Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 4432
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-259 (DF)
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`TIVO, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AT&T Inc., et al.
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Tivo, Inc.’s (“Tivo’s”) Opening Claim Construction Brief. Dkt. No.
`
`148. Also before the Court are Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Plaintiff’s
`
`Reply Claim Construction Brief, and Defendants’ Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief. Dkt.
`
`Nos. 151, 157, and 162, respectively. The Court held a claim construction hearing on June 1,
`
`2011. See Dkt. No. 185. Having considered the briefing, oral arguments of counsel, and all
`1
`
`relevant papers and pleadings, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as set forth herein.
`
`Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply. Dkt. No. 161.
`
`Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Response, Defendant’s Reply, and Plaintiff’s Sur-reply.
`
` The Claim Construction Hearing on June 1, 2011, was a joint hearing that included the
`1
`parties from Civ. Act. No. 2:09-cv-257 (hereinafter, the “Verizon Case”). In response to a Joint
`Motion to Stay Deadlines, the Verizon Case was stayed on September 2, 2011. Verizon Case,
`Dkt. No. 219. Accordingly, this Order only construes the claims that are disputed in the above-
`captioned case and does not construe any claim terms of the Tivo patents that are only disputed
`by the parties in the Verizon Case or any of the claims of the counterclaim patents asserted by the
`Defendants in the Verizon Case.
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 4433
`
`Dkt. Nos. 164, 165, and 167. Having considered the briefing and all relevant papers and
`
`pleadings, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion should be GRANTED.
`
`I. Background
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,233,389 (“the ’389 Patent”);
`
`7,493,015 (“the ’015 Patent”); and 7,529,465 (“the ’465 Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-
`
`suit”). The ’465 Patent is a continuation of a continuation of the ’389 Patent and both share a
`
`common specification. The ’389 Patent is titled “Multimedia Time Warping System.” The ’465
`
`Patent is titled “System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams.” The ’015 Patent is
`
`titled “System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams.”
`
`II. Legal Principles
`
`A determination of patent infringement involves two steps. First, the patent claims are
`
`construed, and, second, the claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device. Cybor Corp.
`
`v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The legal principles of
`
`claim construction were reexamined by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit in Phillips expressly reaffirmed the
`
`principles of claim construction as set forth in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim construction is a legal question for the courts. Markman,
`
`52 F.3d at 979.
`
`The Court, in accordance with the doctrines of claim construction that it has outlined in
`
`the past, will construe the claims of the ’632 Patent below. See Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SKI
`
`-2-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 4434
`
`Co., LTD., No. 2:07-CV-170, 2008 WL 4831319 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2008) (claim-construction
`
`order). These constructions resolve the parties’ disputes over the literal scope of the claims.
`
`The Abstract of the ’389 Patent states:
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`A multimedia time warping system. The invention allows the user to store
`selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching
`or reviewing another program. A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts
`television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, National
`Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms
`such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or
`Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). The TV streams are
`converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for
`internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it [sic] into video
`and audio components. The components are stored in temporary buffers. Events
`are recorded that indicate the type of component that has been found, where it is
`located, and when it occurred. The program logic is notified that an event has
`occurred and the data is extracted from the buffers. The parser and event buffer
`decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time
`nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and
`translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a
`storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio
`components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG
`stream which is sent to a decoder. The decoder converts the MPEG stream into
`TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver. User
`control commands are accepted and sent through the system. These commands
`affect the flow of said MPEG stream and allow the user to view stored programs
`with at least the following functions: reverse, fast forward, play, pause, index,
`fast/slow reverse play, and fast/slow play.
`
`The claims at issue for claim construction include Claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 Patent.
`
`Claim 31 of the ’389 Patent recites:
`
`31. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia
`data, comprising the steps of:
`providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts
`broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said
`broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;
`
`-3-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 4435
`
`providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and
`audio data from said physical data source;
`providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and
`retrieves data streams onto a storage device;
`wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object,
`said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with
`said streams;
`wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said
`transform object;
`providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream
`buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio
`decoder;
`wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends
`said signals to a display;
`wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform
`
`object;
`
`providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands
`from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the
`system; and
`wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source,
`transform, and sink objects.
`
`Claim 61 of the ’389 Patent recites:
`
`61. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data,
`comprising:
`a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data
`from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and
`temporarily stores said video and audio data;
`a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from
`said physical data source;
`a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams
`onto a storage device;
`wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source
`object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams;
`wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform
`
`object;
`
`a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said
`transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;
`wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said
`signals to a display;
`wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;
`a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said
`
`-4-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 4436
`
`commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and
`wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform,
`and sink objects.
