Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:3267
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`Present: The Honorable
`Stephen Montes
`Deputy Clerk
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`None
`
` GARY ALLEN FEESS
`N/A
`None
`Tape No.
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`None
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(In Chambers)
`
`ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This action arises out of the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 5,960,074
`(the “’074 Patent” or the “Patent”), entitled “Mobile Tele-Computer Network for Motion
`Picture, Television, and TV Advertising Production.” (Docket No. 82 [Declaration of Jeanpierre
`J. Giuliano in Support of Plaintiff’s Responsive Brief (“Responsive Giuliano Decl.”); Ex. A
`[‘074 Patent].) Plaintiff Advanced Media Networks, LLC (“AMN”) is the holder of the ‘074
`Patent, (Docket No. 14 [First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)] ¶ 8), which “describes a mobile hub
`connecting a high-speed wide area network” and “a wireless local area network,” which permits
`users to access the Internet while in transit. (Docket No. 81 [Plaintiff’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (“PB”)] at 4–5.) AMN has used the technology described by the ‘074 Patent
`“to provide, among other things, services to the motion picture industry in the creation of several
`Hollywood blockbuster productions.” (Id. at 2.) Through this means, data from on-location
`shooting sites could be transmitted on a regular basis to others working on the picture at the
`studio.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Gogo LLC (“Gogo”) and its subsidiary, Aircell Business
`Aviation Services LLC (“Aircell”), “deploy an air-to-ground (“ATG”) communications network
`and associated in-flight systems used to provide broadband services to users aboard aircraft
`flying over the continental United States and Alaska.” (Id. at 2–3.) These mobile broadband
`products and services are installed in and offered on aircraft owned and operated by various
`commercial airlines, including Defendants Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and United Air Lines,
`Inc. (“United”). The products and services are also provided aboard private airlines and by
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 1 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:3268
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`aircraft manufacturers, including Defendants Bombardier Aerospace Corporation
`(“Bombardier”), Learjet Inc. (“Learjet”), NetJets Inc. (“NetJets”) and XOJET, Inc. (“XOJET”).
`(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff AMN maintains that Defendants’ sale and use of the ATG network infringes
`the technology embodied in the ‘074 Patent. (Compl.) The patent has previously been enforced
`in litigation against Inmarsat Global Ltd. (“Inmarsat”), and several of its subsidiaries and
`distributors, for their use of satellite-based mobile broadband services, which resulted in
`Inmarsat and the other defendants licensing the patents. (Id. at 3 (citing Declaration of
`JeanPierre J. Giuliano in Support of Plaintiff’s Opening Brief (“Opening Giuliano Decl.”), Ex. C
`[Advanced Media Networks, L.L.C. v. Inmarsat Inc. et al., 1:10-cv-00194-KBF (S.D.N.Y., filed
`Jan. 11, 2010, terminated July 26, 2012) (Docket Nos. 103 and 112))].)
`
`In their opening and responsive claim construction briefs, the parties presented a total of
`fourteen claim terms for construction. However, mirroring the structure and organization of the
`parties’ briefs, the Court addressed the terms in nine groups in its tentative construction ruling.
`(See Docket No. 121 [Tentative Claim Construction Ruling].) The Court circulated the tentative
`constructions at the April 10, 2013 Markman hearing on this matter. The constructions the
`Court adopts in this Order account for the arguments made at the hearing, and in some instances
`vary from the tentative constructions circulated at the hearing.
`
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Plaintiff initiated this action on December 19, 2011, alleging that Defendants Gogo and
`Aircell engaged in both direct and contributory infringement, as well as “inducement of
`infringement.” (Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding
`the airline Defendants, and alleging that they, too, engaged in direct infringement, contributory
`infringement, and inducement of infringement. (FAC.) Defendants filed answers in response to
`the FAC, as well as their own counterclaims. (Docket Nos. 35–40.) Although the parties
`initially filed cross motions for summary judgment in conjunction with their claim construction
`briefing, the Court instructed that it would not consider the motions until after the Markman
`hearing. (Docket No. 107 [2/22/13 Order].)
