HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC
877 F.3d 1361
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- The ’174 patent claims methods and apparatus for UMTS uplink transmission that set a transmit-power difference (power headroom) for a subscriber station across multiple codes at the start of a message transmission to avoid operating at maximum transmit power and prevent aborted transmissions.
- Independent claims require determining a single transmit power difference between the device’s total maximum transmit power for the codes and the total transmit power at the start of a message transmission using a first code.
- Petitioners (including HTC and ZTE) challenged claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, and 19 in an IPR, asserting (1) Baker anticipates, (2) Reed + Baker renders claims obvious, and (3) Reed + Love renders claims obvious.
- Baker discloses scaling down transmit powers at the frame/timeslot boundary immediately preceding ACK/NACK transmissions to leave capacity for signaling (DPDCH/DPCCH adjustments). Reed discloses per-data-stream headroom (separate headrooms when multiple streams/codes exist). Love discloses assigning codes and setting power margin for rate control.
- The PTAB adopted the patent owner’s construction of the phrase in claims requiring the transmit-power difference to exist “at the start of a message transmission,” found Baker did not expressly or inherently disclose that the frame boundary Baker alters is the start of a message transmission, and found Reed teaches separate headrooms per stream (not a single headroom across multiple codes).
- The Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo (intrinsic as legal; extrinsic factual findings for substantial evidence), and substantial-evidence review applied to the Board’s factual findings on anticipation and obviousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HTC) | Defendant's Argument (CCE / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim scope of “message” / “start of a message transmission” | Board failed to apply broadest reasonable interpretation; Board defined message by content and required specific begin/end, improperly excluding single-frame messages | Board did not exclude single-frame messages; construed "start of a message transmission" to modify total transmit power limitation and relied on expert evidence that messages can be single- or multi-frame | Affirmed: Board’s understanding of “message” was correct and did not exclude single-frame EDCH messages |
| Anticipation by Baker (does Baker disclose the claimed "start of a message transmission" limitation?) | Baker reduces transmit power at frame/timeslot boundary immediately preceding ACK/NACK; that boundary is the start of a message transmission, so Baker anticipates | Baker does not expressly say that the preceding frame boundary is the start of a message transmission; no evidence Baker involves EDCH single-frame messages, so inherency not shown | Affirmed: Substantial evidence that Baker neither expressly nor inherently discloses the "start" limitation; possibility ≠ inherency |
| Obviousness (Reed ± Baker or Love) — single headroom for multiple codes | Reed contemplates deprioritizing one stream to free power for another, implying device-level headroom applicable across codes | Reed’s specification and experts show Reed teaches separate headrooms per data stream/code; Reed shows device-level headroom only when a single code used | Affirmed: Board reasonably found Reed discloses separate headrooms, so combination does not render the claims obvious |
Key Cases Cited
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction: factual findings may underlie legal construction)
- Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) (APA standard applies to agency factfinding)
- ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (standard of review for PTAB decisions)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (anticipation requires single prior-art reference to disclose all claim limitations)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. L.A. Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (anticipation requires express or inherent disclosure of every limitation)
- Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (inherency requires necessarily present disclosure, not possibility)
- In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (review standards for obviousness)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (Graham factors for obviousness)