`
`The parties have submitted the following disputed terms for the ’389 Patent : (1)
`
`“physical data source accepts broadcast data”; (2) “parses”; (3) “objects” and “source object”; (4)
`
`“transform object”; (5) “buffer,” “obtains a buffer,” and “obtains data stream buffers”; (6)
`
`“automatically flow controlled”; (7) “sink object”; and (8) “control object.” See Dkt. No. 183 at
`
`Exh. A. Certain claim terms in the ’389 Patent were previously construed by this Court in Tivo
`
`Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp., Civ. Act. No. 2:04-cv-1, Dkt. No. 185 (hereinafter
`
`“Echostar CC Order”).
`
`1.
`
`“Physical Data Source accepts broadcast data”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff believes that no construction is necessary for this term. Dkt. No. 148 at 16.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff proposes that “physical data source” be construed to mean “hardware and
`
`software that accepts broadcast data, parses video and audio data from aid broadcast data, and
`
`temporarily stores video and audio data.” Plaintiff argues that functionality within the physical
`
`data source can be implemented in software and not solely in hardware. Id. According to
`
`Plaintiff, limiting the physical data source to hardware acting without software would improperly
`
`exclude the preferred embodiment. Id. at 17.
`
`Defendants disagree with Plaintiff and argues that “the claims state what the physical data
`
`source must do, but not what the physical data source is.” Dkt. No. 151 at 15 (emphasis
`
`removed). Defendants argue that the patent specification discloses the “physical data source” as
`
`hardware separate from the CPU and that it is this separation that “lies at the heart of the stated
`
`-5-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 4437
`
`invention.” Id. Defendants further state that Plaintiff’s proposed construction forecloses a
`
`hardware-only implementation of the physical data source. Id. at 16.
`
`Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly imports limitations
`
`from one preferred embodiment. Dkt. No. 157 at 8. Defendants sur-reply that “physical data
`
`source” does not have a conventional meaning and a person of skill in the art would have to
`
`resort to the specification to determine what the phrase means. Dkt. No. 162 at 8.
`
`Plaintiff also proposes, in the alternative, that “accepts broadcast data” be construed to
`
`mean “accepts data that was transmitted.” Dkt. No. 148 at 18. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’
`
`proposed construction improperly adds new claim limitations. Id. Defendants identify the
`
`conflict between the parties as whether “broadcast data” can cover data that is sent to only a
`
`particular user or a particular subset of users. Dkt. No. 151 at 8. According to Defendants, the
`
`ordinary meaning of “broadcast” is “sending data indiscriminately, such that no user needs to
`
`request it.” Id. Defendants argue that “broadcast” is not just a transmission, as argued by
`
`Plaintiff, but is a transmission that goes to all users. Id. at 10. Furthermore, Defendants argue
`
`that if “accepts broadcast data” is construed as proposed by Plaintiff, the term “broadcast” would
`
`be superfluous, and the claims could read “accepts data.” Id. at 11.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The patent specification states that “[t]he source object 901 takes data out of a physical
`
`data source, such as the Media Switch, and places it into a PES buffer.” Because the “Media
`
`Switch” is separate from the CPU in Figure 9, Defendants argue that the physical data source
`
`must also be separate from the CPU. However, it is clear from the specification that the “Media
`
`Switch” was being used as an example of a “physical data source.” Furthermore, this Court has
`
`-6-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 4438
`
`previously held that the physical data source is not limited to the Media Switch. Tivo Inc. v. Dish
`
`Network Corp., 640 F.Supp. 2d 853, 868 (E.D. Tex. 2009). Specifically, this Court held that “the
`
`physical data source of the Software Claims [claims 31 and 61] need only parse.” Id.
`
`Accordingly, it would be improper to limit the physical data source to hardware that is separate
`
`from the CPU when the specification does not itself make that distinction. The Court therefore
`
`construes “physical data source” to mean “hardware and software that parses video and audio
`
`data from aid broadcast data.”
`
`With respect to the term “accepts broadcast data,” Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`improperly adds limitations that are not contemplated by the specification or claims. There is no
`
`disclosure that the patentee intended to limit “broadcast data” only to data that is transmitted to
`
`all users. The Court therefore construes “accepts broadcast data” to mean “accepts data that was
`
`transmitted.”
`
`2.
