Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:2279
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Date October 18, 2021
`Case No. CV 20-7872-GW-PVCx
`Title
`Nantworks, LLC, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.
`
`Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Javier Gonzalez
`None Present
`Tape No.
`Deputy Clerk
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`None Present
`None Present
`PROCEEDINGS:
`IN CHAMBERS - RULING ON MARKMAN HEARING
`
`Attached hereto is the Court’s Final Ruling on Claim Construction/Markman Hearing.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`JG
`
`:
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2280
`
`Nantworks, LLC et al v. Bank Of America Corporation et al; Case No. 2:20-cv-07872-GW-(PVCx)
`Final Ruling on Claim Construction/Markman Hearing
`
`
`
`Introduction
`I.
`Plaintiffs Nantworks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or
`
`“Nantworks”) filed suit against Defendants Bank of America Corp. and Bank of America, N.A. on
`August 27, 2020, alleging, inter alia, infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,529 (the “’529
`Patent”); 7,899,252 (the “’252 Patent”); 8,326,038 (the “’038 Patent”); 8,463,030 (the “’030
`Patent”); 8,478,036 (the “’036 Patent”); 8,520,897 (the “’897 Patent”); 9,031,278 (the “’278
`Patent”); 9,324,004 (the “’004 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Docket No. 1; see
`also Docket No. 40 (First Amended Complaint). Now pending are some of the parties’ claim
`construction disputes. The parties have submitted a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement (Docket No. 103), a Joint Claim Construction Chart (Docket No. 120), and a Joint
`Submission Regarding the Court’s Claim Constructions (Docket No. 142). The parties have also
`filed various claim construction briefs and supporting documents:
` Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 108);
` Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 111)
` Plaintiffs’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 116)
` Defendants’ Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 140)
` Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 141)
` Defendants’ Responsive Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 143)
` Plaintiffs’ Responsive Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 144)
`The Court held a hearing regarding the parties’ disputed terms on September 23, 2021.
`Docket No. 134. The Court construes the presented disputed terms as stated herein.
`II. Background
`For purposes of the parties’ claim construction disputes, the parties request construction of
`terms in asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. The Patents-in-Suit “each claim priority to U.S.
`Provisional Application No. 60/246,295, filed on November 6, 2000, and each of the Patents-in-
`Suit shares a similar specification.” Docket No. 108 at 1. The Patents-in-Suit have the same two
`listed inventors: Wayne C. Boncyk and Ronald H. Cohen. The Patents-in-Suit all generally relate
`to image recognition systems, methods, devices, apparatuses, and products. For example, the
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:2281
`
`claimed invention of the ’529 Patent “relates an identification method and process for objects from
`digitally captured images thereof that uses data characteristics to identify an object from a plurality
`of objects in a database.” ’529 Patent at 1:25–28. The specification of the ’529 Patent discloses
`that “the data or object can be identified solely by its visual appearance[,]” as opposed to
`“[t]raditional methods for linking objects to digital information” such as “applying a barcode.” Id.
`at 2:13-19.
`III. Legal Standard
`Claim construction is an interpretive issue “exclusively within the province of the court.”
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). It is “a question of law in the
`way that we treat document construction as a question of law,” with subsidiary fact-finding
`reviewed for clear error to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S.Ct. 831, 837-40 (2015). The claim language itself is the best guide to the meaning of a claim
`term. See Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is because the
`claims define the scope of the claimed invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). But a “person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not
`only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of
`the entire patent.” Id. at 1313. Thus, claims “must be read in view of the specification,” which is
`“always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal
`quotations omitted).
`Although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`must not be imported into the claims. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
`2009). “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations can be discerned with
`reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s focus remains on understanding how a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`The prosecution history may lack the clarity of the specification, but it is “another
`established source of intrinsic evidence.” Vederi, 744 F.3d at 1382. “Like the specification, the
`prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted). “Furthermore, like the specification, the prosecution
`history was created by the patentee in attempting to explain and obtain the patent.” Id. “Yet
`because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:2282
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4of22 Page ID #:2282
`
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Jd.
