BROADCOM CORPORATION,
v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

CAFC
DECIDED: September 24, 2008

Patent at issue
No. 6,389,010 (”the ’010 patent”), owned by Broadcom
Claim 1 is representative and recites, with the relevant portion emphasized:
A telephone for use with a first network having a predetermined allocated bandwidth and a second network having a variable bandwidth, the telephone comprising:
an interface circuit that ”selectively couples” to the first and second networks, the first and second networks operating substantially independent of one another;
a user interface;
processing circuitry, coupled to the user interface and the interface circuit, that directs the interface circuit to select one of the first and second networks;
a microphone capable of being selectively coupled to the first and second networks via the interface circuit; and
an analog to digital converter that is coupled by the interface circuit between the microphone and the second network under the control of the processing circuitry when the second network is selected;
wherein the processing circuitry responds to the user interface to determine which of the first and second networks to select.

『The term ”selectively couples” was not construed by the district court because the parties agreed to let the ordinary meaning control.』
翻開任何一本EE硬體的書，只要兩元件緊鄰且實體相連，一定是寫著”device A is coupled to device B”。可能是因此使得被告也忽略了要去要求法院對於”couple to”這樣的disputed term做claim construction去設法實質限縮專利範圍。

『On appeal, Qualcomm argues that allegedly infringing cell phones using the QChat software do not ”selectively couple” to either the PSTN or to the Internet because these phones do not ”couple” to any network through a physical electrical connection, but rather communicate wirelessly and exclusively with the CDMA2000 infrastructure through either the 1x or EV-DO protocols.』
『Broadcom responds that the circuitry in the phone is the beginning of the electrical pathway to either network (the PSTN or the Internet) and that the presence of intermediaries between the cell phone and the destination networks should not affect infringement because the ’010 patent does not require a direct connection. It further notes that the patent itself explicitly contemplates the use of wireless networks.』
一審之後，被控侵權者可能才突然發現可在”couple to”做文章，然後二審時兩造各自努力去做對己有利之解釋。Broadcom的證人針對說明書中很模糊的說法擴張解釋:couple to不但不需要direct connection還不必physical conncection。畢竟invention可無線工作和invention內的某一circuit是否可無線工作沒有絕對的關係。


『’010 patent col.1 ll.41-44 (noting that ”this invention relates to the intelligent routing of packetized voice communication between telephones and radio terminals through wireless and hardwired channels in a data processing network” (emphasis added)); id. col.2 ll.52-56 (”An object of the invention is to provide a method and apparatus wherein seamless voice and data communication is provided among both roaming devices within wireless portions of a communication network and stationary devices within hardwired portions of the network.”』
說明書中專利權人已經有提到wireless portion，wireless channel之類的敘述，但注意，並不是直接對interface circuit的解釋，這不能算是很強的內部證據吧。

『Although Broadcom’s expert stated that ”selectively couple” means ”connected electrically,” that is, that ”[t]here is an electrical pathway to either the first or the second network,” id. at 1373, he also testified that ”the coupling . . . doesn’t mean that it has to attach the [sic] connect physically right next to each other,” id. at 1397. He further testified that ”the interface circuit is within the phone” and that it ”is electrically coupled to the first and the second network” where these networks are the PSTN and the Internet. Id. Taken as a whole, this record provides substantial evidence to support a reasonable jury’s conclusion that Qualcomm infringed the ’010 patent.』
『however, Broadcom has not argued for a new claim interpretation.』
應該是Qualcomm argued for a new claim interpretation。不過即使在一審就是disputed term，但是有內部證據支持，應該是很難翻案啦。但事實上，說明書中也未明確寫著wireless portion或wireless channel包含interface circuit, 所以還是有機會翻案吧。

這個案例提醒我們
即使像Qualcomm這樣超級重量級的公司所找的超級厲害的律師，還是會有疏漏的地方。