GAnited States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
COMMSCOPE CONNECTIVITY LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
Vv.
DALI WIRELESS INC.,
Defendant-Cross-Appellant
2020-1817, 2020-1818
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas in No. 3:16-cv-00477-M, Chief
Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.
Decided: August 24, 2021
PHILIP P. CASPERS, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh &
Lindquist, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiffs-ap-
pellants. Also represented by WILLIAM F. BULLARD,
SAMUEL A. HAMER.
CHARLES HARDY DAVIS, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Be-
thesda, MD, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also
represented by ERIC F. CITRON; CRISTOFER LEFFLER, Folio
Law Group PLLC, Lake Forest Park, WA.
2 COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
Before REYNA, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
CommScope and Dali each appeal from the district
court’s entry of judgment after it denied their motions for
judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for attor-
neys’ fees. This appeal and cross-appeal involve several
patents and numerous issues regarding infringement and
validity, but our opinion focuses on only two: infringement
and validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,521. Although we
have thoroughly considered the other issues raised by both
parties, we affirm the district court’s determinations as to
those issues without significant discussion. As to the
521 patent, for the reasons discussed below, we reverse the
district court’s denial of JMOL of no infringement and af-
firm its denial of JMOL of invalidity.
BACKGROUND
CommScope Technologies LLC and CommScope Con-
nectivity LLC (Collectively, “CommScope”) filed suit
against Dali Wireless Inc. (“Dali”) in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging in-
fringement of five of CommScope’s patents relating to
telecommunications technology. Dali counterclaimed, al-
leging CommScope infringed two of Dali’s patents also re-
lating to telecommunications technology.
One of those asserted patents, the 521 patent, is as-
signed to Dali and is titled “System and Method for Digital
Memorized Predistortion for Wireless Communication.”
This technology generally relates to wireless communica-
tions with portable equipment and handsets, such as mo-
bile phones. 521 patent col. 1 ll. 19-23; see also id. at col. 4
ll. 18-23. Such devices often include a power amplifier to
boost the signal. However, amplification can cause unin-
tended distortions to the signal. Jd. at col. 1 ll. 36—40,
54-67. The 521 patent resolves this problem through the
COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC. 3
use of a feedback loop and lookup tables, as described be-
low.
Specifically, the 521 patent describes a training mode
(Fig. 3), in which the feedback loop runs and the lookup
tables are updated, and an operating mode (Fig. 4), in
which the “switch ON/OFF controllers” are turned off and
the lookup table is no longer updated. Jd. at col. 5 1. 55—
col. 71. 30. In training mode, the feedback loop on the bot-
tom half of Figure 3 uses the output signal fed back from
power amplifier 16 to calculate digital predistortion values
that are stored in lookup tables 311 & Q.
1180, 421 MULTIPLIER 11 “1 6
oo ) 7
I 1 pac +] RECONSTRUC-
TIOM FILTER 16
‘SyHBOL QUADRATURE
CODER WAVE vy, "p MODULATOR
‘SHAPING Q-MULTIPLIER (aM)
x
> FL Tonner
120 130 14)
Id. Fig. 3 (depicting training mode). !
These lookup table values are used in operating mode
to intentionally “predistort” the signal before the signal is
sent to the power amplifier in a way such that after the
signal is amplified, it is not distorted.
1 For the 521 patent figures, we have included the
versions from CommScope’s briefs, which are clearer ver-
sions of the figures than those in the ’521 patent. Compare
Appellants’ Br. 9, with 521 patent Fig. 3.
4 COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
Hi&g
~"] ADORESS ; 4
FORMER
L__| fo
wWréQ
FIG. 4
Id. Fig. 4 (depicting operating mode), col. 6 ll. 27-41.
Claim 1 of the 521 patent recites:
oo
1. A method of operating a power amplifier, the
method comprising:
initializing the power amplifier;
performing a training phase comprising:
establishing pre-computed distortion contribu-
tions based on pre-compensation training feed-
back signals representative of output of the
power amplifier; and
storing the pre-computed distortion contribu-
tions in a lookup table; and
performing an operating phase comprising:
switching a controller off to disconnect signal
representative of the output of the power ampli-
fier;
accepting an original value that reflects infor-
mation to be communicated;
generating a digital lookup table key based on
the original value;
retrieving from the lookup table, using the dig-
ital lookup table key, a corresponding pre-
COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC. 5
computed distortion contribution for the origi-
nal value;
distorting the original value based on the cor-
responding pre-computed distortion contribu-
tion to obtain a distorted value to pre-
compensate for the nonlinear characteristics of
the power amplifier; and
wirelessly transmitting a pre-distorted signal
based on the distorted value.
Id. at col. 10 1. 47-col. 11 1. 4 (emphasis added to disputed
limitation).
