by Dennis Crouch
One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 22-2020 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2023) (nonprecedential) (Opinion by Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judges Lourie and Stoll).
The district court sided with Apple on summary judgment, finding no infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed, holding that Apple’s accused Bluetooth products do not infringe One-E-Way’s patents. Although the parties had agreed to the construction of the “unique user code” term, they disagreed over the construction-of-the-construction. On appeal, the court treated this meta-construction effectively as a form of claim construction — looking for the ordinary meaning rather than a contract-like interpretation that would have looked more toward discerning the intent of the parties.
One-E-Way sued Apple for infringing the claims of two patents related to a wireless digital audio system that allows private listening without interference. The system uses a transmitter connected to an audio source and a receiver connected to headphones. The transmitter contains a code generator that generates a “unique user code” associated with a specific user to allow pairing between the transmitter and receiver.
During the infringement litigation, the parties agreed to construe “unique user code” as a “fixed code (bit sequence) specifically associated with one user of a device(s).” Although Apple’s Bluetooth products do transmit a unique code to establish the connection, the code is not unique to the user, but rather it is unique to the Bluetooth device. The district court agreed with Apple’s assessment and granted summary judgment of non-infringement.
On appeal, One-E-Way argued that the “unique user code” limitation is still met by Apple’s accused Bluetooth products. Specifically, One-E-Way contended that even though the Bluetooth address codes are associated with devices, the codes are still associated with individual users through operation of the device. In other words, One-E-Way argued that Bluetooth pairing to a particular device is equivalent to pairing with a specific user. This argument makes the assumption that each device is limited to just “one user.” Although that assumption is not strictly true, I expect that it holds true in 99% of cases. For a while, I shared Bluetooth headphones with one of my daughters–it did not work well at all.
The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that it was inconsistent the claim construction which clearly states the code is associated with “one user.” rather than the device itself. Even if the Bluetooth address code is associated with a user through use of the device, the code remains fundamentally associated with the device. The Federal Circuit found no evidence that the code itself becomes directly linked to the user, rather than the device, through pairing and use.
The arguments in this case are somewhat meta. The parties are not arguing about claim construction per se, but rather construction of the construction. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit considered the “plain and ordinary meaning of the agreed-upon construction” and concluded that it required required a more direct link to a user. As it would with ordinary claim construction, the court looked to the specification for support. In particular, the court noted that the patent specifications “distinguish between users and devices when describing the purpose of the invention” and recognized the problem of conflict that I had with sharing Bluetooth accessories. “The patents’ consistent reference to ‘user’ and ‘device’ as distinct entities and association of the unique user code with ‘user’ supports the district court’s conclusion that ‘one user of a device’ does not mean the device itself.” Slip Op.
Non-infringement affirmed.
= = =
The patents at issue are:
– U.S. Patent No. 10,129,627
– U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047
The ‘627 and ‘047 patents share the same specification. The court treated Claim 1 of the ‘627 patent as representative.
Sometimes these patent cases turn on very scholastic argument…in the real world, is there a PHOSITA in any art who would not make the mental leap between users and devices when thinking about system interactions?
“The parties are not arguing about claim construction per se, but rather construction of the construction. ”
that sounds like part of the construction/interpretation.
Speaking of “meta”, how refreshing to see the law being applied to the scuzziest lawyers in the country! Took too long but worth the wait. Especially gratifying and amusing to watch diseased weasel John Eastman using his obvious (and notorious) guilt as an excuse to delay his inevitable disbarment. Die in prison, dude. It’s what you and your ilk deserve (at a minimum).
Yes, we appear to be approaching the “find out” stage of “FA&FO.”
When you find out what the actual finding out is going to be:
link to youtube.com
The analogy to Tupac seems apt. There are two ways that one can “become more popular.” The number of one’s fans can increase, or the intensity of love that your existing fans feel for you can increase.
