Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`* * *
`
`SILVER STATE INTELLECTUAL
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`2:11-CV-1578-PMP-PAL
`ORDER
`
` v.
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL INC. AND
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.’s (“Silver
`State”) Consolidated Opening Claim Construction Brief1 (Doc. #53), filed September 28,
`2012. Defendants Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively
`“Garmin”) filed a Response (Doc. #54) on October 26, 2012. Silver State filed a Reply
`(Doc. #55) on November 9, 2012. The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 5,
`2013. (Mins. of Proceedings (Doc. #74).)
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Silver State owns the legal rights to United States Patent Nos. 6,525,768
`(the ‘768 Patent), 6,529,824 (the ‘824 Patent), 7,702,455 (the ‘455 Patent), 7,522,992 (the
`‘992 Patent), 7,593,812 (the ‘812 Patent), 7,739,039 (the ‘039 Patent), 7,650,234 (the ‘234
`
`1 The Court granted the parties’ request that the claim construction in this case be coordinated
`with a re lated case, Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc. v. Tom
`Tom, Inc. , Case No.
`2:11-CV-01581-PMP-PAL (D. Nev.). (Order Granting Joint Mot. & Stip. to Transfer & Consolidate
`Related Cases (Doc. #46).) On March 19, 2013, pursuant to Silver State and Tom
`Tom, Inc.’s
`stipulation, the Court dism issed with prejudice S ilver State’s case against Tom Tom, Inc. (Order
`Granting Stip. to Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. #82 in 2:11-CV-01581-PMP-PAL).) Therefore, this
`Order addresses only the claim construction issues pertinent to Silver State’s patent infringement suit
`against Defendants Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc.
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Google Exhibit 1007
`
`Page 1 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 36
`
`Patent), 7,343,165 (the ‘165 Patent), and 6,542,812 (‘2812 Patent). Silver State’s patents
`generally cover various navigation processes and devices.
`The ‘824 Patent is the parent patent to the ‘455 Patent, and this patent family
`“comprises Personal Communications Devices (PCDs), and traditional computer systems
`with GPS engines, routers, and other application programs to request, process, and transmit
`tagged, GPS encoded information.” (Decl. of Phillip Bennett in Support of Silver State’s
`Consolidated Opening Claim Constr. Br. (Doc. #53-1) [“Bennett Decl.”], Ex. A1 at col. 2,
`ll. 19-23.) The ‘768 Patent is part of another patent family that covers a PCD with a digital
`camera that transmits images and GPS information. (Id., Ex. A4 at col. 29-30.) The ‘992
`Patent, the ‘812 Patent, the ‘234 Patent, and the ‘039 Patent are part of another patent
`family and generally cover navigation PCDs that store user preference information and
`suggest goods or service providers based on the user preference information. (Id., Ex. A6 at
`col. 13-16.)
`Silver State filed a Complaint against Garmin, alleging Garmin sells navigation
`devices that infringe Silver State’s patents. (Compl. for Patent Infringement (Doc. #1).)
`Garmin filed an Answer, asserting that it does not directly or indirectly infringe Silver
`State’s Patents, as well as various other defenses. (Garmin’s Answer to Silver State’s
`Compl. for Patent Infringement and Countercl. (Doc. #21).) Garmin also asserted
`counterclaims seeking declarations that the asserted patent claims are invalid and that
`Garmin does not infringe any valid asserted patent claim. (Id.) Silver State filed an Answer
`to Garmin’s counterclaims, denying that Garmin is entitled to a declaration of invalidity or
`non-infringement. (Pl.’s Reply to Countercls. of Garmin (Doc. #25).)
`As required under Local Rule 16.1-15, the parties filed a Joint Claim
`Construction Chart providing the parties’ agreed upon construction of some claim terms and
`each party’s proposed construction of the disputed claim terms. (Jt. Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement Pursuant to LR 16.1-15 (Doc. #47), Ex. A.) Later, the Court granted
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 36
`
`the parties’ stipulation to dismiss all claims and counterclaims related to the ‘165 Patent.
