In Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company, LP, [2020-1852, 2020-1854] (October 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s claim construction, and further that under that construction Traxcell failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to infringement, and further that several of Traxcell’s claims were indefinite.

The case involves U.S. Patent Nos. 8,977,284, 9,510,320, 9,642,024, and 9,549,388 related to self-optimizing network technology for making “corrective actions” to improve communications between a wireless device and a network.

At issue was the claim limitation “means for receiving said performance data and corresponding locations from said radio tower and correcting radio frequency signals of said radio tower.” The parties agreed that this was a means-plus-function claim, and the corresponding structure was an algorithm identified in the specification.

Traxcell argued that Sprint’s accused technology included a structural equivalent to the disclosed structure under the function-way-result test. The district court disagreed, reasoning that Traxcell failed to establish that Sprint’s accused technology operates in substantially the same “way.”

The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that the identified structure from the specification was a “very detailed” algorithm, including numerous steps necessary for its function. However, Traxcell neglected to address a significant fraction of that structure. Accordingly, Traxcell didn’t provide enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the accused structure performs the claimed function in “substantially the same way” as the disclosed structure.

Also at issue was the limitation “location.” The parties agreed, and the district court accepted, that “location” meant “location that is not merely a position in a grid pattern.” However, under this construction Traxell lost. On appeal Traxell insisted in retrospect that this construction was wrong. The Federal Circuit said that “having stipulated to it, Traxcell cannot pull an about-face.”

With respect to infringement by Sprint, the independent claims all require sending, receiving, generating, storing, or using the “location” of a wireless device. The district court concluded that Traxcell simply hadn’t shown that the accused technologies used “location” as construed by the court, and the Federal Circuit agreed. With respect to infringement by Ericson, the district court rejected Traxcell’s argument that the accused technology uses “location” because it collects “information regarding the distance of devices from a base station.” The Federal Circuit agreed that this was not location information but information to calculate distance.

Also at issue were the limitations “first computer” and “computer.” Construing these as referring to a single computer, the district court concluded that Traxell had not shown that these limitations were met, and the Federal Circuit agreed. The Federal Circuit said that Traxell failed to particularize those conclusory assertions with specific evidence and arguments. Traxell argued it provided substantial evidence that the district court ignored, but the Federal Circuit said it was “an army of citation footnotes crouching in a field of jargon. What they lack is explanation.” The Federal Circuit concluded that Traxell’s showing was “simply too unexplained and conclusory.” The Federal Circuit said that Traxcell has cited swaths of documents, but it Failed to explain how those documents support its infringement theory. It didn’t do so at the trial court, and it didn’t do so on appeal.

Traxcell’s remaining infringement arguments on appeal relied upon the doctrine of equivalents. But the Federal Circuit concluded that Traxcell surrendered multiple computer equivalents during prosecution of these patents.

Turning to indefiniteness, Claim 1 of the ‘284 patent was found indefinite on two grounds:

1. Lack of reasonable certainty about which “wireless device” the term “at least one said wireless device” referred to.
2. Lack of an adequate supporting structure in the specification for the claim’s means-plus-function limitation.

The Federal Circuit found that the claim was indefinite for lack of adequate supporting structure in the specification.

A means-plus-function claim is indefinite if the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed function. While Traxcell cited an algorithm, the district court found that Traxcell’s explanation provided nothing more than a restatement of the function, as recited in the claim. The Federal Circuit concluded that the claim was indefinite, without the need to reach the issue of “wireless device.”

As to infringement of the ‘388 patent, the claims required that the device’s location is (1) determined on the network, (2) communicated to the device, and (3) used to display navigation information.

The district court determined that Traxcell failed to show that the device location was determined by the network, and the Federal Circuit agreed. Traxcell argued that the network provided data to the devices, but the court observed that it is not data from the network that the claims require. It is that the network itself determines location and transmits the location to the device. The Federal Circuit said that Traxcell has not shown that the network does so with anything but broad and conclusory scattershot assertions.