{"id":3155,"date":"2021-10-12T20:44:00","date_gmt":"2021-10-13T01:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3155"},"modified":"2021-10-30T15:49:24","modified_gmt":"2021-10-30T20:49:24","slug":"an-army-of-citation-footnotes-crouching-in-a-field-of-jargon-is-no-substitute-explanation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3155","title":{"rendered":"An Army of Citation Footnotes Crouching in a Field of Jargon is no Substitute Explanation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company, LP, [2020-1852, 2020-1854]<\/a> (October 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court\u2019s claim construction, and further that under that construction Traxcell failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to infringement, and further that several of Traxcell\u2019s claims were indefinite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case involves U.S. Patent Nos. 8,977,284, 9,510,320, 9,642,024, and \u00a09,549,388 related to self-optimizing network technology for making \u201ccorrective actions\u201d to improve communications between a wireless device and a network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At issue was the claim limitation \u201cmeans for receiving said performance data and corresponding locations from said radio tower and correcting radio frequency signals of said radio tower.\u201d The parties agreed that this was a means-plus-function claim, and the corresponding structure was an algorithm identified in the specification.\u00a0 Traxcell argued that Sprint\u2019s accused technology included a structural equivalent to the disclosed structure under the function-way-result test.\u00a0 The district court disagreed, reasoning that Traxcell failed to establish that Sprint\u2019s accused technology operates in substantially the same \u201cway.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that the identified structure from the specification was a \u201cvery detailed\u201d algorithm, including numerous steps necessary for its function. However, Traxcell neglected to address a significant fraction of that structure.  Accordingly, Traxcell didn\u2019t provide enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the accused structure performs the claimed function in \u201csubstantially the same way\u201d as the disclosed structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also at issue was the limitation \u201clocation.\u201d  The parties agreed, and the district court accepted, that \u201clocation\u201d meant \u201clocation that is not merely a position in a grid pattern.\u201d  However, under this construction Traxell lost.  On appeal Traxell insisted in retrospect that this construction was wrong. The Federal Circuit said that \u201chaving stipulated to it, Traxcell cannot pull an about-face.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to infringement by Sprint, the independent claims all require sending, receiving, generating, storing, or using the \u201clocation\u201d of a wireless device.  The district court concluded that Traxcell simply hadn\u2019t shown that the accused technologies used \u201clocation\u201d as construed by the court, and the Federal Circuit agreed.  With respect to infringement by Ericson, the district court rejected Traxcell\u2019s argument that the accused technology uses \u201clocation\u201d because it collects \u201cinformation regarding the distance of devices from a base station.\u201d  The Federal Circuit agreed that this was not location information but information to calculate distance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also at issue were the limitations \u201cfirst computer\u201d and \u201ccomputer.\u201d  Construing these as referring to a single computer, the district court concluded that Traxell had not shown that these limitations were met, and the Federal Circuit agreed.  The Federal Circuit said that Traxell failed to particularize those conclusory assertions with specific evidence and arguments. Traxell argued it provided substantial evidence that the district court ignored, but the Federal Circuit said it was \u201can army of citation footnotes crouching in a field of jargon. What they lack is explanation.\u201d The Federal Circuit concluded that Traxell\u2019s showing was \u201csimply too unexplained and conclusory.\u201d  The Federal Circuit said that Traxcell has cited swaths of documents, but it Failed to explain how those documents support its infringement theory. It didn\u2019t do so at the trial court, and it didn\u2019t do so on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traxcell\u2019s remaining infringement arguments on appeal relied upon \u00a0the doctrine of equivalents. But the Federal Circuit concluded that Traxcell surrendered multiple computer equivalents during prosecution of these patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turning to indefiniteness, Claim 1 of the \u2018284 patent was found indefinite on two grounds: (1) lack of reasonable certainty about which \u201cwireless device\u201d the term \u201cat least one said wireless device\u201d referred to, and (2) lack of an adequate supporting structure in the specification for the claim\u2019s means-plus-function limitation.  The Federal Circuit found that the claim was indefinite for lack of adequate supporting structure in the specification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A means-plus-function claim is indefinite if the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed function.  While Traxcell cited an algorithm, the district court found that Traxcell\u2019s explanation provided nothing more than a restatement of the function, as recited in the claim.  The Federal Circuit concluded that the claim was indefinite, without the need to reach the issue of \u201cwireless device.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to infringement of the \u2018388 patent, the claims required that the device\u2019s location is (1) determined on the network, (2) communicated to the device, and (3) used to display navigation information. \u00a0The district court determined that Traxcell failed to show that the device location was determined by the network, and the Federal Circuit agreed.\u00a0 Traxcell argued that the network provided data to the devices, but the court observed that it is not data <\/em>from the network that the claims require. It is that the network itself determines location and transmits the location <\/em>to the device. The Federal Circuit said that Traxcell has not shown that the network does so with anything but broad and conclusory scattershot assertions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company, LP, [2020-1852, 2020-1854] (October 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court\u2019s claim construction, and further that under that construction Traxcell failed to show a genuine issue of material fact … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-infringement"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3155"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3155\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3156,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3155\/revisions\/3156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}