Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks
15f4th1136
| Fed. Cir. | 2021Background
- Traxcell sued Nokia for infringement of three related patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,977,284; 9,510,320; 9,642,024) directed to self‑optimizing wireless networks that use device performance and location data to suggest corrective actions.
- Asserted claims include method and apparatus claims requiring (among other things) locating mobile devices, storing performance data tied to a location, and certain functions performed by a “first computer” or “computer.”
- Nokia’s accused product, Eden‑NET, is a distributed network‑management suite that collects KPIs aggregated in 50m×50m “bins” (and cells), displays data via a GUI, and runs software across multiple servers.
- The magistrate judge construed key terms (notably “location” and “first computer/computer”), and the district court adopted that construction and granted summary judgment of noninfringement to Nokia.
- The district court relied heavily on prosecution history (distinguishing prior art that used grid positions and multi‑computer systems) to construe terms and to apply prosecution‑history estoppel to equivalents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of “location” | Plain and ordinary meaning; not limited to non‑grid positions | Prosecution disclaimer narrowed “location” to "not merely a position in a grid pattern" (distinguished Steer) | Agreed with Nokia: "location" construed as a location that is not merely a position in a grid pattern (prosecution disclaimer applies) |
| Whether Eden‑NET meets the "location" limitation | KPIs and geolocation data in Eden‑NET satisfy location limitation | Eden‑NET uses aggregated grid/bin KPIs not tied to individual devices | Agreed with Nokia: KPIs are grid‑based and not device‑specific; no genuine dispute of infringement on this term |
| Proper construction of “first computer” / "computer" | Term can encompass distributed/multiple computers | Prosecution history and claim language require a single computer performing the recited functions (distinguished Andersson) | Agreed with Nokia: "first computer"/"computer" requires a single computer that performs all recited functions |
| Whether Eden‑NET infringes under literal or equivalents theories given its distributed architecture | GUI/server interface or control over modules satisfies single‑computer limitation; equivalents available | Eden‑NET runs across multiple computers; prosecution‑history estoppel bars reclaiming multi‑computer scope via equivalents | Agreed with Nokia: Traxcell failed to show a single computer performing claimed functions; prosecution‑history estoppel precludes multiple‑computer equivalents; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (doctrine of prosecution disclaimer; applicant arguments can limit claim scope)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prosecution disclaimer requires clear and unmistakable disavowal)
- Tech. Props. Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co., 849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applicant arguments during prosecution can give rise to disclaimer)
- Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unrebutted evidence supporting summary judgment of noninfringement)
- Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi‑Aventis U.S. LLC, 977 F.3d 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (intrinsic record controls over extrinsic evidence)
- Amgen Inc. v. Coherus BioSciences Inc., 931 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (prosecution‑history estoppel bars recapture of surrendered equivalents)
- PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (standard for whether competitor reasonably would believe patentee surrendered subject matter)
- Wi‑LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claim differentiation is a guide, not a rigid rule)
- Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (summary judgment appropriate where infringement requires a configuration for which no evidence exists)