One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2020
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-
GJS, Judge John A. Kronstadt.
______________________
Decided: August 14, 2023
______________________
D OUGLAS G LEN MUEHLHAUSER, Knobbe, Martens, Ol-
son & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
Also represented by PAYSON J. L EMEILLEUR .
HEIDI L YN K EEFE , Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
for defendant-appellee. Also represented by D ENA CHEN,
BENJAMIN S. L IN, L OWELL D. MEAD.
______________________
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 1 of 7 --

ONE- E- WAY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and STOLL , Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
One-E-Way, Inc. (One-E-Way) appeals from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California’s grant
of summary judgment that Apple Inc.’s (Apple) accused
products do not infringe the asserted claims of One-E-
Way’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,129,627 and 10,468,047. We af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
One-E-Way’s asserted patents relate to “a wireless dig-
ital audio system for coded digital transmission of an audio
signal from any audio player with an analog headphone
jack to a receiver headphone located away from the audio
player.” ’627 patent at 1:66–2:3.1 The written description
explains the system “provides private listening without in-
terference from other users or wireless devices and without
the use of conventional cable connections.” Id. at 2:10–13.
The system includes, among other things, a battery-pow-
ered transmitter connected to an audio source and a bat-
tery-powered receiver connected to headphone speakers.
Id. at 2:40–64, Fig. 1. The transmitter contains a code gen-
erator which may generate a unique user code “specifically
associated with one wireless digital audio system user.” Id.
at 2:64–3:1. The unique user code is used to pair the trans-
mitter and receiver such that each headphone user “may
be able to listen (privately) to high fidelity audio music . . .
without interference from any other receiver headphone
user.” Id. at 3:42–46.
Claim 1 of the ’627 patent is representative and recites:
1 Because the ’627 and ’047 patents share the same
specification, we cite only to the ’627 patent.
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 2 of 7 --

ONE- E- WAY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 3
A wireless digital audio spread spectrum receiver,
capable of mobile operation, configured to receive a
unique user code and a high quality audio signal
representation with a frequency range of 20 Hz to
20 kHz from a digital audio spread spectrum trans-
mitter, said audio signal representation repre-
sentative of audio from a portable audio source,
said digital audio spread spectrum receiver opera-
tive to communicate wirelessly with said digital au-
dio spread spectrum transmitter, said digital audio
spread spectrum receiver comprising:
a direct conversion module configured to
receive wireless spread spectrum signal
transmissions representative of the unique
user code and the high quality audio signal
representation, wherein the received trans-
missions are encoded to reduce intersymbol
interference, wherein the wireless digital
audio spread spectrum receiver is capable
of processing the high quality audio signal
having a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20
kHz;
a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) config-
ured to generate an audio output from said
receiver audio signal representation; and
a speaker configured to reproduce said gen-
erated audio output, wherein said repro-
duction does not include audible audio
content originating from any transmitted
audio signals in the wireless digital audio
spread spectrum transmitter spectrum
that do not originate from said digital audio
spread spectrum transmitter;
wherein the wireless digital audio spread
spectrum receiver is configured to use inde-
pendent code division multiple access
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 3 of 7 --

ONE- E- WAY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 4
communication and to use the received
unique user code to communicate with only
said wireless digital audio spread spectrum
transmitter for the duration of a wireless
connection; and
wherein the wireless digital audio spread
spectrum receiver is further configured to:
demodulate a received modulated
transmission, and
generate a demodulated signal
based on the received modulated
transmission by performing at
least one of a plurality of demodu-
lations, wherein the plurality of de-
modulations includes a differential
phase shift keying (DPSK) demod-
ulation and also includes a non-
DPSK demodulation.
’627 patent at claim 1 (emphases added).
After One-E-Way sued Apple for infringement, the par-
ties agreed the term “unique user code” means “fixed code
(bit sequence) specifically associated with one user of a de-
vice(s).” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Claim Construction
Order), 2022 WL 2189529, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022).
The district court accepted the construction and issued an
order stating the construction was binding on the parties.
Id. Apple moved for summary judgment of noninfringe-
ment contending its accused Bluetooth-compliant devices
do not include a “unique user code” under the agreed-upon
construction because its devices contain codes associated
with devices, not users. One-E-Way responded that the
“unique user code” is associated with a user through the
operation of the device and the accused Bluetooth-compli-
ant devices therefore infringe the asserted claims. See gen-
erally J.A. 1327–54. The parties disputed the
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 4 of 7 --

