Intel Corp v. Qualcomm Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00048
• Patent #: 9,154,356
• Filed: November 8, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Qualcomm Incorporated
• Challenged Claims: 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Low Noise Amplifier Supporting Carrier Aggregation
• Brief Description: The ’356 patent relates to a low noise amplifier (LNA) within a radio frequency (RF) receiver designed to support carrier aggregation. The LNA features multiple amplifier stages that can be independently enabled or disabled to process either multiple carriers simultaneously or a single carrier, thereby enhancing performance and flexibility.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 17, and 18 are obvious over Jeon in view of Xiong.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeon (a 2008 IEEE journal article describing a dual-band receiver) and Xiong (Application # 2010/0237947).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jeon disclosed a concurrent dual-band LNA with two parallel amplifier stages in a cascode configuration, one for a low-band (LB) and one for a high-band (HB) signal. This structure met most limitations of claim 1, including receiving a multi-carrier input and providing two separate outputs. However, the key limitation that led to the patent’s allowance was that the amplifier stages be “configured to be independently enabled or disabled.” Petitioner contended that while Jeon used separate bias voltages for each stage, it did not explicitly teach independent switching. Xiong allegedly cured this deficiency by teaching an LNA with two "gain paths" (amplifier stages) that are explicitly and independently enabled or disabled using switches that connect the gate of the cascode transistors to a high or low voltage.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Xiong's independent switching mechanism with Jeon's parallel amplifier architecture to achieve predictable benefits in power management and operational flexibility. This modification would allow Jeon’s receiver to operate in a power-saving, single-band mode (e.g., LB-only or HB-only) by disabling the unused amplifier stage, in addition to its default concurrent dual-band mode. This addresses a common design goal of reducing power consumption in RF circuits.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a well-understood switching technique from Xiong into the standard cascode amplifier architecture of Jeon. Both were known circuit designs, and their integration would yield the predictable result of an amplifier with selectable operating modes without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Jeon in view of Xiong and Youssef.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeon, Xiong, and Youssef (a 2010 IEEE conference proceeding on RF passive attenuators).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Jeon and Xiong from Ground 1 to address dependent claims 9 and 10, which added limitations for attenuation circuits. Petitioner argued that Youssef taught coupling a programmable RF attenuator to an LNA to prevent signal clipping and improve linearity when handling large input signals or interferers. Claim 9 recites separate attenuation circuits for each amplifier stage, while claim 10 recites a single common attenuation circuit. Petitioner contended that Youssef’s teaching of an attenuator-LNA combination made it obvious to add such a circuit to the amplifier of Jeon/Xiong.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Youssef’s attenuator to the Jeon/Xiong LNA to achieve the well-known and predictable benefits of improved dynamic range and linearity. For claim 9 (two attenuators), the motivation would be to handle scenarios where the two frequency bands have significantly different signal strengths, requiring independent attenuation control. For claim 10 (one attenuator), the motivation would be to reduce circuit cost and complexity in cases where a single attenuation setting is sufficient for both bands. This represented a choice between known, predictable design trade-offs.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner claimed success would be reasonably expected because adding an attenuator to the front-end of an LNA was a standard practice in RF receiver design to protect the circuit and improve performance.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative obviousness challenges (Grounds III and IV) that added the "Feasibility Study" (a 3GPP technical report) to the primary combinations. The Feasibility Study was cited to provide additional, explicit evidence for the motivation to design receivers capable of handling carrier aggregation in modern wireless systems, in the event the primary references were deemed insufficient on that point.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "carrier aggregation"
  • Petitioner argued for the construction “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” This proposed construction was taken directly from the ’356 patent’s specification, where it was presented as an explicit definition. Petitioner contended this satisfied the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. The petition argued against importing limitations from the prosecution history, such as requiring an "increased aggregated data rate," asserting that the patent owner's statements did not rise to the level of a clear and unequivocal disclaimer of the broader scope explicitly defined in the specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate. It asserted that because it had filed no earlier petitions challenging the patent, the General Plastic factors (precursors to the Fintiv factors) weighed against denial. Petitioner further argued that a parallel ITC investigation did not warrant denial as it involved different remedies, and a co-pending district court case was not in an advanced stage, with trial not scheduled for nearly a year after the petition filing.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the ’356 patent as unpatentable.