This is important because as previously argued,the “ 108 patent is separate and distinct from the “ 774 patent and relates to an entirely different invention.

Also , despite what Huawei suggest the “108 patent is not a child ( not a Continuation) of the “774 patent. While it is true that the prosecution history of the “108 patent contains a reference to the “774 patent as an example of prior art, this is not sufficient to find that the patent are so interralted that collateral Estoppel should apply.