Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company
15f4th1121
| Fed. Cir. | 2021Background:
- Traxcell sued Sprint and Verizon for infringing four related patents (three SON patents — ’284, ’320, ’024 — and one network navigation patent — ’388) claiming network-based location, performance-data storage, and network-suggested corrective actions.
- Accused products: Sprint — Samsung dSON (distributed SON) and phones running Google Maps; Verizon — Ericsson C-SON and phones running VZ Navigator/Google Maps.
- The parties agreed (stipulated) that the claim term “location” means “location that is not merely a position in a grid pattern.”
- The district court adopted a claim construction order (finding several claims indefinite), then granted summary judgment of noninfringement to Sprint and Verizon on multiple grounds.
- Key contested claim elements: means-plus-function limitations (’284 claims), the “location” limitation, and whether claimed “computer”/“first computer” must be a single computer (vs. distributed system); also whether the ’388 patent requires network-based location determination.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: it upheld the claim constructions, agreed Traxcell failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on infringement, and found certain claims indefinite.
Issues:
| Issue | Traxcell's Argument | Sprint/Verizon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Means-plus-function (’284 claim 12): accused structure equivalence | Accused Samsung system contains a structural equivalent to the disclosed algorithm | Accused system does not perform the detailed algorithm steps (“way” prong) | Noninfringement — no evidence the accused structure operates in substantially the same way as claimed algorithm |
| “Location” limitation (SON patents) | Accused systems use location (cell/sector, MDT, OTDOA, RSSI, etc.) to make adjustments | Evidence shows only grid/cell/sector or distance data or device-derived data, not a non-grid “location” as stipulated | Noninfringement — Traxcell cannot retreat from its stipulation; evidence insufficient to show claimed location use |
| “First computer” / “computer” requirement | LSM, SON Portal, or individual eNodeB server can be the single computer performing all recited functions; DOE covers multi-computer | Accused SONs are distributed across multiple servers/computers; portals are interfaces aggregating outputs, not performing all functions | Noninfringement; DOE unavailable for multi-computer theory due to prosecution surrender of multi-computer equivalents |
| Indefiniteness of corrected ’284 claim 1 (means-plus-function & reference ambiguity) | Certificate of correction cured prior ambiguity; specification provides structure | Specification fails to disclose adequate structure to perform corrective actions "based on location"; ambiguity remains | Claim indefinite; leave to amend denied as futile |
| ’388 patent — network-based location determination | Network determines device location and transmits it to device (accused products implement this) | Accused products (Google Maps, VZ Navigator) determine location on device; network does not compute and send the claimed network-determined location | Noninfringement — Traxcell failed to rebut evidence that location is determined on device rather than on the network |
Key Cases Cited
- SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (claim construction reviewed de novo on intrinsic evidence)
- Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (summary judgment reviewed de novo under regional-circuit law)
- Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (means-plus-function literal infringement requires identical/equivalent structure; function-way-result test)
- Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., Inc., 208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (requirement that accused device perform function in substantially same way and result)
- Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (patentee must tie evidence to claim limitations to survive summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory assertions)
- Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unrebutted evidence can warrant summary judgment of noninfringement)
- Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (means-plus-function claims indefinite if specification lacks adequate corresponding structure)
- Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cannot treat a bare restatement of function as corresponding structure)