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘074 PATENT
`
`The present invention is a mobile telecomputer network. (‘074 Patent at 2:2, 29.) The
`“network comprises a wireless local area network (LAN), at least one mobile hub, and a wireless
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 2 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:3269
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`wide area network (WAN) that includes a redundant digital microwave communication system.”
`(Id. at 2:40–44.) “The mobile hub is in the form of a mobile vehicle (e.g., a van) and is
`configured to transfer information as a single nomadic transmission/reception point between the
`microwave communication system and the wireless LAN.” (Id. at 2:44–48.) The mobile hub
`uses an ethernet packet switching protocol to transfer information between the wide area
`network and the wireless LAN. (Id. at 2:8–14.) Thus, “[t]he present invention provides a unique
`telecommunication system that is a comprehensive full-featured mobile Web-based intranet
`information management and communication system supported by a broadband microwave
`network infrastructure.” (Id. at 3:32–36.)
`
`The ‘074 Patent describes one “exemplary network system embodiment,” which is
`illustrated in Figure 1. (Id., Fig. 1.) The Patent states that the “drawings of various
`embodiments of the invention . . . should not be taken to limit the invention to the specific
`embodiments, but are for explanation and understanding only.” (Id. at 2:19–23.) Figure 1
`illustrates a mobile van, which contains a hub connected to both a digital microwave
`communications system and wireless local area network (“LAN”) via antennae. (Id., Fig. 1.)
`According to the specification, this system “provides a telecomputer network that satisfies the
`needs of the Motion Picture, Television and TV Advertising industry [sic].” (Id. at 1:63–65.)
`
`C. PROSECUTION HISTORY AND PRIOR LITIGATION OVER THE ‘074 PATENT
`
`1. INITIAL APPLICATION AND AMENDMENT
`
`The inventor, Curtis Clark, filed the original ‘074 Patent application on September 23,
`1996. (PB at 5.) “Following an initial rejection of the claims as being allegedly obvious, the
`inventor argued that the prior art did not disclose a mobile hub being used in a nomadic fashion
`to transfer communications between a digital microwave communication system and a wireless
`LAN.” (PB at 5 (citing Opening Giuliano Decl., Ex. E [April 13, 1998 Amendment] at 7–8).) In
`addition, the inventor “amended the third element of claim 1 as follows (with additions shown in
`underline and deletions in brackets)”:
`
`a mobile hub station configured to transfer information as a single nomadic
`transmission/reception point between the microwave communication
`system and the wireless LAN[, such that information is transferred over the
`network] using an ethernet packet switching protocol.
`
`(PB at 5–6 (citations omitted).) A similar amendment was made to claim 14. (Id. at 6.) The
`amendment was “accompanied by an argument that the mobile hub’s use of an ethernet packet
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 3 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:3270
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`switching protocol such as TCP/IP to transfer information between a microwave communication
`system and a wireless LAN enabled information to be transferred throughout the system using an
`ethernet packet switching protocol.” (Id. at 6 (citing Ex. E at 7–8).) The PTO examiner
`ultimately determined that the claims were patentable over the prior art “and the ‘074 Patent
`issued on September 28, 1999.” (Id. at 6.)
`
`After AMN brought suit against Inmarsat, a reexamination of the ‘074 Patent was
`requested on May 11, 2010, on the basis of new prior art not previously considered by the
`USPTO during the original prosecution. (PB at 6.) In the first reexamination Office Action, all
`claims were rejected as either anticipated by or obvious over (i) Randy H. Katz, “Adaptation and
`Mobility in Wireless Information Systems,” IEEE Personal Communications, First Quarter
`(1994) (“Katz”); (ii) Field Manual 100-16, entitled Army Operational Support, published by the
`Department of the Army in Washington, D.C. on May 31, 1995 (“FM 100-16”) and (iii) T.