Dali accused CommScope’s FlexWave Prism distrib-
uted antenna system (FlexWave) of infringing the 521 pa-
tent. According to CommScope, this system is installed on
telephone poles to extend wireless coverage. Appellants’
Br. 12. Similar to the 521 patent, the FlexWave system
analyzes a feedback signal from a power amplifier to calcu-
late predistortion. Unlike the 521 patent, the FlexWave
uses two power amplifiers. The dispute between the par-
ties centers on the FlexWave’s selector switch (labeled
“SW” in the figure below), which continuously chooses be-
tween feedback signals from the two power amplifiers for
calculating predistortion values:
6 COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
DAC3283/3482
i TRF3703/3720 Complex
va | |
VQ Mod 3
va | |
VQ Mod _—__—
I ! -—1
bones
Baseband ADS41B49 So aneaaeans ——
Data : : aie
=> ae i: . Subsampled
Moer/BPF Feedback
Paseuecoesens :
ADS62P49
poo coo
RX |
Mixer/BPF
\
\
I
Real
RX |
|
|
RX
Mixer/BPF / Ge
BOu201
Id. at 14 (depicting the accused FlexWave).
The claim limitation at the center of the parties’ in-
fringement dispute is the first step in the claimed “operat-
ing phase”: “switching a controller off to disconnect signal
representative of the output of the power amplifier.”
521 patent col. 10 ll. 57-58 (emphasis added). The district
court construed this term to mean “[s]witching a controller
to a nonoperating state to disconnect signal representative
of the output of the power amplifier.”, CommScope Techs.
LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc. (Claim Construction Order),
No. 3:16-cv-477, 2017 WL 6549933, at *12 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
19, 2017).
At trial, CommScope argued that three pieces of prior
art anticipated the asserted claims of the 521 patent—
COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
Wright,? Bauder,? and Khan.4 Wright is particularly rele-
vant to our decision on appeal.
Like the 521 patent, Wright discloses a system for dig-
ital predistortion that uses a feedback signal from a power
amplifier to calculate predistortion values.
Like the ac-
cused FlexWave device, Wright’s system includes multiple
power amplifiers (601:-n) and a switch (Multiplexer
(“MUX”) 106) that selects one of the feedback signals from
one of the power amplifiers.
input tx
—_ veut) | csp
(a
——Ymat) 2 pcsP 7" ih
Pi. 5
ee |
Bs
vent) [5
vn,{t) ara “
T
|
|
52, —
fis
545
Input
Signal
MUX
ocsP
Coefficient
DeMUX
oc
70
adaptive
control
Processing and
compensation
| ‘or
tL
pil
‘iean ersion
60,
| 3 |
BS 2
RF
upconversion
"y enna 1
antenna 2
| antenna 3
puss Fecston Sa a y
RF
upconversion
68
RF down
VE alt)
| entenna N
|
ve a(t)
Vfaa(t)
VEua(t)
|
|
| Vf?)
|
RF
conversion
2
3
4
US.
Patent
No. US 2003/0035494.
106
U.S. Patent No. 6,587,514.
Application
U.S. Patent No. 5,959,499.
MUX
Publication
8 COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
Appellants’ Br. 39 (citing Wright Figs. 33A, 33B).
The jury rendered a verdict of infringement, no inva-
lidity, and damages for both CommScope and Dali. The
district court denied both parties’ motions for JMOL, de-
nied CommScope’s motion for a new trial, denied
CommScope’s request for attorneys’ fees, and entered judg-
ment.
CommScope appeals and Dali cross-appeals. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
This court reviews the denial of a motion for JMOL un-
der regional circuit law, here, Fifth Circuit law. Rembrandt
Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370,
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit
reviews a denial of a motion for JMOL de novo, asking
whether a “reasonable jury would not have a legally suffi-
cient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.”
Id. (quoting Cambridge Toxicology Grp. v. Exnicios,
495 F.3d 169, 179 (th Cir. 2007)).
I
We turn first to the jury’s findings of infringement and
no anticipation of the 521 patent. Although the questions
of infringement and anticipation are separate inquiries,
the two are related. As the Supreme Court has stated,
“[t]hat which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if ear-
lier.” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889);
see also Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc., 827 F.2d 744,
747 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.,
267 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC
Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“A determination of infringement is a question of fact
that is reviewed for substantial evidence when tried to a
jury.” ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co., 501 F.3d
1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing TI Grp. Auto. Sys.
COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC. 9
(N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126, 1133
(Fed. Cir. 2004)). Whether an accused device infringes re-
quires a two-step analysis—the court first “determines the
scope and meaning of the patent claims asserted, and then
the properly construed claims are compared to the alleg-
edly infringing device.” Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infi-
nite Pictures, Inc., 274 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(quoting Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448,
1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds
by Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Anticipation, likewise, is a question of fact that we re-
view for substantial evidence. Enplas Display Device Corp.
v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., 909 F.3d 398, 406 (Fed. Cir.