`
`“Parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores
`said video and audio data”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`“Parses” appears in Claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 Patent. Plaintiff proposes that the Court
`
`adopt its existing construction and continue to construe the term “parse” to mean “analyze,”
`
`“parses video and audio data from said broadcast data” should be construed to mean “analyzes
`
`video and audio data from the broadcast data,” and the “physical data source . . . parses video and
`
`audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data” requires
`
`no further construction. Dkt. No. 148 at 9. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed
`
`constructions reargues positions that the Court has previously rejected. Id. at 10.
`
`-7-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 4439
`
`Defendants propose that “parses” should be construed to mean “breaks down,” “parses
`
`video and audio data from said broadcast data” should be construed to mean physical data source
`
`breaks down the broadcast data to identify the video data components and the audio data
`
`components,” and “physical data source . . . parses video and audio data from said broadcast
`
`data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data” should be construed to mean “physical
`
`data source breaks down the broadcast data to identify and separately store the video data
`
`components and the audio data components.” Dkt. No. 151 at 11. Defendants argue that “based
`
`on the way U-verse IPTV boxes acquire and process programs, substituting ‘analyzes’ for
`
`‘parses’ would leave a fundamental dispute about claim scope.” Dkt. No. 151 at 12. Defendants
`
`argue that the Court should construe “parse” as “break down and separate” in accordance with
`
`the ordinary meaning of “parse.” Id. Defendants state that their proposed construction does not
`
`make the “is separated” language in claim 1 superfluous.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “parse” during the Echostar litigation and construed the
`
`term to mean “analyze.” Echostar CC Order at 18. Defendants argue that the Court’s prior
`
`construction would leave a fundamental dispute about claim scope but have not disclosed or
`
`explained the nature of this dispute. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that its previous
`
`construction should be changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “parse” to
`
`mean “analyze.” Similarly, the Court adopts its prior construction and construes “parses video
`
`and audio data from said broadcast data” to mean “analyzes video and audio data from the
`
`broadcast data.” Finally, the Court finds that “physical data source . . . parses video and audio
`
`data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data” does not need
`
`-8-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 4440
`
`further construction in light of the Court’s construction of the terms “parse” and “parses video
`
`and audio data from said broadcast data.”
`
`3.
`
`“Object,”“source object,” and “wherein said source object extracts video and
`audio data from said physical data source”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe
`
`the term “object” to mean “a collection of data and operations” and to have this construction be
`
`applied to “control object,” and “source object.” Dkt. No. 148 at 11. Plaintiff points out that the
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s constructions in the EchoStar appeal. Id. Plaintiffs argues
`
`that Defendants’ proposed construction is not found in the intrinsic evidence, and has no
`
`meaning the context of the claims. Id.
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff narrowed and clarified the meaning of “object” during
`
`reexamination. Dkt. No. 151 at 14. Defendants state that their proposed construction is based on
`
`Plaintiff’s representations during reexamination. Defendants also argue that their proposed
`
`construction applies equally to object-oriented and non-object-oriented programming languages.
`
`Plaintiff replies that it did not narrow the scope of the term “object” during reexamination
`
`but did explain certain ordinary meanings for the words “collection,” “data,” and “operations”
`
`that appear in the Court’s prior construction. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction is merely construing terms contained in the Court’s construction when the jury in
`
`EchoStar had no problems applying the Court’s construction without further explanation. Dkt.
`
`No. 157 at 5.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`-9-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 4441
`
`The Court previously considered “object,” and “source object” during the Echostar
`
`litigation and construed “object” to mean “a collection of data and operations” and applied this
`
`construction to “control object,” and “source object.” Echostar CC Order at 24-26 and 28-29.
`
`The Court does not find that Plaintiff narrowed the scope of the term “object” during
`
`reexamination and is not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. The Court
`
`therefore adopts its prior construction of “object” to mean “a collection of data and operations.”
`
`The Court further construes “source object” to mean “ a collection of data and operations that (1)
`
`extracts video and audio data from a physical data source, (2) obtains a buffer from a transform
`
`object, (3) converts video data into data streams, and (4) fills the buffer with the streams.”
`
`Finally, in light of the Court’s prior construction of the terms “source object” and “physical data
`
`source,” no further construction is required for “wherein said source object extracts video and
`
`audio data from said physical data source.”
`
`4.
`
`“Transform object” and “wherein said transform object stores and retrieves
`data streams onto a storage device”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe
`
`the term “transform object” to mean “a collection of data and operations that transforms the form
`
`of data upon which it operates.” Plaintiff also proposes that the Court apply its existing
`
`construction of “transform object” to “wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data
`
`streams onto a storage device.” Dkt. No. 148 at 20. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction for “wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage
`
`device” include elements not referred to in the claims in general. Id.