`Nassif, “Supporting the Fleet: Taking Workflow to the Waterfront” Thesis, submitted in partial
`fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Information Technology
`Management from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, published August 17, 1995
`(“Nassif”). (Id. at 6 (citing Opening Giuliano Decl., Ex. F [First Reexamination Office
`Action]).)
`
`Although AMN was able to successfully distinguish the technology described in the ‘074
`patent in its response to the First Office Action, in a second reexamination Office Action, the
`previous rejections were withdrawn as having been overcome and all claims were rejected under
`new grounds. Specifically, the claims were rejected on the basis of one of two new prior art
`combinations: M. Normoyle and R. Nunan, “A Tactical Deployable Wireless Multimedia LAN,”
`Proceedings of IEEE MILCOM 1993, pp. 502–606 (“Normoyle”) combined with either Nassif
`or FM 100–16. (Id. at 7, Ex. H [Second Reexamination Office Action].) In response, AMN
`argued that the combination of Normoyle with either Nassif or FM 100–16 failed to teach or
`suggest use of an ethernet packet switching protocol to transfer information by a mobile hub.
`(Id., Opening Giuliano Decl., Ex. I [Response].) Ultimately, the examiner found AMN’s
`arguments persuasive and the USPTO issued a Certificate of Re-examination of the ‘074 Patent
`on November 22, 2011. (Opening Giuliano Decl., Ex. K.)
`
`2. INMARSAT LITIGATION
`
`AMN previously enforced two of its patents, including the ‘074 Patent, against Inmarsat
`Global Ltd. (“Inmarsat”) and several of its subsidiaries and distributors “for their use of satellite-
`based mobile broadband services, including the SwiftBroadband service also offered by
`defendant Aircell.” (PB at 3; Advanced Media Networks, L.L.C. v. Inmarsat Inc. et al., 1:10-cv-
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 4 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:3271
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`00194-KBF (S.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 11, 2010, terminated July 26, 2012).) Ultimately, the
`defendants in the Inmarsat action licensed the patents at issue. (Id.) A review of the Inmarsat
`docket indicates that although the parties filed claim construction briefs, they stipulated to
`voluntary dismissal of the case before the court could conduct a Markman hearing. Thus, the
`claims at issue here have never been construed by another court.
`
`
`III.
`DISCUSSION
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The construction of a patent is a matter of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). To determine the meaning of a patent claim, the
`Court primarily considers three sources: (1) the claims; (2) the specification; and (3) the
`prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir.1995)
`(en banc), aff'd, Markman, 517 U.S. 370.
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, in construing disputed terms, the Court
`first looks to the words of the claims. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). Generally, the Court ascribes the words of a claim their ordinary and
`customary meaning. Id. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term 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, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1313.
`
`Other claims of the patent in question can also assist in determining the meaning of a
`claim term. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Because an inventor normally uses claim terms
`consistently throughout a patent, the usage of a term in one claim may reveal the meaning of the
`same term in other claims. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). Conversely, use of a term in a different way in another claim may also be useful in
`determining the particular meaning of the disputed term. Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939
`F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Particularly, the existence of a dependent claim that adds a
`particular limitation creates a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
`independent claim. Liebel–Flarseim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 5 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:3272
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`Because the claims are part of a fully integrated written instrument comprised principally
`of the specification, the Court must next review the specification. Markman, 52 F.3d at 978–79.