2018). “A determination that a patent is invalid as antici-
pated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that a prior art refer-
ence disclose every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co.
vu. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (cita-
tion omitted).
On appeal, CommScope argues that substantial evi-
dence does not support the jury’s finding that CommScope’s
FlexWave infringes Dali’s ’521 patent. Specifically,
CommScope argues that Dali failed to present evidence
proving that the FlexWave meets the district court’s con-
struction of the claim term “switching a controller off.” We
agree and therefore reverse. Following this same logic, we
leave undisturbed the jury’s finding that Wright does not
anticipate the challenged claims of the 521 patent.
A
Looking to the first step of the infringement inquiry
(claim construction), Dali argued to the district court that
the claim term “switching a controller off’ meant “[s]witch-
ing a controller to an off status.” Claim Construction Or-
der, 2017 WL 6549933, at *12. Dali asserted that the term
“off? did not require further definition. Jd. CommScope, on
10 COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
the other hand, proposed that the claim term meant
“[s]witching a controller to a nonoperating state.” Id. The
district court agreed with CommScope, noting that the “un-
derlying dispute over this term is what switching ‘off does
to the controller.” Jd. In so holding, the district court drew
a distinction between: (1) when the controller is turned off
and (2) the effect on the system of turning the controller
off. Id. The district court determined that this clarification
was necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. Jd. Citing O2
Micro Int Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Dali fails to mount a meaningful appellate challenge to
this construction. In a footnote, Dali argues that
“CommScope’s premise that the controller itself must be
turned ‘off is...literal nonsense,” Cross-Appellant’s
Br. 44 n.10, which suggests that the district court’s con-
struction of “switching a controller to a nonoperating state”
is also “nonsense.” The reason for this is, in Dali’s view,
“because something needs to turn the switch back on each
time the system goes back to the training phase, and that
something is the controller.” Id.
There are several reasons to reject this opaque chal-
lenge by Dali. First, an argument that is only made in a
footnote of an appellant’s brief is forfeited. SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319-20
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Second, even if the ar-
gument were in the body of the brief, it is insufficiently de-
veloped. See Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs, 459 F.3d 1328, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“In order for this court to reach the merits
of an issue on appeal, it must be adequately developed.”
(citations omitted)); Game & Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp.
Ltd., 942 F.3d 13848, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining
that an issue was forfeited where appellant raised it “only
[in] one paragraph” in which appellant “fail[ed] to address,
let alone show, any specific errors in the Board’s findings’).
Finally, and most importantly, it is irreconcilable with
Dali’s statements in other portions of its_ brief:
COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC. 11
(1) asserting that the district court’s construction is “un-
challenged,” Cross-Appellant’s Br. 44; and (2) applying the
construction in the context of invalidity, td. at 47 (“[c]laim
1 of the 521 Patent requires a controller that . . . places it-
self ...in a non-operating state”). Seeing no meaningful
challenge, we adopt the district court’s construction requir-
ing the controller itself to be turned to a “nonoperating
state.” We thus consider whether substantial evidence
supports the jury’s finding that the FlexWave infringes
claim 1 under this construction.
B
We turn next to the second step of the infringement in-
quiry. The key evidence Dali relies on as supporting its
contention that the FlexWave meets the claim as properly
construed is the following testimony of its expert, Dr. Ken-
ney:
[A.] ...So the first step in this operating phase is
to switch a controller off. And the [district court]
define[d] that [to] mean[] placing the controller in
a non-operating state so that you disconnect the
signal from the output of the [power amplifier]. So
in a sense you turn the feedback off.
And the [internal] documents show a switch. This
is the simplest schematic I could find. And I have
circled it in red there. And various other schemat-
ics show that switch as well. So it meets this limt-
tation.
Q. And what did you identify as the switch?
A. Well, the actual switch circuit is a series of tran-
sistors that switch the actual RF signal on and off.
And it is also associated with a logic that controls
it that is on the [Field Programmable Gate Array],
all those things being on the [motherboard].
12 COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DALI WIRELESS INC.
J.A. 28011 (Trial Tr. 61:4—-17 (Vol. 5-B)) (emphases added).
The district court also relied principally on this testimony
in denying JMOL of noninfringement on thisissue. J.A. 14
(quoting J.A. 28011).
The switch that Dr. Kenney circled in red is shown be-
low:
DAC328 3/3482
ee TRF3703/3720 Complex
TX
rd
VQ Mod | >
|
Mixer/BPF (ED) eee
Mixer/BPF + —