1
`
`CIVIL DOCKET NO.
`2:13-CV-1112-JRG
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`FEBRUARY 6, 2015
`)(
`1:00 P.M.
`)(
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`VS.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: (See sign-in sheets docketed in
`minutes of this hearing.)
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS: (See sign-in sheets docketed in
`minutes of this hearing.)
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Shelly Holmes, CSR-TCRR
`Official Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on a CAT system.)
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`CIVIL DOCKET NO.
`2:13-CV-1112-JRG
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`)(
`FEBRUARY 6, 2015
`)(
`1:00 P.M.
`)(
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`VS.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: (See sign-in sheets docketed in
`minutes of this hearing.)
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS: (See sign-in sheets docketed in
`minutes of this hearing.)
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Shelly Holmes, CSR-TCRR
`Official Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on a CAT system.)
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`69
`
`"associated." They changed the glossary definitions to get rid
`of the statements, usage rights and fees are attached to a
`digital work. They got rid of the statement a key feature of
`the present invention is to permanently attach usage rights to
`a digital work. They tried to broaden the scope of the claims
`by adding the word "associated" instead of the word "attached."
`When they used the word "attached," it had its common and
`ordinary meaning. They recognize what that is, and that was
`more limited than associated.
`On that note, Your Honor, I -- I want to point out
`something that's very misleading in the -- in the presentation
`from ContentGuard.
`In their slides, they cite to you the claims of the
`'859 patent which talk about association. They cite to you
`portions of the '859 patent from the summary of the invention,
`which is in Column 6. Those uses of the word "associated" and
`that reference in Column 6 in the '859 patent was not in the
`1994 specification that they're claiming the benefit of. That
`was added when the '859 patent was filed in January of 2003.
`That language does not exist in the priority application that
`they want the benefit of.
`If they want the benefit of that language, then they
`have to take the filing date of the '859 patent as their
`priority date because that's when the language was added.
`THE COURT: All right. What else, counsel?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`
`
`73
`
`or 8:00 o'clock tonight, and that, I assure you, is not going
`to happen. The time is yours, but we will go as far as the
`time allows us to go. I'm not going to extend this
`indefinitely. So I suggest to you that you condense your
`arguments to the most salient points so that we can pick up the
`pace.
`
`With that, we'll take a short recess.
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`(Recess.)
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`THE COURT: Please be seated.
`All right. We'll continue with the claim construction
`argument. Our next term is "manner of use," and I'll hear from
`the Plaintiff.
`MR. COTE: Your Honor, may I make two minor points on
`the presentation on the permanently attached argument because
`I've heard some things that were inconsistent completely with
`the record, and it's troubling.
`THE COURT: In light of my prior comments before the
`recess, proceed.
`MR. COTE: Thank you.
`THE COURT: The time you use is your own.
`MR. COTE: So we heard Defendants' counsel tell the
`Court in very affirmative statements that the description tree
`storage does not contain the usage rights. But I want to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`
`
`74
`
`remind the Court that at Column 9, Lines 10 through 25,
`there's -- actually it's Line -- the lines aren't there, but
`you can see in this passage, it expressly says that the
`description tree file includes a rights portion. We can see
`that over here on the right in Figure 7. It's expressly
`stated, we're talking about the description tree file. And it
`expressly states: Wherein that rights portion -- wherein the
`granted rights and status are maintained.
`So there's no question in the spec that the usage
`rights are maintained in -- in the description tree. There's
`no question in the specification that the description tree is
`stored in the description tree storage separate from the
`content storage. And I wanted to bring that to the Court's
`attention.
`The other thing I'd like to bring to the Court's
`attention is I heard him say emphatically that the teachings in
`the patent of permanently attached as meaning associated with,
`that we pointed to the Court -- pointed the Court to here on
`Slide 38 were not in the originally filed application. That is
`utterly false. And you will find those in the originally filed
`application. I encourage the Court to look. The patent did
`not just teach physical attachment. It did not teach permanent
`attachment in its ordinary meaning. The patent taught
`permanently attached as associated with.
`And the patent makes clear, finally, Your Honor, that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`
`
`124
`
`constructions is how to capture the specification teaching that
`a meta-right is something different than a usage right.
`And ContentGuard's construction, we think, gets that
`by using language directly from the specification about how
`actions to content did not result from exercising a meta-right,
`whereas Defendants' construction seems like an attempt to
`paraphrase the specification. And to us, it's ambiguous and
`unclear because the language of being distinct from a usage
`right, that could be argued to mean different things. That
`could mean not a usage right or that could mean different than
`one or more usage rights.
`Our -- our construction, on the other hand, is
`directly from the specification which says that there's a
`difference between meta-rights and usage rights and that
`actions to content did not result from exercising meta-rights.
`And that's it for this one term, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Let me hear from the Defendants, please.
`MR. PRITIKIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`MR. PRITIKIN: David Pritikin. I've been waiting all
`afternoon.
`THE COURT: Now you have your chance.
`MR. PRITIKIN: Right.
`THE COURT: I'll hear from you now.
`MR. PRITIKIN: I don't think there is an enormous
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`
`
`125
`
`difference between the positions that the parties are taking on
`meta-right.
`Initially, before I -- I heard the argument, I thought
`there were a couple of differences potentially, but I think
`maybe those have been resolved.
`First, we believe that the meta-right is used by the
`repository, and that is very important. It's not something
`that is abstract or generalized, but it is used by a
`repository. But I just heard counsel for the Plaintiff say
`that it is enforced by the repository. The parties are in
`agreement on that. I think that resolves one of the
`differences between the two constructions that have been
`proposed.
`
`Second, on the question of it being different from the
`usage right, again, I think we're in violent agreement on that
`right. The language that we have makes that point. I don't
`have a problem with theirs up to the i.e. I'm not quite sure I
`understand the i.e. in the construction they've put forward.
`We certainly would have been content to have the Court simply
`say that it is not itself a usage right, and that can be
`expressed the way they did it or the way we did it. I think
`it's the same point.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. PRITIKIN: And then a couple of other differences.
`Our construction says that it is a data structure. I don't
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:90)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:25)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