`Because the specification must contain a description of the invention that is clear and complete
`enough to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it, the specification is “always
`highly relevant” to the Court's claim construction analysis. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “Usually,
`[the specification] is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
`Id. “In light of the statutory directive that the inventor provide a ‘full’ and ‘exact’ description of
`the claimed invention, the specification necessarily informs the proper construction of the
`claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In some cases, the specification may reveal that the
`patentee has given a special definition to a claim term that differs from its ordinary meaning. “In
`such cases, the inventor's lexicography controls.” Id. at 1316. The specification also may reveal
`the patentee's intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope. “In that instance, as well, the
`inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor's intention, as expressed in the
`specification, is regarded as dispositive.” Id. Thus, the specification can act as a dictionary
`when it expressly or impliedly defines terms used in the claims. Id.
`
`Next, in addition to reviewing the specification, the Court should consider the patent's
`prosecution history, if it is in evidence. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. The prosecution history is
`intrinsic evidence and consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the Patent and
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “The prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim
`language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower then it
`would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1317; see also Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d
`1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a
`claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”) (internal
`quotations omitted).
`
`In addition to the foregoing intrinsic evidence, the Federal Circuit has also authorized
`district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence in claim construction, which consists of “all evidence
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. However, extrinsic evidence is
`“less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim
`language.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`“Because dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted
`meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology, those resources have been
`properly recognized as among the many tools that can assist the court in determining the
`meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 6 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:3273
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`1318. Accordingly, the Court may consider this evidence, if the Court deems it helpful in
`properly construing the claim terms. Id.
`
`B. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`1. THE CLAIMS IN DISPUTE
`
`Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are in issue. The claims provide, as
`follows:
`
`1. A telecomputer network system comprising:
`a redundant digital microwave communication system;
`a wireless local area network (LAN); and
`a mobile hub station configured to transfer information as
`a single nomadic transmission/reception point between the microwave communication
`system and the wireless LAN using an ethernet packet switching protocol.
`
`. . .
`
`3. The network defined [sic] claim 1 wherein the information is transferred using the TCP/IP
`protocol.
`. . .
`
`11. The system defined in claim 1 wherein the information comprises broadband information.
`
`12. The system defined in claim 11 wherein the broadband information comprises data.
`
`13. The system defined in claim 11 wherein the broadband information comprises audio and
`image data, such that the microwave communication system, wireless LAN, and mobile hub
`station transfer broadband audio and image data.
`
`14. A telecomputer network comprising
`a wireless wide area network (WAN) comprising a redundant digital microwave communication
`system configured to operate as a [sic] intranet;
`a wireless local area network (LAN), wherein the wireless LAN comprises a plurality of nodes
`with an individual personal computer at each of the plurality of nodes; and
`a mobile vehicle configured to transfer information as a single nomadic transmission/reception
`point between the microwave communication system and the wireless LAN using the TCP/IP
`protocol.
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 7 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:3274
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`. . .
`
`21. The system defined in claim 14 wherein the information comprises broadband information.
`
`22. The system defined in claim 21 wherein the broadband information comprises data.
`. . .
`
`28. A system comprising:
`a communication subsystem;
`a wireless local area network (LAN) that includes at least one computer; and
`a mobile hub configured to transfer broadband information as a single nomadic
`transmission/reception point between the communication subsystem and the wireless LAN using
`an ethernet packet switching protocol.
`
`29. The system defined [sic] claim 28 wherein the broadband information comprises data.
`
`30. The system defined [sic] claim 28 wherein the broadband information comprises audio and
`image data, such that the subsystem, wireless LAN and mobile hub transfer broadband audio and
`image data.
`
`31. The system defined [sic] claim 28 wherein the information is transferred using the TCP/IP
`protocol.
