Intel Corp v. Qualcomm Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00049
• Patent #: 9,154,356
• Filed: November 8, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Qualcomm Inc
• Challenged Claims: 2-8 and 11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Low Noise Amplifier Supporting Carrier Aggregation
• Brief Description: The ’356 patent discloses a low noise amplifier (LNA) for use in a radio frequency (RF) receiver. The LNA features multiple parallel amplifier stages designed to support carrier aggregation (CA) by simultaneously processing signals on different frequency carriers, with each stage being independently enabled or disabled.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Claims 2-8 and 11 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 the core architecture of the ’356 patent, including a receiver with two parallel cascode amplifier stages (a low-band and a high-band) that receive a multi-carrier input and provide separate, filtered outputs. However, Jeon did not explicitly teach that these amplifier stages could be independently enabled or disabled, which was the key feature added during prosecution to overcome prior art rejections. Petitioner contended that Xiong supplied this missing element by teaching an LNA with two "gain paths" (amplifier stages) that are explicitly and independently enabled or disabled via switches. Xiong’s design allows the LNA to operate in different modes, such as a low-noise mode with both paths enabled or a high-linearity mode with only one path enabled.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Xiong's independent switching mechanism with Jeon's parallel amplifier architecture to achieve predictable benefits. Specifically, adding switches would provide operational flexibility and improve power efficiency by allowing an unused amplifier stage to be turned off (e.g., disabling the low-band amplifier when processing only high-band signals), thereby reducing unnecessary power consumption.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known switching technique from Xiong to a conventional dual-band amplifier design from Jeon. This integration would have used standard circuit design principles well understood by a POSITA to achieve the predictable result of a power-efficient, multi-mode LNA.

Ground II: Claims 2-8 and 11 are obvious over Jeon in view of Xiong and the Feasibility Study.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeon, Xiong, and the Feasibility Study (3GPP TR 36.912, a technical report on LTE-Advanced).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented to address any potential argument that Jeon’s "dual-band signal" did not meet the "carrier aggregation" limitation as used in modern wireless standards. The combination of Jeon and Xiong was asserted to teach the claimed LNA structure, as detailed in Ground I. The Feasibility Study was added to explicitly teach the use of carrier aggregation in LTE-Advanced systems, where multiple component carriers are aggregated to support wider bandwidths. The study suggests that an ideal receiver for certain types of CA would utilize multiple, separate RF front-ends, each with its own amplifier and mixer.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA tasked with designing a receiver for an LTE-Advanced system, as described in the Feasibility Study, would be motivated to use an architecture with parallel, independently controllable signal paths. The combined Jeon/Xiong LNA provides the exact type of front-end architecture suggested by the Feasibility Study. The motivation was to apply a known, flexible LNA design (Jeon and Xiong) to implement a receiver for the known and desirable CA feature detailed in the 3GPP standard.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there was a reasonable expectation of success because the Feasibility Study confirms the utility of multi-path receiver architectures for CA. The LNA from Jeon and Xiong is inherently capable of receiving and processing the types of signals described in the study. Any modifications to adapt the LNA for specific LTE frequency bands would have involved routine tuning and filtering techniques known to a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "carrier aggregation": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "simultaneous operation on multiple carriers." This construction was asserted to come directly from the ’356 patent’s specification, which explicitly states, "A wireless device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on multiple carriers." Petitioner contended that arguments made during prosecution to distinguish prior art did not constitute a clear and unequivocal disavowal of this plain definition. This construction was central because it established that Jeon’s concurrent dual-band receiver inherently practiced "carrier aggregation."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on co-pending litigation (pre-Fintiv General Plastic factors). It was argued that:
  • The co-pending ITC investigation involved different remedies and would not provide the same relief as an IPR.
  • The parallel district court case was not in an advanced stage, with a trial date set for nearly a year after the petition filing, allowing ample time for a Final Written Decision.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2-8 and 11 of Patent 9,154,356 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.