m2m solutions llc v. sierra wireless am., inc., et al., c.a. nos. 12-30-rga to 12-34-rga (d. del....

8/13/2019 M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 12-30-RGA to 12-34-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2014)

1/5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DEL W RE

M2M SOLUTIONS LLCPlaintiff

v

SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA INC. andSIERRA WIRELESS INC.

Defendants.


v

CINTERION WIRELESS MODULESGMBH and CINTERION WIRELESSMODULES N FT LLC

Defendants.


v

ENFORA INC. NOV TEL WIRELESSSOLUTIONS INC. and NOVATELWIRELESS INC.

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-30-RGA



Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3104


2/5

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,Plaintiff,

v

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., TELITCOMMUNICATIONS PLC, and TELITWIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC.,Defendants.

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,Plaintiff,

v

SIMCOM WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO.,LTD., SIM TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.,MICRON ELECTRONICS L.L.C., andKOWATEC CORPORATION,Defendants.

ORDER



On November 25, 2013, M2M ( Plaintiff') filed a motion seeking clarification andreconsideration o two terms, permitted caller and wireless communications circuit forcommunicating through an antenna, that were construed in the Court 's Memorandum Opinionissued on November 12, 2013. (D.I. 92). Having reviewed Plaint iffM2M Solution LLC'sMotion for Partial Clarification and Reconsideration o the Court 's Memorandum Opinion on

2



3/5

Claim Construction (D.I. 105) and related briefing (D.I. 106), it is ORDERED that PlaintiffsMotion (D.I. 105) is GRANTED IN PART nd DENIED IN PART for the reasons that follow:

1. Plainti ffs request to clarify the Court 's construction of permitted caller isDENIED

a. To grant Plaintiffs motion, the Court must find, in its discretion, that Plaintiffdemonstrated one of the following: a change in the controlling law, a need to correct a clear errorof law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice, or availability of new evidence not available whenthe judgment was granted. Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be used as a

means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matterpreviously decided. Apeldyn Corp. v U Optronics Corp., 831 F. Supp. 2d 837, 840 D. Del.2011) (internal quotations omitted).

b. Plaintiff does not allege a change in the controlling law or the availability ofnew evidence. The only ground for reconsideration is the identification of a clear error of law.Plaintiff contends that the Court has inadvertently allowed for a misreading of its constructionas being narrowly limited to one single type of transmission i.e., a circuit-switched 'call' ) thatcould only possibly originate from a telephone number and never from an IP address. (D.I. 105at 4 (emphasis in original)). The Defendants respond by noting, IP addresses are not simplyaddresses, rather they are a series ofnumbers known specifically as an 'IP address. ' (D.I. 106at 3). The Court agrees with the Defendants that both telephone numbers and IP addresses are

included within the term numbers, as used in the Court's construction. 1c. Plaintiff also seeks to change incoming call to incoming transmission

because 'transmission' is broader and more technically accurate than 'ca ll,' and would

1 The Court also notes that a construction allowing for a misreading falls far short of establishing a clear error oflaw.3



4/5

encompass all of the relevant types of incoming transmissions sent by 'permitted caller'telephone numbers or IP addresses including circuit-switched calls, SMS data messages, andpacket-switched data messages. (D.I. 105 at 5-6). Pla intiffs concern appears to be overstatedin light of the Court's rejection of portions of the Defendants' overly narrow construction on thegrounds that several disclosed embodiments are based on data messages. (D.I. 92 at 8 . TheCourt's construction does not read those disclosed embodiments, or their accompanying datamessages, out of the patent. The Court is also wary that [b]roadening the term 'call' to'transmission' would capture return transmissions that are parts of calls or communication

sessions initiated by another party, thereby including both the caller and callee device within theclaim term's scope. (D.I. 106 at 4 (emphasis in original)). This construction is contrary to theplain and ordinary meaning of caller that the Court believes to be controlling. (D.I. 92 at 7).

2. Plainti ffs request to reconsider the Court's construction of wire less communicationscircuit for communicating through an antenna is GRANTED IN PART

a. Plaintiff does not allege a change in the controlling law or the availability ofnew evidence. The only possible ground for reconsideration is the identification of a clear errorof law.

b. Plaintiff alleges, among other arguments, that the plain and ordinary meaningof for communicating through an antenna requires the Court to revisit its construction.Specifically, Plaintiff contends that [t]he fact that the '01 0 claim language expressly describes

the wireless communications circuit as 'communicating through an antenna' over acommunications network plainly conveys that the antenna is something ifferent from and nota structural component of the wireless communications circuit. (D.I. 105 at 8 (emphasis inoriginal)). The Defendants object, noting that all of the Plaintiffs arguments were either



5/5

previously rejected by the Court or are positions now being heard for the first time.2 (D.I. 106 at7-9).

The Court will make one modification to its earlier construction. The claim languageitself requires the circuit to communicate through an antenna. The plain meaning of throughan antenna is through an antenna, and this should not be read out of the claim. Theconstruction is revised to read: a complete wireless circuit that transmits and receives datathrough an antenna. 3

The Court's claim construction opinion (D.I. 92) is amended accordingly. Within five

days the parties shall submit a proposed order, suitable for submission to the jury, reflecting thisalteration.

Entered i s ~ of January, 2014.

2 The new argument is that for communicating through an antenna is a functional limitation, and that so long asthe wireless communications circuit has the capability of communicating through an antenna, it need not have anantenna. The authorities cited for this proposition are new. The one cited Federal Circuit case, DePuy Spine, Inc vMedtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006), does not offer as much support for Plaintif fsposition as Plaintiff argues. Depuy Spine found for inserting said screw to be a functional limitation when readin view ofthe specification. /d at 1021. In my opinion, both the language ofthe patent claim and the specification(to wit, the abstract) require an antenna. The only way the wireless communications circuit has of communicatingthrough an antenna is if it has an antenna.3 The Court notes Plain tif fs earlier construction of the term at the Markman hearing was circuitry that enables thesending and receiving of wireless transmissions through an antenna. (D.I. 54 at 6 (emphasis added)).

5


m2m solutions llc v. sierra wireless am., inc., et al., c.a. nos. 12-30-rga to 12-34-rga (d. del....

Documents