`
`
`
`2. THE TERMS IN DISPUTE
`
`Within these disputed claims, the parties have identified the following terms as disputed:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“TCP/IP protocol” (Claims 3, 14, 31)
`
`“Ethernet packet switching protocol” (Claims 1 and 28)
`
`“Wireless local area network (LAN)” (Claims 1, 14, 28)
`
`“Broadband information” (Claims 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30)
`
`“Digital microwave communication system” and “digital microwave
`communication system configured to operate as a [sic] intranet” (Claims 1, 14)
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 8 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:3275
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`“Redundant digital microwave communication system” (Claim 1)
`
`“Communication subsystem” (Claim 28)
`
`“Single nomadic transmission/reception point” (Claims 1, 14, 28); “nomadic
`transmission/reception point between the microwave communication system and
`the wireless LAN” (Claims 1, 14); “nomadic transmission/reception point between
`the communication subsystem and the wireless LAN” (Claims 1, 28); “single”
`(Claims 1, 14, 28)
`
`“Configured to transfer information . . . between the microwave communication
`system and the wireless LAN using an ethernet packet switching protocol” (Claim
`1); “configured to transfer information . . . between the microwave communication
`system and the wireless LAN using the TCP/IP protocol” (Claim 14); “configured
`to transfer broadband information . . . between the communication subsystem and
`the wireless LAN using an ethernet packet switching protocol” (Claim 28); and
`“information is transferred using the TCP/IP protocol” (Claims 3, 31).
`
`
`(See Docket No. 76 [Joint Claim Construction Chart].)
`
`C. CONSTRUCTION
`
`1. TCP/IP PROTOCOL
`Claim Term
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`TCP/IP Protcol;
`No construction necessary. If
`Claims 3, 14,
`construed: “Transmission
`and 31
`Control Protocol/Internet
`Protocol; a set of communication
`protocols, conforming to the
`IETF RFC 793 and 791 protocol
`specifications, used to connect
`devices across networks such as
`the Internet by splitting data into
`packets over a network and
`reassembling the packets at a
`known destination in a proper
`sequence”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`A protocol that uses both TCP protocol
`and IP protocol. TCP means
`Transmission Control Protocol and is
`defined by the IETF RFC 793 protocol
`specification. IP means Internet
`Protocol and is defined by the IETF
`RFC 791 protocol specification.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 10 of 38 Page ID
` #:3276
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`AMN asserts that no construction of the term “TCP/IP protocol” is necessary. However,
`“[w]hen the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the
`court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And here, the parties dispute whether the “TCP/IP protocol” is “defined”
`by the IETF RFC1 793 and 791 protocol specifications or whether the “TCP/IP protocol” need
`only “conform” to these specifications.
`
`Because the parties agree that the construction of “TCP/IP protocol” should reference the
`relevant RFC standards, only two issues remain in dispute between the parties as to this term: (1)
`whether the construction should state that TCP/IP is “defined” by the RFC standards or merely
`that it “conforms” to them; and (2) whether the construction should include additional
`information describing the contents of the RFCs.
`
`Plaintiff urges that the additional information in its proposed construction would be
`helpful to a jury because it “recites core features of TCP and IP found in the referenced
`standards” and will “enable a jury to more clearly understand the term ‘TCP/IP protocol’ without
`necessarily resorting to reading and deciphering each of the RFCs, which are rather lengthy and
`technical.” (PB at 21.) Defendants insist that Plaintiff’s inclusion of this additional information
`in its proposed construction is an attempt to “expand the scope of its claims to try to cover non-
`TCP and non-IP protocols in the guise of providing ‘guidance’ to the jury.” (DRB at 14.)
`Defendants further argue that “to the extent that AMN is proposing that TCP/IP can cover any
`protocol that is ‘used to connect devices across networks such as the Internet by splitting data
`into packets, reliably transmitting the data packets over a network and reassembling the packets
`at a known destination in a proper sequence,’ this construction could potentially cover protocols
`that AMN specifically distinguished from TCP/IP in the file history of a related patent [“the
`Parzych patent”] that also claimed the use of the TCP/IP.” (Id. at 25–25 (citing Michalson Decl.,
`Ex. 29, [2/7/2002] Response at 8 (describing another patent involving allegedly similar
`technology, the Parzych patent)))
`
`The prosecution history of another patent is clearly extrinsic evidence and should
`therefore be afforded less weight than intrinsic evidence. But Plaintiff presents no evidence at
`all—let alone intrinsic evidence—in support of its construction. In its Responsive Claim
`
`1 An “RFC” is a “Request for Comments,” a memorandum published by the Internet Engineering Task
`Force (“IETF”) describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet
`and Internet-connected systems. See, e.g., ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 10 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 11 of 38 Page ID
` #:3277
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`Construction Brief, Plaintiff fails to respond to Defendants’ arguments regarding the Parzych
`patent, instead merely reiterating its assertion that “providing a construction that describes the
`meaning and scope of a term is helpful to the jury.” (PRB at 28.) The Court therefore declines
`to include this additional information describing the TCP/IP protocol in the construction of the
`term.