`(Order Granting Stip. (Doc. #49).) The parties filed an Amended Joint Claim Construction
`Chart reflecting the dismissal and further compromise as to certain claim construction
`disputes. (Not. of Am. Jt. Claim Construction Chart (Doc. #52).) After the parties had
`briefed the disputed claim constructions that remained, the Court granted the parties’
`stipulation to dismiss all claims and counterclaims related to ‘2812 Patent. (Order Granting
`Stip. (Doc. #58).) The seven Silver State patents that remain in this case are the ‘768
`Patent, the ‘824 Patent, the ‘455 Patent, the ‘992 Patent, the ‘812 Patent, the ‘039 Patent,
`and the ‘234 Patent. The claim terms disputed by the parties are reflected in the parties’
`Amended Disputed Claim Terms Summary Sheet. (Am. Disputed Claim Terms Summary
`Sheet (Doc. #73-1).)
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“The purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning and scope of the
`patent claims that the plaintiff alleges have been infringed.” Every Penny Counts, Inc. v.
`Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “When the parties raise an actual
`dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that
`dispute.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (finding
`patent claim construction is a question of law for the court). “To ascertain the scope and
`meaning of the asserted claims, [courts] look to the words of the claims themselves, the
`specification, the prosecution history, and, if necessary, any relevant extrinsic evidence.”2
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(quotation omitted).
`
`2 The parties do not cite the prosecution history to support their proposed claim constructions.
`Therefore, the Court considers only the claim language, the specification, and any pertinent extrinsic
`evidence.
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 4 of 36
`
`The Court must begin by examining the claim language. Acumed LLC v. Stryker
`Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 805 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Every Penny Counts, 563 F.3d at 1381 (“The
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” (quotation
`omitted)). “The words of a claim are generally given 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.” Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708
`F.3d 1310, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). Considering how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand a claim term “is based on the well-settled
`understanding that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention and
`that patents are addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the pertinent art.”
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`“While certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the
`context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the
`ordinary and customary meaning of those terms.” ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346
`F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d
`1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating courts “must give meaning to all the words in [the]
`claims”). Both asserted and unasserted claims of the patent can add meaning to a disputed
`claim term, as claim terms normally are used consistently throughout the patent. Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, where the patents at issue “derive from the same parent
`application and share many common terms, [the court] must interpret the claims
`consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d
`1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If the claim language is clear on its face, then consideration of
`the other intrinsic evidence is limited “to determining if a deviation from the clear language
`of the claims is specified.” Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323,
`1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 5 of 36
`
`Furthermore, “claims must be read in view of the specification[] of which they
`are a part.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quotation omitted). The specification can offer
`“practically incontrovertible directions about claim meaning.” Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz,
`Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009). For example, the patentee may act as its own
`“lexicographer” and give a specialized definition of a claim term either explicitly or
`implicitly, in which case the specification acts as a dictionary for the patent. Id.; Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1321. “Likewise, inventors and applicants may intentionally disclaim, or
`disavow, subject matter that would otherwise fall within the scope of the claim.” Abbott
`Labs., 566 F.3d at 1288.
`“When consulting the specification to clarify the meaning of claim terms, courts
`must take care not to import limitations into the claims from the specification.” Id.
`“[A]lthough the specification may well indicate that certain embodiments are preferred,
`particular embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into claims when the
`claim language is broader than such embodiments.” Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess
`Techs., Inc., 222 F.3d 958, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). “By the same token,
`the claims cannot enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has described as the
`invention.” Abbott Labs., 566 F.3d at 1288 (quotation omitted).