`
`Claim construction usually involves resolving disputes about the “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning”that the words of the claim would have had “to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted). But in somecases, claim terms will not be given their ordinary meaning because
`
`the specification defines the term to mean something else.
`
`“[A] claim term may beclearly
`
`redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition,” so long as a person ofskill in the art can
`
`ascertain the definition by a reading of the patent documents. Jd. at 1320; see also Trustees of
`
`Columbia Univ. in City ofNew York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Wherethe patent itself does not make clear the meaning of a claim term, courts may look
`
`to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood disputed claim language to mean,” including the prosecution history and “extrinsic
`
`evidence concerning relevantscientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, andthe state of
`
`the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotations omitted). Sometimes, the use of “technical
`
`words or phrases not commonly understood” may giverise to a factual dispute, the determination
`
`ofwhich will precede the ultimate legal question ofthe significance of the facts to the construction
`
`“in the context of the specific patent claim under review.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841, 849. “In some
`
`cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understoodby a person ofskill in the art may be
`
`readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involveslittle more than
`
`the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1314. “In such circumstances, general purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Jd.
`
`IV.
`
`Discussion
`
`A. Agreed Claim Terms
`
`The parties have agreed to constructions for the following claim terms (see Docket
`
`No. 120 at 9-11):
`
`Parties’ Agreed Claim Construction
`Asserted Claim(s
`“distal server” °252 Patent, Claims|“one or more servers coupled together
`18, 31, 32, 33
`that have no hardwiredlink to the
`
`
`
`mobile device” “the acquired data comprises a|’030 Patent, Claim
`
`user identity”
`
`25
`
`“the acquired data comprises the
`identity of the user using the mobile
`device”
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:2283
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5of22 Page ID #:2283
`
`
`
`“alphanumeric data”
`
`“printed media”
`
`°030 Patent, Claim
`30
`°036 Patent, Claim
`10
`
`information”
`
`“data in the form of letters or numbers”
`
`“any written or pictorial form of
`
`B. Disputed Claim Terms
`
`1. “identify features from the image information relating to the displayed image”
`(038 Patent, Claim 1) & “identification of features from the displayed image”
`(897 Patent, Claim 25)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`display screen.] “from the displayed image”is from the displayed
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“from the image information”is from the image
`information referenced earlier in the claim — i.e.,
`“the image information from a displayed image
`on a portable display screen.” [The features from
`the image information cannotbe identified unless
`the optical sensor captures the image information
`from the displayed image on the portable device
`
`image referencedearlier in the claim — 1.e., “a
`displayed image onthe display of the device.”
`[The features from the displayed image cannot be
`identified unless the optical sensor captures an
`imageofthe displayed image on the display of
`the device.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent recites:
`
`1. An interactive system comprising:
`an optical sensor capable of capturing image information from a displayed
`image on a portable device display screen; and
`an image processing platform coupled with the optical sensor and
`configuredto:
`identify features from the image information relating to the displayed
`image;
`recognize a target based on the features;
`associate the target with target information pertinent to the target; and
`enable a transaction with an account based onthe target information.
`
`°038 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`Claim 25 of the ’897 Patentrecites:
`
`25. A method of conducting a transaction with an interactive system, the
`method comprising
`providing accessto a device havingadisplay;
`displaying a displayed image on the display of the device;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:2284
`
`presenting the displayed image proximate to an optical sensor; and
`enabling, via the interactive system, identification of features from the
`displayed image, recognition of a target based on the features,
`association of the target with target information pertinent to the
`target, and performance of a transaction based on the target
`information.
`’897 Patent, Claim 25 (emphasis added).