ONE- E- WAY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 5
interpretation and application of the stipulated construc-
tion. The district court held the plain meaning of the stip-
ulated construction of “unique user code” “means that the
code is ‘associated with one user of a device(s),’ and not the
device itself.” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Summary
Judgment Order), 2022 WL 2564002, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June
15, 2022). The court granted summary judgment because
the accused Bluetooth-complaint devices are “user-agnos-
tic,” which cannot meet the “unique user code” limitation.
Id. at *9. One-E-Way appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
We review the district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment according to the law of the regional circuit. Neville v.
Found. Constructors, Inc., 972 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2020). The Ninth Circuit reviews summary judgment de
novo. Id. (citing Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851
F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2017)). “[T]he ultimate question of
the proper construction of the patent [is] a question of law.”
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 325
(2015). “[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence in-
trinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications,
along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s de-
termination will amount solely to a determination of law,
and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de
novo.” Id. at 331.
The parties dispute whether the plain and ordinary
meaning of the agreed-upon construction for “unique user
code” means the code is associated with a user or device.
One-E-Way argues the district court narrowly interpreted
the construction to require additional, unclaimed features.
Apple argues the district court correctly interpreted the
construction under the plain meaning of the term. We
agree with the district court that, under the plain meaning
of the phrase “associated with one user of a device(s),” the
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 5 of 7 --

ONE- E- WAY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 6
unique user code is associated with one user of a device and
not the device itself.
Claims are generally given their “ordinary and custom-
ary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have
to a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the
context of the claim, specification, and prosecution history.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Here, the specification
supports the conclusion that the plain meaning of “one user
of a device” refers to a code associated with the user of a
device rather than the device itself. The patents distin-
guish between users and devices when describing the pur-
pose of the invention. See ’627 patent at 2:10–13 (“The
wireless digital audio music system provides private listen-
ing without interference from other users or wireless de-
vices. . . .”). Additionally, the written description
consistently associates the “unique user code” with a
“user.” For example, when describing aspects of the inven-
tion, the specification states “[t]he unique user code gener-
ated is specifically associated with one wireless digital
audio system user, and it is the only code recognized by the
battery powered headphone receiver 50 operated by a par-
ticular user.” Id. at 2:66–3:3 (emphases added). Other por-
tions of the specification also describe the user code as
associated with a particular user. See, e.g., id. at 3:23–26
(“The receiver code generator 60 may contain the same
unique wireless transmission of a signal code word that
was transmitted by audio transmitter 20 specific to a par-
ticular user.”). The patents’ consistent reference to “user”
and “device” as distinct entities and association of the
unique user code with “user” supports the district court’s
conclusion that “one user of a device” does not mean the
device itself.
The prosecution history further supports this under-
standing of “one user of a device.” For example, in the pros-
ecution of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/648,012—a
parent application with the same written description as the
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 6 of 7 --

ONE- E- WAY , INC. v. APPLE INC. 7
asserted patents—the applicant overcame prior art by dis-
tinguishing between user codes and device codes. J.A. 928,
941–42. Specifically, the applicant contended U.S. Patent
No. 5,491,839 (Schotz) uses “codes [that] are assigned to
specific devices for a single household—not individual us-
ers.” J.A. 942. Because the codes were assigned to devices,
the applicant explained “the Schotz code may be properly
deemed a ‘device code’ as opposed to a ‘user code’ as in the
present invention.” Id. The applicant’s own description of
the term “user code” supports the conclusion that a skilled
artisan would understand the ordinary meaning of the
term, in the context of the intrinsic record, does not mean
device code. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“[A] court should
also consider the patent’s prosecution history. . . .” (cita-
tions omitted)). Because the prosecution history supports
the district court’s understanding, we need not decide
whether such statements rise to the level of prosecution
history disclaimer. See Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson
Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We conclude “unique user code” is associated with one
user of a device, and not the device itself. Because the par-
ties agreed there is no genuine dispute of material fact that
Apple’s accused Bluetooth-complaint devices do not in-
fringe under such construction, we therefore affirm the dis-
trict court’s grant of summary judgment of
noninfringement.
CONCLUSION
We have considered One-E-Way’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given,
we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment
of noninfringement.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs awarded to Apple.
Case: 22-2020 Document: 32 Page: 7 Filed: 08/14/2023

-- 7 of 7 --