`If the claim language is not clear after reviewing all intrinsic evidence, then the
`Court may refer to extrinsic evidence such as expert testimony, inventor testimony,
`dictionaries, learned treatises, and prior art not cited in the prosecution history. Zodiac Pool
`Care, Inc. v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 206 F.3d 1408, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Relying on
`extrinsic evidence to construe a claim is proper only when the claim language remains
`genuinely ambiguous after consideration of the intrinsic evidence. Such instances will
`rarely, if ever, occur.” Interactive Gift Exp., 256 F.3d at 1332 (internal quotation omitted).
`///
`///
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 6 of 36
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`Having considered, in accord with the standards above, the legal authority and
`arguments of counsel presented in the briefs and at the hearing conducted April 5, 2013, the
`Court construes the disputed patent claim terms as follows.
`A. GPS stamp (‘768 Patent)
`
`The parties dispute whether the term “GPS stamp” in the preamble of the ‘768
`Patent Claim 2 is limiting, and if the term is limiting what the Court should construe it to
`mean. (Bennett Decl., Ex. A4 at col. 30, ll. 1.) Claim 2 claims:
`A digital camera with GPS stamp for use with a PCD device,
`comprising:
`a housing containing an imaging device;
`a GPS receiver for determining a position of the digital camera including
`latitude and longitudinal information;
`a memory coupled to the imaging device and the GPS receiver, the
`memory storing an image formed by the imaging device and the position
`of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal information;
`communication means for transmitting the position of the digital camera
`including the latitude and longitudinal information and the image to a
`central computer storage system, wherein the central computer storage
`system provides the position of the digital camera including the latitude
`and longitudinal information and the image to other PCD devices upon
`request.
`
`Garmin’s Proposed Construction
`latitude and longitude information placed
`within a picture image [in a manner similar
`to the placing of a time or date stamp]
`
` (Id. at col. 30, ll. 1-18.)
`
`Silver State’s Proposed Construction
`Silver State submits the preamble of this
`claim is not limiting.
`Alternatively: latitude and longitude
`location information from the Global
`Positioning System
`
`///
`///
`
`
`
`6
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Page 6 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 7 of 36
`
`Silver State argues GPS stamp is not limiting because the body of Claim 2
`defines a complete and functional apparatus and the preamble is merely a purpose or
`intended use of the invention. Silver State also argues GPS stamp is not cited later in
`Claim 2, which is evidence the term is not limiting. Alternatively, Silver State argues that if
`the preamble is limiting and GPS stamp requires construction, that the specification
`supports its proposed construction because the specification states that a GPS stamp
`provides latitude and longitude information and is a convenient way of accurately placing
`the location of images. Silver State thus argues that although a GPS stamp may be placed
`into an image, the term should not be limited to that definition.
`Garmin argues GPS stamp is limiting because it is a key structural makeup of the
`claimed invention. However, Garmin states whether the preamble is limiting may be set
`aside because Garmin agrees GPS stamp is accurately described in the Claim 2 term “an
`image formed by the imaging device and the position of the digital camera including the
`latitude and longitudinal information.” (Id. at col. 30, ll. 8-10.) Garmin argues that the
`specification describes GPS stamp as graphically made part of an image, and that it would
`be called tagging if it was just location information associated with an image. Thus,
`Garmin concludes the Court should construe “an image formed by the imaging device and
`the position of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal information” to
`mean an “image is formed by (1) an imaging device and (2) the latitude and longitudinal
`information.”
`Silver State replies that Garmin is improperly attempting to insert the requirement
`that the location information for the image be made part of the image in its interpretation of
`the new limitation at issue. Silver State argues the more reasonable interpretation of the
`limitation now at issue, looking at the full claim limitation, is that the claimed memory
`stores (1) an image formed by the imaging device, and (2) the position of the digital camera,
`including the latitude and longitudinal information.
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 8 of 36
`
`“Generally, . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v.
`Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). However, “a
`preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to
`give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
`Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Thus, “if the claim drafter
`chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed
`invention,” then the preamble is limiting. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted). However, “a preamble is not limiting where a
`patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble
`only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808
`(quotation omitted). In other words, the preamble is not limiting if “deletion of the
`preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809.
