JurisNotes.com, Inc.
Patent Extra 12/05/2022


Headlines

ND Cal - Accused system did not infringe patents-in-suit.
WD Wash - Court did not manifestly err in denying motion.


ND Cal - Accused system did not infringe patents-in-suit.
Dali Wireless, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comm. (11/23/22)  Full Summary Decision
The
court granted Corning's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. As to the '358 patent, it required two sets of frequencies, with the second geographic footprint larger than the first and partially surrounding it. The accused system did not practice that limitation because the two sets of frequencies were transmitted at the same power level and thus, the geographic footprints of the two sets of frequencies were the same. Regarding the '261 patent, there was no direct evidence that Corning itself used the transmit power optimization ("TPO") feature. There were no logs showing TPO testing after the '261 patent issued. Further, there was no indication that Corning intended for its customers to use the feature, as it left the feature disabled by default. Finally, there was no infringement of the '454 patent, as the accused system transitioned users from a first set of digital remote units to a second set by increasing the transmission power of the second set.

WD Wash - Court did not manifestly err in denying motion.
WSOU Investments, LLC v. F5 Networks (11/28/22)  Full Summary Decision
The court denied WSOU's motion for reconsideration. Even assuming that the information sought by WSOU was relevant, it would not follow that the court committed manifest error in its prior order. WSOU never identified what the configuration documents were or explained their relevance in its prior filings. The fact that WSOU finally identified the relevant product information and configurations did not justify granting its motion. The court could not have committed manifest error by overlooking the importance of discovery that WSOU had not identified. WSOU's motion to compel also made only a conclusory argument as to relevance. A motion for reconsideration was not the proper time to narrow a discovery request for the first time.


Dali Wireless v. Corning Optical (ND Cal 11/23/22)  Decision Short Summary
Dali sued Corning for patent infringement.
The court granted Corning's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.

Dali designs and manufactures power amplifiers for radio frequency communications, while Corning produces components for the telecommunications industry, including the "SpiderCloud" system. Dali alleges infringement of the '358, '261, and '454 patents, which relate to distributed antenna systems. The '358 patent claims wireless communication systems using distributed antenna systems. In particular, the invention controls the amount of resources allocated to users located in different areas. The '261 patent claims a method of determining a carrier power in a communications system. The '454 patent relates to a distributed antenna system using traffic monitoring and optimization. The accused system provides in-building cellular voice and data coverage to mobile users. The system links cellphones to other parts of a network, optimizing the coverage of different areas of the building as users move and cluster throughout the building.

As to the '358 patent, claims 7 and 15 required two sets of frequencies, with the second geographic footprint larger than the first and partially surrounding it. The accused system did not practice that limitation because the two sets of frequencies were transmitted at the same power level and thus, the geographic footprints of the two sets of frequencies were the same. In the '358 patent, geographic footprints were defined as a function of power. Regarding the '261 patent, the claims required the execution of a transmit power optimization ("TPO") algorithm. Although the accused system had a TPO feature before the '261 patent issued, there was no proof that Corning used that feature after the '261 patent issued. There were no logs showing TPO testing after the '261 patent issued. There was no indication that Corning intended for its customers to use the feature, as it left the feature disabled by default. In 2021, Corning permanently disabled the TPO feature.

Finally, as to the '454 patent, several claims required the traffic monitoring unit be set up to reconfigure the plurality of sectors based on one or more key performance indicators and the quality of service by allocating at least one digital remote unit from the first to the second sector. The accused system transitioned users from a first set of digital remote units to a second set by increasing the transmission power of the second set. Adjusting only the power of a digital remote unit did not reallocate that unit from one set of independent radio resources to another set. Instead, it merely changed the coverage area of the original set of radio resources by changing the power level. 


WSOU Invest. v. F5 Networks (WD Wash 11/28/22)  Decision Short Summary
WSOU sued F5 for patent infringement. The court previously denied WSOU's motion to compel. Herein, the court denied WSOU's motion for reconsideration.

In its prior order, the court denied WSOU's motion to compel documents related to customer implementations of F5's DNS product. In its motion for reconsideration, WSOU argues that these documents are vital to its ability to oppose F5's summary judgment motions. WSOU characterizes the information as documents showing customer implementations and configurations indicating that F5's "BIG-IP DNS" product was deployed in a way that meets the claim limitations.

It was not until WSOU moved for reconsideration that it described the documents in question with specificity. WSOU noted that the accused product functioned as a domain name system server that received queries from a website user and routed the query to one of the website's servers to handle the request. While the prior art used a round-robin method of selecting a server, the accused product used a load-balancing algorithm, though other configurations were possible. WSOU claimed that it needed the names of the algorithms used, the types of servers, and the total number of systems. Even assuming that the information sought by WSOU was as relevant as claimed, it would not follow that the court committed manifest error in its prior discovery order. WSOU never properly identified what the configuration documents were or explained their relevance in any of its prior filings. The fact that WSOU finally identified the relevant product information and configurations did not justify granting its motion for reconsideration. The court could not have committed manifest error by overlooking the importance of discovery that WSOU had not even identified. WSOU's motion to compel also made only a conclusory argument as to relevance. A motion for reconsideration was not the proper time to narrow a discovery request for the first time.


Patent Extra is published by JurisNotes.com, Inc.
Editor: Margie S. Schweitzer, J.D.; email Margie@JurisNotes.com; phone 503-763-8717.
Copyright 2022 by
JurisNotes.com, Inc.  No claim to copyright as to original U.S. government work.  Reproduction and retransmission of our newsletters is forbidden except as permitted by your subscription agreement.


JurisNotes.Com - The Law in Brief
Copyright   JurisNotes.Com