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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-30-RGA

SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC. and SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., Defendants.

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,

v.
Civil Action No. 12-31-RGA CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES GMBH and CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES NAFTA LLC, Defendants.

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-32-RGA ENFORA, INC., NOV ATEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, INC., and NOV ATEL WIRELESS, INC., Defendants.

Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3105

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,

v.
Civil Action No. 12-33-RGA MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., TELIT COMMUNICATIONS PLC, and TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants.

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 12-34-RGA

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

ORDER

On November 25, 2013, M2M ("Plaintiff') filed a motion seeking clarification and reconsideration of two terms, "permitted caller" and "wireless communications circuit for communicating through an antenna," that were construed in the Court's Memorandum Opinion issued on November 12, 2013. (D.I. 92). Having reviewed PlaintiffM2M Solution LLC's Motion for Partial Clarification and Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion on

Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3106

Claim Construction (D.I. 105) and related briefing (D.I. 106), it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion (D.I. 105) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons that follow: 1. Plaintiffs request to clarify the Court's construction of "permitted caller" is
DENIED.

a. To grant Plaintiffs motion, the Court must find, in its discretion, that Plaintiff demonstrated one of the following: a change in the controlling law, a need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice, or availability of new evidence not available when the 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 matter previously decided." Apeldyn Corp. v. AU 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 of new 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 construction as being narrowly limited to one single type of transmission (i.e., a circuit-switched 'call') that could only possibly originate from a telephone number and never from an IP address." (D.I. 105 at 4 (emphasis in original)). The Defendants respond by noting, "IP addresses are not simply addresses, rather they are a series ofnumbers known specifically as an 'IP address."' (D.I. 106 at 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. 1 c. Plaintiff also seeks to change "incoming call" to "incoming transmission" because "'transmission' is broader and more technically accurate than 'call,' and would

The Court also notes that a construction "allowing for a misreading" falls far short of establishing "a clear error of law."

Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3107

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, and packet-switched data messages." (D.I. 105 at 5-6). Plaintiffs concern appears to be overstated in light of the Court's rejection of portions of the Defendants' overly narrow construction on the grounds that several disclosed embodiments "are based on data messages." (D.I. 92 at 8). The Court's construction does not read those disclosed embodiments, or their accompanying data messages, 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 the claim term's scope. (D.I. 106 at 4 (emphasis in original)). This construction is contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of"caller" that the Court believes to be controlling. (D.I. 92 at 7). 2. Plaintiffs request to reconsider the Court's construction of"wireless communications circuit for communicating through an antenna" is GRANTED IN PART. a. Plaintiff does not allege a change in the controlling law or the availability of new evidence. The only possible ground for reconsideration is the identification of a clear error of law. b. Plaintiff alleges, among other arguments, that the plain and ordinary meaning of "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 a communications network plainly conveys that the antenna is something different from-and not a structural component of-the wireless communications circuit." (D.I. 105 at 8 (emphasis in original)). The Defendants object, noting that all of the Plaintiffs arguments were either

Case 1:12-cv-00030-RGA Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3108

previously rejected by the Court or are positions now being heard for the first time. 2 (D.I. 106 at
7-9).

The Court will make one modification to its earlier construction. The claim language itself requires the circuit to communicate "through an antenna." The plain meaning of "through an antenna" is "through an antenna," and this should not be read out of the claim. The construction is revised to read: "a complete wireless circuit that transmits and receives data through 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 this alteration.

Entered

this~

of January, 2014.

The new argument is that "for communicating through an antenna" is a functional limitation, and that so long as the wireless communications circuit has the capability of communicating through an antenna, it need not have an antenna. The authorities cited for this proposition are new. The one cited Federal Circuit case, DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006), does not offer as much support for Plaintiffs position as Plaintiff argues. Depuy Spine found "for inserting said screw" to be a functional limitation "when read in 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 communicating through an antenna is if it has an antenna. 3 The Court notes Plaintiffs earlier construction of the term at the Markman hearing was "circuitry that enables the sending and receiving of wireless transmissions through an antenna." (D.I. 54 at 61 (emphasis added)).