`
`The parties dispute whether the claimed “interactive system” and “optical sensor” must
`capture and identify features from the “displayed image” directly from a display screen.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that as an initial matter, Defendants’ construction is not a construction but
`instead improperly seeks a finding of “what embodiments may or may not meet the claim
`language.” Docket No. 108 at 19–20. Plaintiffs next argue that the claim language is clear on its
`face. Id. at 20. For Claim 25 of the ’897 Patent, Plaintiffs argue that the “display screen” is
`“proximate to” the “optical sensor” when “the screen is on one side of the device and the camera
`is proximate to the screen on the opposite side of the device.” Id. at 20. As Plaintiffs emphasize,
`“There is nothing in the claim that requires the optical sensor to be involved in the identification
`of features from the displayed image.” Id. Similarly, for Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent, Plaintiffs
`stress that “the optical sensor must only be ‘capable of capturing image information from a
`displayed image on a portable device display screen,” not that it has to capture the image. Id. at
`21 (emphasis in original). For both Claims, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants seek to import
`limitations disclosed in the specifications into the claims, which is contrary to well-established
`principles of claim construction. Id. at 21–22.
`
`In response, Defendants explain, “Unlike the six other asserted patents, which use an
`optical sensor on a mobile phone camera, for example, to take a picture of a physical object, the
`’897 and ’038 patents use an optical sensor to take a picture of an image displayed on a screen,
`like a TV screen.” Docket No. 111 at 3. Defendants argue that for both claims, the term “a display
`image” on the display screen is the antecedent basis for the term “the display image.” Id. at 4.
`Because the terms refer to the same thing, Defendants argue that those terms “require that the
`‘features’ are ‘identified’ from an image displayed on a device screen.” Id. Defendants assert that
`Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions contradict this construction because Plaintiffs allege that
`Defendants’ “mobile check deposit satisfies these claims by identifying features from ‘the captured
`image’ of a physical check, rather than directly from the display screen of a phone.” Id. at 5.
`Specifically for Claim 25 of the ’897 Patent, Defendants argue that the claim language
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:2285
`
`requires “presenting the displayed image proximate to an optical sensor,” which contradicts
`Plaintiffs’ assertion that “the claim does not even require that the optical sensor be used in any
`way beyond it being proximate to the displayed image on the display.” Id. at 5–6 (emphasis in
`original) (quoting Docket No. 108 at 20). Defendants also argue that “every example in the
`specification requires an optical sensor to capture an image.” Id. at 6 (citing ’897 Patent at Fig. 2,
`Figs. 4–7, 1:36–2:3, 2:56–64, 3:32–36, 4:36–5:6, 10:56–61, 12:55–67, 16:9–17:37). Defendants
`make the same argument for Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent. Id. at 6–7 (citing ’038 Patent at Fig. 2,
`Figs. 4–7, 1:29–2:6, 2:49–57, 3:25–30, 4:30–67, 10:52–57, 12:53–64, 16:7–17:35). Finally, for
`Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ construction renders the “optical
`sensor” superfluous if the “optical sensor” was not required to capture the images. Id. at 7–8.
`Plaintiffs reply that neither the ’897 Patent nor the ’038 Patent require using an optical
`sensor to take a picture of an image displayed on a screen. Docket No. 116 at 11. Plaintiffs argues
`that it does not dispute that “a display image” is the antecedent basis for “the display image,” but
`that Defendants’ argument is a red-herring given the remainder of the claim language. Id. at 11–12.
`For Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent, Plaintiffs reemphasize that the claim language only requires that
`optical sensor only needs to be capable of capturing image information from the displayed image
`and that “the image processing platform” is only “configured to identify features from the image
`information relating to the displayed image.” Id. Additionally, for Claim 25 of the ’897 Patent,
`Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ construction reads out the “proximate” requirement. Id. at 12–13.
`Finally, Plaintiffs argue that their construction does not render the “optical sensor” superfluous as
`“there is no legal requirement that all claim terms must have a ‘functional role.’” Id. at 13.