`
`-10-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 4442
`
`Defendants propose that “wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams
`
`onto a storage device” be construed to mean “the centralized transform object writes data streams
`
`from the input side onto a storage device and reads data streams from the storage device for the
`
`output side.” Dkt. No. 151 at 19. Defendants argue that their proposed construction “recites the
`
`ordinary meaning that [Plaintiff] told the USPTO the claim language would convey to a person
`
`of skill” and “removes potential confusion arising from the awkward phrasing of” “stores and
`
`retrieves data streams onto a storage device.” Id.
`
`Defendants further argue that Plaintiff “redefined the terms ‘transform object’ and
`
`‘automatic flow control’ in its statements to the USPTO during reexmaination last Fall.” Dkt.
`
`No. 151 at 3. Defendants argue that Plaintiff told the USPTO during reexamination that the
`
`“self-regulated” definition of “automatically flow controlled” did not apply. Rather, Plaintiff’s
`
`expert stated during reexamination how a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the
`
`transform object, thereby redefining it, according to Defendants. Id. at 4. Id.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “transform object” during the Echostar litigation and is
`
`not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. Echostar CC Order at 26-27.
`
`The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “transform object” to mean “a collection of
`
`data and operations that transforms the form of data upon which it operates.” The Court,
`
`however, agrees with Defendants that “stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device”
`
`may be confusing. The Court thus will construe “wherein said transform object stores and
`
`retrieves data streams onto a storage device” to mean “wherein said transform object stores data
`
`streams onto a storage device and retrieves data streams from the storage device.”
`
`-11-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 4443
`
`5.
`
`“Buffer,” “obtains a buffer,” “obtains data stream buffers,” and “said source
`object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe
`
`the term “buffer” to mean “memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer” and to
`
`have this construction be applied to “obtains a buffer” and “obtains data stream buffers.” Dkt.
`
`No. 148 at 12. Plaintiff points out that the Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s constructions in
`
`the EchoStar appeal. Id. Plaintiffs argues that Defendants’ proposed construction seeks to added
`
`the word “reserved” when it does not appear in the claims or specification. Id. at 13.
`
`Defendants respond that Plaintiff cannot “credibly dispute that a memory location must
`
`be set aside or reserved for it to serve as a buffer. Otherwise, all hardware capable of holding
`
`data would be a buffer.” Dkt. No. 151 at 17. Defendants propose that “buffer” be construed to
`
`mean “reserved memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer.” Id. Defendants
`
`dispute that the Federal Circuit approved the Court’s prior construction of the term “buffer.”
`
`According to Defendants, the Federal Circuit only addressed the term “object” and did not
`
`address the construction of “buffer.” Id. Defendants also argue that “obtains a buffer” should be
`
`construed to mean “requests and receives a buffer” because the ordinary meaning of “obtain” is
`
`“to succeed in gaining possession of as the result of planning or endeavor.” Id. at 19-20.
`
`Finally, Defendants submit that “said source object converts video data into data streams
`
`and fills said buffer” should be construed to mean “the source object converts the video data
`
`components it has removed from the physical data source into.” Dkt. No. 151 at 17. Defendants
`
`argue that this construction is necessary to explain to the jury that the video data the source
`
`-12-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 4444
`
`object converts into streams is the video data the source object removed from the physical data
`
`source. Id. at 19.
`
`Plaintiff replies Defendants’ proposed construction of “wherein said source object
`
`extracts . . .” requires the source object to remove video and audio data from the physical data
`
`source, which is a limitation not required by the patent. Dkt. No. 157 at 9. Plaintiff urges that its
`
`proposed construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “extracts.” Id.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “buffer,” “obtains a buffer,” and “obtains data stream
`
`buffers” during the Echostar litigation and construed “buffer” to mean “memory where data can
`
`be temporarily stored for transfer.” Echostar CC Order at 22-24. This Court applied this
`
`construction to “obtains a buffer” and “obtains data stream buffers.” The Court is not persuaded
`
`that its previous construction should be changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior
`
`construction of “buffer” to mean “memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer.”
`
`Because of the Court’s prior construction of “source object” and “buffer,” the Court finds that
`
`the phrase “said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object” needs no
`
`further construction.
`
`6.