`The preamble of Claim 2 is not limiting. Claim 2 describes a structurally
`complete invention consisting of “a housing containing an imaging device, . . . a GPS
`receiver, . . . a memory, . . . [and] a communication means for transmitting the position of
`the digital camera.” (Bennett Decl., Ex. A4 at col. 30, ll. 1-18.) The preamble does not
`give life, meaning, or vitality to the claimed invention, and deleting the preamble would not
`affect the structure and steps of the claimed invention. Because the preamble is not
`limiting, the Court will not construe “GPS stamp.”
`However, the meaning of “the memory storing an image formed by the imaging
`device and the position of the digital camera” is ambiguous. (Id. at col. 30, ll. 7-9.) It could
`mean that the memory stores both an image and the position of the digital camera
`separately, or it could mean that the memory stores the image and the image is formed by
`the imaging device and the position of the digital camera.
`The other claim limitations and the specification support the construction that the
`image and the position of the digital camera are separately and distinctly stored by the
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 9 of 36
`
`memory. The last limitation of Claim 2 states “communication means for transmitting the
`position of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal information and the
`image to a central computer storage system, wherein the central computer storage system
`provides the position of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal
`information and the image to other PCD devices upon request.” (Id. at col. 30, ll. 11-18.)
`The specification states “[t]he image formed by the digital camera is stored on memory
`contained within the PCD device, along with a GPS stamp.” (Id. at col. 23, ll. 22-24.) By
`using the words “and” as well as “along with,” the claim and specification suggests the
`image and the camera position may be separately stored. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“A claim must be read in accordance with the precepts of English
`grammar.”)
`The specification also states “[t]he GPS stamp is placed within the picture image
`in a manner similar to the placing of a time or date stamp on a digital image picture.”
`(Bennett Decl., Ex. A4 at col. 23, ll. 24-26.) Thus, a preferred embodiment described in the
`specification is that the GPS stamp is placed within the image. However, the Court will not
`read particular embodiments appearing in the specification into claims when the claim
`language is broader than such embodiments. There is no claim language requiring that the
`image be formed and stored with the position. Therefore, the Court will construe “the
`memory storing an image formed by the imaging device and the position of the digital
`camera” to include the memory storing both an image and the position of the digital camera
`separately.
`The Court finds “GPS stamp” is not limiting, and requires no construction.
`The Court further holds “the memory storing an image formed by the imaging device
`and the position of the digital camera, including the latitude and longitudinal
`information” means: “the memory storing (1) an image formed by the imaging device,
`and (2) the position of the digital camera, including the latitude and longitudinal
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 10 of 36
`
`information.”
`B. Communication means for transmitting the position of the digital camera
`including the latitude and longitudinal information and the image to a
`central computer storage system (‘768 Patent)
`
`The parties agree the term “communication means for transmitting the position of
`the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal information and the image to a
`central computer storage system” in the ‘768 Patent Claim 2 contains “means-plus-
`function” language and must be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. (Bennett Decl.,
`Ex. A4 at col. 30, ll. 11-14.) However, the parties dispute how the Court should construe
`the function.
`
`Silver State’s Proposed Construction
`Function: transmitting the position of the
`digital camera where an image was taken,
`including the latitude and longitudinal
`information and the image to a central
`computer storage system
`Structure: a wireless transceiver
`
`Garmin’s Proposed Construction
`Function: transmitting the position of the
`digital camera including the latitude and
`longitudinal information and the image to a
`central computer storage system
`
`Structure: a wireless transceiver
`
`“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step
`for performing a specified function without the recital of structure . . . and such claim shall
`be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification and
`equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Construing a claim under section 112,
`paragraph 6 is a two step process. “First, the court must identify the claimed function.”
`Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). The Court must construe the function “to include the limitations contained in the
`claim language, and only those limitations.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) (quotation omitted). “[A] court may not construe a means-plus-function limitation by
`adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim.” JVW Enters., Inc. v.
`Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). The
`
`
`
`10
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Page 10 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 11 of 36
`
`second step for construing claims under section 112, paragraph 6 is identifying “the
`corresponding structure in the specification that performs the recited function.” Chicago
`Bd. Options Exch., 677 F.3d at 1367.
`Here, the parties agree that the structure is “a wireless transceiver.” Therefore,
`the Court will adopt “a wireless transceiver” as the structure. Regarding the function, Silver
`State argues the phrase “where an image was taken” should be added to clarify that the
`position of the digital camera that is transmitting is that of the camera when a photograph is
`taken. However, the claim as written already is broad enough to include sending the
`location of the digital camera at the time an image was taken. Silver State’s proposed
`construction would impose the limitation of transmitting only the location of the digital
`camera at the time an image is taken. The Court must not write limitations into the function
`that are not present in the claim language.
`The Court therefore holds “communication means for transmitting the
`position of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal information and
`the image to a central computer storage system” means: “a wireless transceiver
`transmitting the position of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal
`information and the image to a central computer storage system.”
`C. Map data (‘824 Patent) and map information (‘455 Patent)
`
`The parties dispute the term “map data” in the ‘824 Patent Claim 8 and “map
`information” in the ‘455 Patent Claim 1. (Bennett Decl., Ex. A1 at col. 18, ll. 20-30;
`Ex. A3 at col. 17, ll. 14-21.) The ‘824 Patent and ‘455 Patent are in the same family, and
`the Court therefore must construe the claims consistently across both patents. NTP, Inc.,
`418 F.3d at 1293.
`
`Silver State’s Proposed Construction
`map data = location information
`map information = location information
`
`Garmin’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`11
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Page 11 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 12 of 36
`
`Silver State argues that map data encompasses more than just the map, and
`includes data that relates to location in a more general sense, such as the location of
`restaurants, waypoints, or other locations of interest. Silver State argues the ‘824 Patent
`specification, which is shared with the ‘455 Patent, demonstrates map data is information
`relating to location. Silver State further submits two patents that are not at issue in this case
`which use the terms map data and map information to demonstrate that a person skilled in
`the art would construe map data broadly. Silver State argues the Court must construe the
`term because of the parties’ vastly differing interpretation of map data.
`Garmin asserts that lay people know what map, data, and information mean, so
`the plain and ordinary meaning should control. Specifically as to map data, Garmin agrees
`that maps are related to location, but argues the two are not coextensive. Garmin also
`argues that Silver State’s construction makes map data and non-map data the same because
`the patents expressly state non-map data concerns specific locations such as restaurants. As
`to map information, Garmin argues map information is merely information used to generate
`a map, based on Claim 1’s language “an interface device for requesting and receiving map
`information from digital map storage.” Garmin finally submits that the patentee’s use of the
`term “map related information” for a patent in the same family as the ‘824 and ‘455 Patents
`shows the patentee knew how to claim information one degree abstracted from the actual
`map.
`
`Silver State replies that whether a lay person would understand the meaning of
`map, data, and information in isolation is not the relevant inquiry; rather, the inquiry is how
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms map data and map
`information. Silver State argues the specification demonstrates that map data is the data
`stored in the system that pertains to location. Silver State further contends that its definition
`of map data is not the same as non-map data because non-map data is non-location
`information, like a restaurant’s name or the type of food it serves. Silver State also argues
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 13 of 36
`
`that if the patentee intended map information to mean map, the patentee would have used
`the word map only. Silver State finally contends that although map related information is
`broader than map data or map information, this does not mean map data or map information
`should be narrowly construed to mean just the map.
`The Court must ascertain what “map data” and “map information” mean in the
`context of this claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the field, not lay people.
`Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1320. Therefore, the Court rejects Garmin’s argument that the
`terms have ordinary meanings and do not need construction. The Court first construes map
`data and then construes map information.