`The Court agrees with Defendants that both claims require capturing an image from the
`display screen. “When a patent … describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this
`description limits the scope of the invention.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, “an inventor may disavow claims lacking a particular
`feature when the specification describes ‘the present invention’ as having that feature.” Poly-
`America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Luminara
`Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that courts
`have found disavowal or disclaimer based on statements such as “the present invention includes”
`or “the present invention is”). The Abstract of both the ’897 and ’038 Patent states that “[s]earch
`terms are derived automatically from images captured by a camera equipped cell phone, PDA, or
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:2286
`
`other image capturing device[.]” ’897 Patent, Abstract (emphasis added); see also ’038 Patent,
`Abstract. As the Background section discloses, “[s]everal years ago the present inventors
`pioneered the concept of using digital captured images to identify objects within the images, and
`then using such identifications to retrieve information from various databases.” ’897 Patent at
`1:36–39 (emphasis added); see also ’038 Patent at 1:29–32. Similarly, in the Summary of the
`Invention section, the specification states that “[t]he present invention provides apparatus, systems
`and methods in which: (a) a digital photograph, video, MPEG, AVI, or other image is captured
`using a camera equipped cell phone, PDA, or other image capturing device . . . .” ’897 Patent at
`2:56–59 (emphasis added); see also ’038 Patent at 2:49–52. Thus, the specifications consistently
`describe the invention as a whole as requiring capturing an image.
`The specifications also define what “capture” and “optically capture” mean. For instance,
`the specification states that the term “optically captures” means “some sort of light sensitive array,
`the output of which can be processed to comprise a visually perceptible image,” and “is not
`satisfied by a device that … is merely capable of downloading images from the Internet or other
`sources.” Id. at 4:54–67. The specification also suggests that image capturing requires
`“convert[ing] a physical object into a digital representation.” Id. at 12:53–64.
`Finally, the claim language of both claims supports that the optical sensor must capture an
`image of the displayed image on the display screen before identifying features in the displayed
`image. As both parties agree, the term “a displayed image” is the antecedent basis for the term
`“the displayed image,” and the same is true for the term “image information.” A plain reading of
`the claim language of Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent therefore suggests that the “image processing
`platform coupled with the optical sensor” is “configured to[] identify features from the image
`information relating to the displayed image” only after the “optical sensor” captures the “image
`information from a displayed image on a portable device display screen.” ’038 Patent, Claim 1.
`As Defendants emphasize, the specification also supports this interpretation. See, e.g., ’038 Patent
`at Fig. 2, Figs. 4–7, 2:49–57, 4:30–35, 10:52–57, 16:7–48. For Claim 25 of the ’897 Patent, the
`claim recites, inter alia, “presenting the displayed image proximate to an optical sensor” and
`“enabling, via the interactive system, identification of features from the displayed image.” ’897
`Patent, Claim 25. Although not explicitly recited, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`would understand from reading the claim that the “optical sensor” would need to capture an image,
`as defined in the specification, of the “displayed image proximate to an optical sensor” when it is
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:2287
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9of22 Page ID #:2287
`
`“present[ed]” to the “optical sensor” for the “interactive system”to identify the “features from the
`
`displayed image[.]”
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that “a displayed image” and “image information” are the
`
`antecedentbasesfor the terms “the displayed image” and “the image information.” The Court also
`
`finds that “the features from the [displayed image and] image information cannotbe identified
`
`unless the optical sensor captures [an imageof the displayed image on the display of the device]
`
`and the image information from the displayed image on the portable device display screen.”
`
`2. “determine object information associated with the target object” (030 Patent,
`Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“search a databaseto find information pertaining
`to the target object”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’030 Patent recites:
`
`1. A transaction system comprising:
`a mobile device configured to acquire data related to an object;
`an object identification platform configured to obtain the acquired data,
`recognize the object as a target object based on the acquired data,
`and determine object information associated with the target object:
`and
`a content platform configured to obtain the object information, and initiate
`a transaction associated with the target object with a selected
`account over a network based on the object information.
`
`°030 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`The parties dispute whether the claimed “object identification platform” must“determine
`
`object information associated with the target object” by “search[ing] a database” and whether the
`
`“object information” must“pertain” to the “target object.”
