving function and the deinterleaving function” ................................................ 52

10. “a message indicating how the shared memory is to be used by the interleaver or deinterleaver” ...................................................................................................................... 52

11. “specifying a maximum number of bytes of memory that are available to be allocated to [a/an interleaver/deinterleaver]” ..................................................................................... 57

VIII. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 4” PATENTS .............................................. 59

12. “phase characteristic(s)” .................................................................................................... 60

13. “substantially scramble the phase characteristics of the plurality of carrier signals” ........ 63

14. “same bit value” ................................................................................................................. 68

15. “multiple carrier signals corresponding to the scrambled carrier signals are used by the first multicarrier transceiver to modulate the same bit value” ............................................ 68

16. “computing a phase shift for each carrier signal” .............................................................. 74

17. “combining the phase shift computed for each respective carrier signal with the phase characteristic of that carrier signal” .................................................................................... 77

2

IX. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 6” PATENTS ................................................. 79

18. “steady-state communication” ........................................................................................... 79

19. “FIP setting” ...................................................................................................................... 83

20. “FIP value” ........................................................................................................................ 83

21. “flag signal” ....................................................................................................................... 87

22. “interleaver parameter value” ............................................................................................ 91

X. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 9” PATENTS ................................................... 94

23. “higher immunity to noise” ................................................................................................ 95

24. “PTM-TC [(Packet Transfer Mode Transmission Convergence)] codewords” ................ 97

25. “receive at least one packet using deinterleaving” ............................................................ 98

26. “[transmit/retransmit] at least one packet using interleaving” ........................................... 98

27. “[transmit/receive] a [packet/plurality of messages] using a forward error correction [encoder/decoder] and [without using] [an/a interleaver/deinterleaver]” ........................... 98

28. “transmitting, by the transceiver, a packet using a forward error correction encoder and an interleaver” .............................................................................................................. 98

29. “receiving, by the transceiver, at least one message using a forward error correction decoder and without using a deinterleaver” ........................................................................ 98

30. “[transmitting/transmit/receiving/receive] a [packet/message] using forward error correction [encoding/decoding] and [without using] [interleaving/deinterleaving]” ......... 98

31. “[retransmit/retransmitting] the packet using [the] forward error correction [encoder/encoding] and [the interleaver/interleaving]” ...................................................... 98

32. “[receive/receiving] a retransmitted packet using [the] forward error correction [decoder/decoding] and [the deinterleaver/deinterleaving]” .............................................. 98

XI. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE “FAMILY 10” PATENTS ............................................. 102

33. “a multicarrier communications transceiver operable to: receive a multicarrier symbol comprising a first plurality of carriers” ............................................................................. 103

34. “receive a first plurality of bits on the first plurality of carriers using a first SNR margin; receive a second plurality of bits on the second plurality of carriers using a second SNR margin” ........................................................................................................ 106

35. “wherein the first SNR margin provides more robust reception than the second SNR margin” ............................................................................................................................. 110

36. “signal to noise ratio (SNR) margin” and “SNR margin” ............................................... 113

XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 116

3

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff submits that “[t]his case generally relates to communications technology for DSL-based systems.” (Dkt. No. 124, at 1.)

Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patents No. 7, 453, 881 (“the '881 Patent”), 7, 570, 686 (“the '686 Patent”), 7, 844, 882 (“the '882 Patent”), 8, 090, 008 (“the '008 Patent”), 8, 276, 048 (“the '048 Patent”), 8, 462, 835 (“the '835 Patent”), 8, 468, 411 (“the '411 Patent”), 8, 495, 473 (“the '5473 Patent”), 8, 594, 162 (“the '162 Patent”), 8, 595, 577 (“the '577 Patent”), 8, 937, 988 (“the '988 Patent”), 9, 014, 193 (“the '193 Patent”), 9, 094, 348 (“the '348 Patent”), 9, 154, 354 (“the '354 Patent”), 9, 300, 601 (“the '601 Patent”), 9, 485, 055 (“the '055 Patent”), 9, 547, 608 (“the '608 Patent”), 9, 894, 014 (“the '014 Patent”), 10, 044, 473 (“the '4473 Patent”), 10, 409, 510 (“the '510 Patent”), 10, 567, 112 (“the '112 Patent”), and 10, 833, 809 (“the '809 Patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”).

As for the patents that are at issue in these claim construction proceedings, Defendants submit that “the parties refer to the [patent] families by the nomenclature used in the co-pending Delaware Cases that TQ Delta has...