`
`Similar reasoning underlies the Court’s conclusion that “TCP/IP protocol” is more
`properly construed as being “defined” by the relevant RFC specifications, rather than merely
`“conforming” to them. Plaintiff urges that using the word “defined” in the construction would
`improperly limit TCP/IP “to only those protocols that are defined by the TCP/IP RFCs, but
`exclude those that would conform to those protocols even if they also add other features in
`addition to those set forth in the RFCs.” (Id.) But crafting a definition of “TCP/IP protocol”
`necessarily requires determining which features and protocols to include within its scope. In
`fact, the very purpose of defining a term is to clarify its metes and bounds within the context of
`those skilled in the relevant art. In cases involving patents in areas of technological complexity,
`the construction itself will not always be readily understood by a jury, but that is a problem that
`rests with the trial lawyer. Moreover, though ostensibly concerned that a definition of “TCP/IP
`protocol” that confines it to the relevant RFC would exclude protocols that include “other
`features in addition to those set forth in the RFCs,” Plaintiff fails to provide even one example of
`such a protocol. The Court therefore concludes that TCP/IP protocol should be defined by the
`relevant RFC specifications and adopts the following construction:
`
`TCP/IP Protocol: Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, which are defined,
`respectively by the IETF 793 protocol specification and the IETF 791 protocol specification.
`
`2. “ETHERNET PACKET SWITCHING PROTOCOL”
`Claim Term
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`ethernet packet
`a protocol, such as an Internet
`switching
`protocol, used for transmitting data
`protocol;
`broken into packets, without using
`Claims 1 and
`dedicated connection paths, over a
`28
`network that may include a shared
`transmission medium
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Indefinite.
`To the extent deemed construable:
`a protocol defined by the IEEE
`802.x family of standards.
`
`Although conceding that “ethernet packet switching protocol” is “not a term of art found
`in technical dictionaries or the like,” Plaintiff maintains that the term is capable of construction
`as “one of skill in the art can apply the adjectives [‘ethernet’ and ‘packet switching’] to the noun
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 11 of 38
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1029 - Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:11-cv-10474-GAF-JCG Document 140 Filed 06/14/13 Page 12 of 38 Page ID
` #:3278
` LINKS: 78, 81
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 11-10474 GAF (JCGx)
`Date
`Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC et al
`
`June 14, 2013
`
`[‘protocol’] to determine what types of protocols are intended.” (PB at 13.) Plaintiff explains,
`and Defendants do not appear to dispute, that “a protocol is generally understood to be a set of
`rules for connecting computing devices using a known message format.” (Id. at 14.) And
`Plaintiff urges that the defining feature of the term “ethernet” is that “[a]n ethernet network
`utilizes the concept of a shared transmission medium where multiple devices share a single
`communications channel and thus can listen to traffic from all devices.” (Id.) In support of this
`understanding of the word “ethernet,” Plaintiff points to the ‘074 Patent’s specification, “which
`states that ‘[b]y using the ethernet packet communication, multiple application [sic] may access
`the microwave links at any one time.” (Id. (quoting ‘074 Patent at 2: 53–55)) Finally, Plaintiff
`explains that “[i]n the context of ethernet networks, the ‘packet swi