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the claim language is clear on its face and Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction seeks to import limitations from the specification. Docket No. 118 at 15. Plaintiffs
`
`also assert
`
`that Defendants’ construction would exclude embodiments disclosed in the
`
`specification “in which object information associated with the target object can be determined
`
`without reference to a database search,” such as by recognizing an object by “detect[ing]
`
`identifying marks on the target object” such as “‘an identifying number or a barcode.” Jd. at 16
`
`(emphasis in original) (citing 030 Patent at 16:3—-9). Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the single
`
`reference to information “pertaining to the target object” in the specification does not support
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:2288
`
`rewriting the claim language. Id. at 16–17.
`
`Defendants respond that “[t]he only mechanism the ’030 patent discloses for determining
`object information is searching a database[.]” Docket No. 111 at 17–18 (citing ’030 Patent at
`20:15–37). Defendants argue that the embodiment Plaintiffs reference “relates to assistance with
`‘recogniz[ing] the object,’ not ‘determin[ing] object information[.]” Id. at 18 (citing ’030 Patent
`at 16:3–14). Finally, Defendants argue that the specification only uses either “pertaining to” or
`“corresponding to” when describing the “target object information,” the two terms are synonyms,
`and that Plaintiffs have not argued that there is a materially difference between these terms. Id. at
`19.
`Plaintiffs reply that target object information can still be determined directly from
`
`“acquired data” related to an object rather than a database. Docket No. 116 at 8–9. Plaintiffs also
`argue that its Defendants job to justify revising the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`“associated with,” and Defendants have not done so. Id. at 9.
`
`The Court agrees with Defendants that determining the object information associated with
`the target object requires searching a database. As Defendants assert and the Court agrees, the
`“[t]he only mechanism the ’030 patent discloses for determining object information is searching a
`database[.]” Docket No. 111 at 17–18. As seen in Figure 4 (reproduced below), once an object is
`recognized, the object identification platform (labeled as Identification Server 106) determines the
`target objection information 109 and sends that information to content platform:
`
`’030 Patent, Fig. 4; see also id., Figs. 5, 6.
`As Plaintiffs cite, the specification discloses that “the object recognition 107 [of Figure 4]
`
`
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:2289
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11of22 Page ID #:2289
`
`can also detect identifying marks on the target object 100,” such as “an identifying number or a
`
`barcode.” Jd. at 16:3—6. The specification further discloses that “[t]his information” can be used
`
`to identify the object or “can be passed on aspart of the target object information 109[.]” Jd. at
`
`16:6—9. However, the specification discloses that if this information is passed on as part of the
`
`object information “then it can be used by the terminal 102 or content server 111 to identify the
`
`specific target object 100, out of many such objects that have similar appearances and differ only
`
`in the identifying marks.” Jd. at 16:10—15. Thus, the specification discloses that this information
`
`is used in conjunction with the target object information obtained from the database, not that it
`
`may replace the information obtained from the database. Additionally, this information is arguably
`
`not even “determined” as used in the specification, but rather “passed on.” A POSA would
`
`therefore understand that the intrinsic evidence equates determining the object information with
`
`searching a database for the object information.
`
`The Court declines to rewrite the claim language to replace “associated with” with
`
`“pertaining to,” however. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the phrase “associated with”is
`
`clear on its face. Defendants do not necessarily disagree; rather, they simply argue that the
`
`specification uses the phrases “pertaining to” and “corresponding with” instead.
`
`The
`
`specification’s use of alternative phrases doesnotjustify rewriting the plain languageof the claims
`
`though.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes the term “determine object information associated with
`
`the target object” to mean “search a databaseto find information associated with the target object.”
`
`3. “first target object information associated with thefirst target object” (278
`Patent. Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“«nformation pertainingto the first target object
`obtained by searching the database storing target
`object information”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’278 Patentrecites:
`
`1. A computer-assisted method, comprising:
`receiving, via a mobile device, an image comprising a representation ofat
`least a portion of a document;
`determining that symbolic content is on the at least the portion of the
`document based on the image;
`extracting symbol information based on the symbolic content according to
`symbol type;
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:2290
`
`determining a validity of the document based at least in part on the image
`and the symbol information; and
`recognizing the document as a first target object based at least in part on the
`image, the symbol information, and a query of a database storing
`target object information associated with a plurality of target
`objects including the first target object;
`receiving, via an address, first target object information associated with
`the first target object, wherein the first target object information
`comprises a response regarding the validity of the document.
