Intel Corp v. Qualcomm Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00129
• Patent #: 9,154,356
• Filed: November 9, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Qualcomm Incorporated
• Challenged Claims: 2-6 and 10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Low Noise Amplifier for Carrier Aggregation
• Brief Description: The ’356 patent relates to a low noise amplifier (LNA) within a radio frequency (RF) receiver. The LNA is designed with multiple, independently-enabled amplifier stages to support carrier aggregation (CA), a technique that allows a wireless device to process data simultaneously on multiple frequency carriers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 2-6 are anticipated by Lee under 35 U.S.C. §102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2012/0056681).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lee, which was listed on an Information Disclosure Statement but not substantively applied by the Examiner, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The key limitation added during prosecution to secure allowance—a first and second amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled or disabled—was allegedly taught by Lee’s description of enabling and disabling separate output stages for different radio functions (e.g., WiFi and Bluetooth). Petitioner contended that Lee’s "combo mode," enabling simultaneous operation of both WiFi and Bluetooth functions, teaches the "carrier aggregation" limitation by processing multiple carriers at the same time. The dependent claims, reciting specific cascode transistor arrangements and operational modes, were argued to be fully disclosed by Lee's amplifier block architecture and its described modes of operation.

Ground 2: Claim 10 is obvious over Lee in view of Youssef under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2012/0056681) and Youssef (a 2010 paper titled "Digitally-Controlled RF Passive Attenuator in 65 nm CMOS for Mobile TV Tuner ICs").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lee discloses the base LNA apparatus of claim 1. Claim 10 adds the limitation of an "attenuation circuit" coupled to the amplifier stages. Petitioner argued Youssef teaches this element, as it describes a digitally-controlled RF attenuator coupled to an LNA to improve performance in mobile devices by handling a wide dynamic range of input signals.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Youssef's attenuation circuit with Lee's multi-mode LNA to address the known problem of signal clipping and interference in mobile receivers. Youssef explicitly teaches that its attenuator prevents clipping from large input signals and improves linearity, providing a clear motivation to incorporate it into a receiver design like Lee's to achieve these predictable benefits.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known circuit solution (Youssef's attenuator) to a known apparatus (Lee's LNA) to solve a common problem in RF design, yielding the predictable result of improved dynamic range and linearity.

Ground 3: Claims 2-6 are obvious over Lee in view of the Feasibility Study under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2012/0056681) and the Feasibility Study (3GPP TR 36.912).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in the event Lee was found not to teach "carrier aggregation." Petitioner argued that the Feasibility Study, a 3GPP technical report for LTE-Advanced systems, explicitly and extensively describes carrier aggregation, where multiple component carriers are aggregated to support wider bandwidths. Lee was argued to disclose the remaining structural elements of the claims, namely the LNA with multiple, independently switchable amplifier blocks.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to implement the advanced carrier aggregation techniques detailed in the Feasibility Study would be motivated to use an efficient receiver architecture like that in Lee. The Feasibility Study suggests that receivers for certain CA scenarios would benefit from multiple RF front-ends, which directly corresponds to Lee's architecture of multiple amplifier blocks. The motivation would be to use Lee’s known amplifier design as a straightforward implementation to realize the benefits of CA described in the Feasibility Study.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining the teachings, as Lee's amplifier circuitry is inherently capable of receiving and processing the types of multi-carrier signals described in the Feasibility Study. Any modifications would involve routine and well-known receiver tuning and filtering techniques.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 10 based on the combination of Lee, the Feasibility Study, and Youssef, applying the rationale from the grounds above.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for the construction of "carrier aggregation" as "simultaneous operation on multiple carriers." This construction was asserted to be explicitly defined in the ’356 patent's specification. Petitioner contended that Patent Owner's arguments during prosecution to overcome prior art, which suggested CA required an "increased aggregated data rate," did not amount to a clear and unequivocal disclaimer of scope. Therefore, importing a functional limitation related to data rate into the construction of the apparatus claims would be improper.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a), which considers parallel litigation. It asserted that this petition was among the first filed against the ’356 patent. Furthermore, it argued that the co-pending ITC investigation seeks a different remedy (an exclusion order) and that the parallel district court case was not in an advanced stage, with trial scheduled more than a year after the petition filing. These facts, Petitioner contended, weighed against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review for claims 2-6 and 10 of Patent 9,154,356 and requests the cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.