It is not clear that Tupac being arrested did much to increase the number of his fans (I do not recall reading articles in “Opera News” about the new wellsprings of regard that Tupac was drawing in the community of opera aficionados). It did, however, move his casual fans to become more enthusiastic in their regard for him.
Mutatis mutandis, I dare say that the prosecutions are achieving much the same effect for Pres. Trump. Considered as a fund-raising tool, this is probably a plus for him. Considered as a vote-raising tool, however, that is less obvious.
While each Tupac fan is able to buy more than one Tupac album, each voters gets only one vote. An ambivalent vote counts the same as an enthusiastic vote—no more, no less.
If the prosecutions make each individual Trump voter more enthusiastic, but do not increase the net number of Trump voters, this results in him being “more popular” without bringing him any closer to winning this or that state. Meanwhile, if the prosecutions make his base love him more, but makes swing voters love him less, it actually moves him away from victory, even as it makes him “more popular.”
In any event, the “find out” end of FA&FO happens to the Jenna Ellises and Sidney Powells just like the Donald Trumps. Pres. Trump’s increase in popularity is cold comfort to the others on the receiving end of “find out,” especially those (like Ellis) who have switched allegiance to another candidate in the time since 2021.
One mod might be amenable to Greg’s “one vote” notion: given the rather abysmal level of voter turnout (as is most often the case), the intensity factor may be viewed as a tendency to push people to vote that may otherwise not have voted at all.
On appeal, One-E-Way… contended that even though the Bluetooth address codes are associated with devices, the codes are still associated with individual users through operation of the device. In other words, One-E-Way argued that Bluetooth pairing to a particular device is equivalent to pairing with a specific user.
What do I know about the working of Bluetooth devices? Scarcely anything. Still and all, it sure looks to me that One-E-Way got shafted here. If that is all that this dispute is about, I think that One-E-Way’s construction of the construction looks like much the more natural way to understand that construction.
This argument makes the assumption that each device is limited to just “one user.” Although that assumption is not strictly true, I expect that it holds true in 99% of cases. For a while, I shared Bluetooth headphones with one of my daughters…
Yeah, fine. Sure, in that rare instance, the code is not a “user” code. As you say, however, in the overwhelming majority of instances, there is one user per device, so the overwhelming majority of instances should be regarded as infringing the claims (as properly construed). The CAFC appears to be straining to find a grounds for Apple to get off the hook here.
Mind you, I have no idea what this construction (or a more natural construction) should mean for validity challenges. Maybe Apple deserves to win in the ultimate analysis. The particular analysis by which they actually won here, however, does not seem all that convincing (at least not to this admitted non-expert).
It’s because the patent owner specifically relied on that construction in both an IPR and ITC proceeding, and the PTAB cited that specific construction as the reason it did not institute an IPR.
(From the IPR non-instutition decision):
“As discussed above, the parties agreed to adopt the ITC’s construction of
“unique user code” as a “fixed code (bit sequence) specifically associated
with one user of a device.” See § II.A, supra. In setting forth this construction, the ITC emphasized that its “construction makes clear that the fixed code is associated with ‘one user (of a device(s))’ and not a ‘user’s
device.’… Petitioner, however, fails to show that [prior art] discloses a unique user code that is associated with one user of a device, rather than a device itself. “
Ah, thanks. That does seem more fair, placed in that context.
Once again: a toothed sanctioning regime might have prevented this massive waste of time. The patentee here literally relied on one construction under oath before the PTAB (to avoid institution) and then completely contradicted itself under oath before another tribunal (the CAFC, at least).
DC “The arguments in this case are somewhat meta. The parties are not arguing about claim construction per se, but rather construction of the construction.”
Without knowing more details than what’s provided here, this would seem to be a failure at the Markman level. Was it not obvious to both parties and the judge at the time of the Markman that this term “unique user code” would be decisive? If it was not decisive regarding non-infringement, it would surely be decisive about validity. As it stands, OneWay should consider itself lucky that its patent wasn’t invalidated (although it may already be expired, I haven’t looked).
Comments are closed.