IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

SMARTSKY NETWORKS, LLC,

, Case No. 1:22-cv-00266-JDW v.

GOGO BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC and GOGO INC.,

.

MEMORANDUM Plaintiff SmartSky Networks, LLC and Gogo Business Aviation, LLC and Gogo Inc. (together “Gogo”) have presented a claim construction that affects two of the Asserted Patents in this case, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,533,639 and 9,730,077.1 Both patents enable aircraft to access Wi-Fi while in flight through a 5G cellular network that uses air-to- ground communications. The dispute concerns the meaning of the term “overlaps” in the ‘639 Patent and the term “overlapping” in the ‘077 Patent. I. LEGAL STANDARD In a patent case, the determination of the scope of the claims in the patent is a question of law for the court to resolve. ,

When the Parties briefed this dispute, their dispute also included claims undre

. I later granted summary judgment and invalidated the ‘717 Patent, so it’s no longer at issue. 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When construing a claim, a court “generally” gives the words of the claim “their ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotations marks omitted). “The court should look first to ... the patent itself, including the claims, the specification[,] and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.” Jnteractive Gift Express, Inc.

v. Compuserve Inc.,,

, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Il. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED “OVERLAP” TERMS eT ea Sut Chole Cot a at eCard) elit □□□ ice) tcel a) “first directional “first directional “a radiation pattern | “first directional radiation pattern radiation pattern that is layered over | radiation pattern overlaps with at that is layered over | another in the that is layered over least one second at least one second | vertical direction to | at least one second directional radiation | directional provide continuous | directional radiation pattern” (‘639 radiation pattern” | coverage up toa pattern" Patent, Claim 1) given altitude” “at least partially “coverage areas “coverage areas “coverage areas that overlapping that are at least that are layered in | are at least partially coverage areas” partially layered the vertical layered over each (077 Patent, Claim over each other” direction to provide | other” 1) continuous coverage up toa given altitude”

In both Patents, the term “overlap” (or its related forms) means that there is layering of the coverage areas of the radiation coming from antennas. None of the claim

limits in either Patent specifies the way that the overlap occurs. And neither Party has suggested that the term “overlap” has a particular technical meaning to a POSITA. As a

rule, a “patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its scope.” ,

(Fed. Cir. 2024) (quotation

marks omitted). The patentee in these cases did not disavow the scope of the term “overlap” or redefine the term. To the contrary, the Patents disclose embodiments that suggest that the patentee meant the term “overlap” to cover overlap in a horizontal or vertical plane

(or both). The specificiations of both Patents disclose various embodiments, some of which include vertical overlap and at least one of which includes horizontal overlap of the coverage areas. Figure 1 of each Patent shows coverage areas that overlap in the horizontal plane. The specification of each Patent explains that Figure 1 depicts

“overlapping coverage … over a horizontal plane.” (‘639 Patent at 4:27–35; ‘077 Patent at 4:29–36 (emphasis added).) In other places, the specification discloses vertical overlap of radiation bands, like when it discribes overlaps that occur at “different altitude ranges” or

in “altitude bands.” (‘639 Patent at 3:28–31; ‘077 Patent at 3:36–40)). Because the Patents’ specifications dislose the possibility of horizontal or vertical overlap, I construe the terms “overlaps” and “overlapping” to include both possibilities. Gogo’s suggestion that I read construe “overlap” to require overlap in a vertical plane ignores the language that discloses overlapping coverage in a horizontal plane. The

Federal Circuit recently reiterated that courts should not “interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.” ,

(quotation marks omitted). That’s what Gogo’s proposed construction would do, and

that’s why I reject it. Gogo seems to argue that because the purpose of the claims is to ensure coverage up to a particular altitude, a POSITA would necessarily understand the “overlap” terms to require overlapping in a vertical plane. But Gogo has not offered any evidence to support

that argument. There’s no expert opinion or other evidence that might lead me to discount what the Patents’ specifications disclose. In the absence of such evidence, I can only go by what the Patents disclose. To the extent that Gogo asks me to impose other limits in my construction of the

“overlap” terms, I reject those requests. For example, Gogo’s proposed construction would require “continuous” coverage. None of the claims in either Patent imposes a continuity requirement, though. And, as SmartSky points out, Figure 3 in the ‘077 Patent illustrates

an embodiment in which the coverage is not continuous. I therefore have no reason to import any additional limits into my construction of these terms. III. CONCLUSION I will construe the disputed claims as described above. An appropriate Order

follows. BY THE COURT:

JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J. November 6, 2025