`
`“Automatically flow controlled” and “wherein said source object is
`automatically flow controlled by said transform object”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff proposes that “automatically flow controlled” continue to be construed as “self-
`
`regulated.” Dkt. No. 148 at 13. Plaintiff states that “[t]hese constructions followed from the
`
`‘clear definition in the specification’” Id. Plaintiff argues that, contrary to Defendants’
`
`-13-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 4445
`
`arguments, Plaintiff’s explanations to the Patent Office during reexamination did not disavow
`
`any claim scope or re-define any claim terms. Id. at 14.
`
`Defendants responds that Plaintiff “redefined the terms ‘transform object’ and ‘automatic
`
`flow control’ in its statements to the USPTO during reexmaination last Fall.” Dkt. No. 151 at 3.
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff told the USPTO during reexamination that the “self-regulated”
`
`definition of “automatically flow controlled” did not apply. Rather, Plaintiff’s expert stated
`
`during reexamination how a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the transform object,
`
`thereby redefining it, according to Defendants. Id. at 4. Id.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “automatically flow controlled” during the Echostar
`
`litigation and construed “automatically flow controlled” to mean “self-regulated.” Echostar CC
`
`Order at 24. The Court does not find that Plaintiff redefined “transform object” and “automatic
`
`flow control” during reexamination and is not persuaded that its previous construction should be
`
`changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “buffer” to mean “memory where
`
`data can be temporarily stored for transfer.”
`
`7.
`
`“Sink object” and “wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from
`said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe
`
`the term “sink object” to mean “a collection of data and operations that (1) obtains data stream
`
`buffers from a transform object and (2) outputs the streams to a video and audio decoder.”
`
`Plaintiff also submits that “wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said
`
`-14-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 4446
`
`transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder” does not need further
`
`construction in light of the Court’s previous constructions of “sink object,” “buffers,” and
`
`“transform object.” Dkt. No. 148 at 11. Plaintiff points out that the Federal Circuit affirmed the
`
`Court’s constructions in the EchoStar appeal. Id. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction is not found in the intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff narrowed and clarified the meaning of “object” during
`
`reexamination. Dkt. No. 151 at 14. Defendants state that their proposed construction is based on
`
`Plaintiff’s representations during reexamination. Defendants also argue that their proposed
`
`construction applies equally to object-oriented and non-object-oriented programming languages.
`
`Plaintiff replies that it did not narrow the scope of the term “object” during reexamination
`
`but did explain certain ordinary meanings for the words “collection,” “data,” and “operations”
`
`that appear in the Court’s prior construction. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction is merely construing terms contained in the Court’s construction when the jury in
`
`EchoStar had no problems applying the Court’s construction without further explanation. Dkt.
`
`No. 157 at 5.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “sink object” during the Echostar litigation and
`
`construed “sink object” to mean “a collection of data and operations that (1) obtains data stream
`
`buffers from a transform object and (2) outputs the streams to a video and audio decoder.”
`
`Echostar CC Order at 27-28. The Court is not persuaded that its previous construction should be
`
`changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “sink object” to mean “a collection
`
`of data and operations that (1) obtains data stream buffers from a transform object and (2)
`
`-15-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:09-cv-00259-DF Document 210 Filed 10/13/11 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 4447
`
`outputs the streams to a video and audio decoder.”
`
`In light of the Court’s prior construction of the terms “sink object,” “buffers,” and
`
`“transform object,” no further construction is required for “wherein said sink object obtains data
`
`stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio
`
`decoder.”
`
`8.
`
`“Control object” and “wherein said control object sends flow command events to said
`source, transform, and sink objects”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`Plaintiff proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe
`
`the term “control object” to mean “a collection of data and operations that receives commands
`
`form a user that control the flow of broadcast data” Dkt. No. 148 at 10. Plaintiff also submits
`
`that “wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink
`
`objects” does not need further construction in light of the Court’s previous constructions of
`
`“source object, “transform object,” and “sink object.” Dkt. No. 148 at 21. Plaintiff points out
`
`that the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court’s constructions in the EchoStar appeal. Id. Plaintiff
`
`argues that Defendants’ proposed construction is not found in the intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff narrowed and clarified the meaning of “object” during
`
`reexamination. Dkt. No. 151 at 14. Defendants state that their proposed construction is based on
`
`Plaintiff’s representations during reexamination. Defendants also argue that their proposed
`
`construction applies equally to object-oriented and non-object-oriented programming languages.
`
`Plaintiff replies that it did not narrow the scope of the term “object” during reexamination
`
`but did explain certain ordinary meanings for the words “collection,” “data,” and “operations”
`
`-16-
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003