Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.

Nature of the order

This order sets out tentative claim-construction rulings and questions for a January 18, 2024 hearing. Claim construction is the court’s interpretation of disputed patent language. The court instructed the parties not to reargue issues already covered in their briefs, required advance notice of any new authorities, and ordered presentation slides to be filed by January 17, 2024.

Evidentiary objections

Tile objected to Cellwitch’s Exhibit B because it was an incomplete copy of the ’655 Patent’s file history. Tile also objected to Dr. Goldberg’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards discussed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The court tentatively sustained Tile’s objection to Exhibit B and admitted Docket No. 186-17 instead as a full copy of the patent file history. The court also tentatively ruled that Tile’s objections to Dr. Goldberg’s testimony were insufficient grounds to exclude his testimony.

Tentative claim constructions

“Wireless communication terminal.” Cellwitch proposed “wireless enabled mobile device,” while Tile argued that no construction was necessary. The dispute concerned whether the term must refer to a mobile device or could include a base station. The court tentatively adopted “wireless enabled mobile device.”

“Monitor the proximity of.” Cellwitch proposed “keep track of whether the wireless device is within range of or a defined distance from the wireless communication terminal.” Tile proposed no construction. The court tentatively adopted: “detect and keep track of whether the wireless device is within range of or a defined distance from the wireless communication terminal.”

“When the proximity” terms. Cellwitch proposed no construction, or alternatively a construction referring to when the wireless device is determined or estimated to be out of range or beyond a defined distance. Tile proposed language tying the alert’s timing to polling messages and related processing steps. The court found Tile’s proposed limitations unsupported and tentatively adopted: “at a time close to the moment when it is determined that the wireless device is out of range of the wireless communication terminal or otherwise is estimated to be at or beyond a defined distance from the wireless communication terminal.”

“The collected data.” The parties agreed on the meaning of the term in claims 4 and 16 but disputed whether the term in claims 5–6 and 17–18 must refer to the same data described in those claims. The court tentatively adopted “the collected data recited in claim 4” for claims 5–6 and “the collected data recited in claim 16” for claims 17–18.

“Alert,” “notification,” and “alarm.” Tile argued that these terms were indefinite and formed a hierarchy, with an alarm as a subset of a notification and a notification as a subset of an alert. Cellwitch argued that the terms were used interchangeably in different contexts. The court found that the claim language suggested a relationship between “alert” and “notification,” but did not find that the terms were indefinite based on their plain and ordinary meanings. It tentatively found that no construction was necessary.

“Learning module” terms. Tile argued that the terms invoked pre-America Invents Act 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), which applies when a claim uses functional language without adequately identifying the corresponding structure or algorithm, and that the terms were indefinite. Cellwitch argued that “learning module” had a sufficiently definite meaning as the name of a software component and that § 112(6) did not apply. The court tentatively ruled that the term was indefinite under pre-AIA § 112(6).

User-default-profile term. Tile argued that the term was indefinite because it was circular: the collected data was based on a proximity threshold, while the threshold was defined by a user profile generated from the collected data. Cellwitch disputed Tile’s interpretation and argued that the default profile need not be generated before any data was collected. The court found Cellwitch’s explanation unpersuasive and tentatively ruled that the term was indefinite.

“Providing an option to not generate” the alert. Tile proposed that the term was indefinite because the independent claims described two different alerts. Cellwitch argued that the term referred to the alert in the first element of claim 1 or the first step of claim 12. The court tentatively adopted: “the alert that the wireless communication terminal is configured to generate in the first [element of claim 1 / step of claim 12].”

Effect of the order

The document states tentative rulings for the scheduled claim-construction hearing. It does not state that the tentative constructions became final after the hearing, and it does not enter judgment or otherwise resolve the patent case.