Telecom Network Sols. v. AT&T Corp.

TELECOM NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., AT&T COMMUNICATIONS LLC, AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T MOBILITY II LLC, AT&T SERVICES INC., SPRINT SPECTRUM LLC v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., T-MOBILE US, INC. Defendants.

Civil Action Nos. 2:21-CV-00415-JRG (LEAD CASE), 2:21-CV-00416-JRG (MEMBER CASE), 2:21-CV-00418-JRG (MEMBER CASE)

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

February 22, 2023

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In the above-captioned consolidated patent cases, Plaintiff Telecom Network Solutions, LLC (“TNS”) alleges that Defendants AT&T, Corp., AT&T Communications LLC AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services Inc., Sprint Spectrum LLC, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent RE47,813 (the “'813 Patent”). (See generally Dkt No. 1.) The '813 Patent is generally directed to networked computing, and more specifically “to a feedback loop for dynamic network resource allocation.” ('813 Patent at 1:20-22.)

The parties dispute the scope of nine claim terms, several of which are related.^[1] The Court held a Markman hearing on January 30, 2023. (Dkt. No. 114; see also Dkt No. 127.) Having considered the parties' briefing and arguments of counsel during the hearing, the Court resolves the disputes as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

In a one-paragraph Background section, the '813 Patent explains that “[m]obile computing devices are increasingly being used to access content hosted on the Internet or other type of network. Different computing devices can be allocated different service levels, while at the same time network congestion can change unpredictably, thereby compromising allocated services levels.” ('813 Patent at 1:26-31.) The '813 Patent generally describes avoiding compromised service levels by monitoring a shared network resource (e.g., transmission rate, number of sessions) and dynamically modifying the resource's allocation according to service and billing profiles of the various devices. (See id. at Abstract.)

The “dynamic modification” feature, which is central to the asserted claims, is described with reference to FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 of the '813 Patent. In FIG. 4, the method first determines if there is active traffic over a shared network resource associated with a group of devices. (See generally '813 Patent at 7:41-8:20 (describing the method with respect to FIG. 4).) If so, the method receives “traffic profiles” for each device link. (Id.) The method then determines if the received “traffic profiles” can be accommodated according to the “service profiles” of the devices with the overall capacity of the shared network resource. (Id.)

(Image Omitted)

The patent provides an example based on the system shown in FIG. 1 (above):

[A]ssume that base station 58 is capable of sending data to all devices 54 connected to base station 58 at a maximum bit rate of twenty megabits per second. Now assume that all devices 54 each have a service profile that guarantees each device 54 a maximum bit rate of five megabits per second. Now assume that each device 54 has requested content 92 that fully consumes the maximum bit rate of five megabits per second. In this example, contention will not exist, as base station 58 will be able to provide the demanded full fifteen megabits per second ....

('813 Patent at 8:21-32.) If, however, the received traffic profiles cannot be accommodated, the method dynamically modifies the service profiles or billing profiles (or both) as necessary. (See, e.g., id. at 2:23-39.) As an example, the method might automatically reduce the maximum guaranteed bit rate for one or more devices until such time as the collective demand on the resource allows re-establishing the devices' default service profiles. (See id. at 9:4-9, 9:23-36.)

FIG. 5 “shows another method for dynamic resource allocation.” ('813 Patent at 2:50-51.)

The figure is identical to FIG. 4 except for the addition of Steps 331a and 332a. In Step 331a, the method “determin[es] if there is extra capacity available over a given shared network resource.” (Id. at 9:55-57.) If so, Step 332a “modifies the the service or billing profile or both to utilize the extra available capacity.” (Id. at 10:24-25.) If there is not extra capacity available, the method implements the same “managing step” (Step 335a) described with reference to FIG. 4. (Id. at 10:38-39 (“Block 335a then functions in the same manner as block 335.”).)

The '813 Patent includes both method and system claims directed to dynamic resource allocation. Claim 1, which is representative of the '813 Patent's independent method claims, recites:

1. A method for dynamic allocation of network resources comprising:

receiving a service profile for each of a plurality of devices sharing a network resource;

receiving a billing profile for each of said plurality of devices;

generating a prioritization list defining an order of said plurality of devices, based on said billing profiles and on a billing history for each of said plurality of devices;

repeating:

receiving traffic profiles over said network resource for said plurality of devices;

managing said network resource according to said service profile and said billing profile if said network resource is fully utilized by said traffic profiles; and, selecting at least one of said devices based on said prioritization list and dynamically modifying at least one of said service profile and said billing profile for said selected devices, if said network resource is under-utilized by said traffic profile or if said network resource would be over-utilized by said traffic profiles;

until said plurality of devices no longer continue to share said network resource; and when said plurality of devices are no longer sharing said network resource, clearing said prioritization list.

('813 Patent at 14:30-55.) Claim 10, which is representative of the '813 Patent's structural independent claims, recites an apparatus with a network interface and processor collectively configured to perform the same steps recited in Claim 1:

10. An apparatus for dynamic allocation of network resources comprising:

a network interface configured to receive a service profile for each of a plurality of devices sharing a network resource and to receive a billing profile for each of said plurality of devices; and a processor connected to said network interface and configured to generate a prioritization list defining an order of said plurality of devices, based on said billing profiles and on a billing history for each of said plurality of devices;

said processor further configured to repeat:

receiving traffic profiles over said network resource for said plurality of devices;

managing said network resource according to said service profile and said billing profile if said network resource is fully utilized by said traffic profiles; and,

selecting at least one of said devices based on said prioritization list and dynamically modifying at least one of said service profile and said billing profile for said selected devices, if said network resource is underutilized by said traffic profile or if said network resource would be over-utilized by said traffic profiles;

until said plurality of devices no longer continue to share said network resource; and said processor further configured, when said plurality of devices are no longer sharing said network resource, to clear said prioritization list.

(Id. at 15:19-48.)

The parties dispute the scope of nine terms or phrases. With regard to three terms-“service profile,” “billing profile,” and “traffic profile”-the parties effectively dispute the meaning of “profile.” As to three other terms, they dispute what it means to over-, under-, or fully utilize a network resource. They also dispute the scope of “billing history.” Finally, the parties dispute whether the same processor or processors perform all recited functions attributed to “a processor” in Claims 10 and 37.

II. GENERAL LEGAL STANDARDS

“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). As such, if the parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their meaning. See, e.g., Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff'g, 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).

Claim construction, however, “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[c]laim construction is a matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims . . . .” Id. A court need not “repeat or restate every claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim construction is for the court.” Id.

When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13). Courts must therefore “look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.” Id. (citations omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “person of...