`1. Map data (‘824 Patent)
`A general rule of patent construction is that different words are presumed to have
`different meanings. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). The ‘824 Patent’s claims and specification use map, map data, non-map
`data, and location information separately, so these terms presumptively have different
`meanings. (Bennett Decl., Ex. A1 at col. 4, ll. 37-44, col. 10, ll. 42-43, col. 18, ll. 20-31.)
`The patentee also used the term “map related information” in a patent in the same family as
`the ‘824 and ‘455 Patents, a term which is presumed to mean something different than map
`data but in itself does not show that map data should be limited to mean the map. (Bennett
`Decl., Ex. A5 at col. 14, ll. 54-55.) The Court therefore rejects Garmin’s construction that
`map data is a map, to the extent Garmin offers this construction. The Court also rejects
`Silver State’s construction that map data is location information because the specification
`uses both map data and location information, and describes location information as a subset
`of map data. The specification states “[w]hen map data files are encoded with location
`information, the location information can be referred to as waypoints.” (Bennett Decl.,
`Ex. A1 at col. 10, ll. 42-43.) Thus, under ordinary grammar rules, the use of the word
`“when” means that map data files do not always, but may, include location information.
`
`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
`
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 14 of 36
`
`See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 714; cf. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323,
`1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating, in applying the doctrine of the last antecedent, that “words,
`in context, receive their meaning according to their placement in grammatical structure”).
`Therefore, map data is not just location information.
`The Court further finds Silver State’s proposed extrinsic evidence is of limited
`assistance in deciphering what map data means in the context of the patents at issue. The
`Court may consider the extrinsic patents offered by Silver State to the extent they show how
`those skilled in the art use the term map data. See ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.,
`700 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Prior art can help to demonstrate how a disputed
`term is used by those skilled in the art.” (quotation omitted)). United States Patent No.
`1,180,567 (“Geelan Patent”) claims, in part, a navigation device that “is configured to
`change displaying a combination of the video image from the camera and the navigation
`directions to displaying the navigations with a selected portion of map data.” (Bennett
`Decl., Ex. B5 at col. 16, ll. 60-64.) The Geelen Patent’s specification states that memory
`units for the navigation device:
`may comprise map data 22. This map data may be two dimensional
`map data (latitude and longitude), but may also comprise a third
`dimensions (height). The map data may further comprise additional
`information such as information about petrol/gas stations, points of
`interest. The map data may also comprise information about the shape
`of buildings and objects along the road.
`
`(Id. at col. 5, ll. 61-67.) Under the Geelen Patent, map data includes “information about
`petrol/gas station, points of interest,” which is broad enough to include hours of operation
`and yellow page entries. However, the ‘824 Patent defines hours of operation and yellow
`page entries as non-map data. (Bennett Decl., Ex. A1 at col. 18, ll. 34-36, 43-45.) The
`Geelen Patent thus does not assist in determining what map data means in the ‘824 Patent
`because the Geelan Patent and the ‘824 Patent define map data differently.
`///
`
`
`
`14
`
`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
`
`26
`
`Page 14 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-01578-PMP-PAL Document 83 Filed 08/13/13 Page 15 of 36
`
`The Court will construe map data by reference to the parameters of the term as
`illustrated by the claim language and specification. The ‘824 Patent Claim 8 claims a
`method for “storing map data for geographic areas and non-map data, with the non-map
`data in linked data fields concerning specific locations within the geographic areas.” (Id.
`at col. 18, ll. 20-22.) Thus, map data is related to geographic areas, and non-map data is
`linked to locations in the geographic areas. Furthermore, Claim 14, which is dependent on
`Claim 8, states map data may include “latitude and longitude data.” (Id. at col. 18,
`ll. 46-48.) Thus, map data may include, but does not inherently include, latitude and
`longitude data.
`The specification further provides that “some devices have map data stored in
`memory and a display for showing the device pos