`’278 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`The parties dispute whether the phrase “‘target object information associated with a
`plurality of target objects including the first target object’ provides an antecedent basis for ‘first
`target object information associated with the first target object.’” Docket No. 116 at 9–10.
`Plaintiffs provide the following argument for why the last two steps should be construed to refer
`to different things:
`The final three limitations require (1) “determining a validity of the document,”
`(2) recognizing a document as a “first target object” based at least in part on
`“a query of a database storing target object information associated with a
`plurality of target objects” and (3) receiving “first target object information
`associated with the first target object” that “comprises a response regarding the
`validity of the document.” Thus, the “recognizing a document” step is distinct
`from the surrounding “determining a validity” and “receiving a response
`regarding the validity” steps. This means the “first target object information
`associated with the first target object” used in the “receiving a response
`regarding the validity” step does not need to be coextensive with any target
`object information related to the “recognizing a document” step.
`Docket No. 108 at 17–18 (emphasize in original). Plaintiffs argue that accepting
`Defendants’ construction would eliminate the distinction between these steps. Id.
`Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the “recognizing” step does not always return “target
`object information,” such as when “a target object does not match certain target object
`information,” and therefore the “target object information” of the “receiving” step must
`be different. Id. at 18–19 (emphasis in original).
`
`The Court finds that the limitation “target object information associated with a
`plurality of target objects including the first target object” provides the antecedent basis
`for the limitation “first target object information associated with the first target object.”
`A POSA reading Claim 1 of the ’278 Patent would understand that the “target object
`information” of the “receiving” step is obtained during the “recognizing” step once the
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:2291
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 145 Filed 10/18/21 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:2291
`
`document,
`
`i.e.
`
`the “first target object,” is recognized. Plaintiffs assertion that the
`
`“recognizing” step includes querying the database without a match ignores that the
`
`claimed database must include object information associated with the first target object.
`
`Thus, when the database is queried for information associated with thefirst target object,
`
`it would return the first object informationas part of the “recognizing” step, whichis then
`
`“received” in the next step. The Court also finds unpersuasive Plaintiffs’ argument that
`
`“the claims contemplate querying a database for both recognition of a document and
`
`validating a document.” See Docket No. 116 at 10 (emphasis in original).
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that that the limitation “target object information
`
`associated with a plurality of target objects includingthefirst target object” provides the
`
`antecedentbasis for the limitation “first target object information associated with the first
`
`target object.”
`
`4. “atime varying image” (038 Patent, Claim 3; 897 Patent, Claim 30)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`“video stream”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction “an imagethat is nota still image or a
`
`single frame”
`
`Claim 3 of the ’038 Patent depends from Claim 1. Claim 3 recites “The system of claim
`
`1, wherein the displayed image comprisesa time varying image.” ’038 Patent, Claim 3. Similarly,
`
`Claim 30 ofthe ’897 Patent depends from Claim 25, and recites, “The method of claim 25, wherein
`
`the step of displaying the displayed imageincludesdisplaying a time varying image.” The parties
`
`dispute whether the term “time varying image”is limited to video.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that a “time varying image”is broader thanjust a video stream as evidenced
`
`by the specification. See Docket No. 108 at 22-24 (citing ’038 Patent at 2:49-5S7, 5:32-45,
`
`9:41—S7, 12:52-60). Defendants respond that these samecitations to the specification show that
`
`the “time-varying image” must be video. See Docket No. 111 at 21-23. Defendants argue that
`
`because the claims use the word “image” as opposedto the plural “imagery”or “images,” the term
`
`mustbe limited to video. See id. at 23. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ construction imposes
`
`a negative limitation, which “must