Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 36
`
`(cid:56)(cid:49)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:53)(cid:44)(cid:38)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:50)(cid:56)(cid:53)(cid:55)(cid:3)
`(cid:54)(cid:50)(cid:56)(cid:55)(cid:43)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:49)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:53)(cid:44)(cid:38)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:41)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:50)(cid:53)(cid:49)(cid:44)(cid:36)
`
`(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:57)(cid:39)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:15)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) (cid:38)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)(cid:3)
`(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:36)(cid:54)(cid:40)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:15)
`
`(cid:89)(cid:17)
`
`(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:9)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:50)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:47)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:60)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)
`(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:17)
`
`(cid:48)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:29)(cid:3)
`(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)
`(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)
`(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)
`(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)
`(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)
`
`(cid:38)(cid:47)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:48)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:53)(cid:56)(cid:38)(cid:55)(cid:44)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:53)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:53)
`
`(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:41)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:57)(cid:39)(cid:50)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)
`(cid:3)
`(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:87)(cid:71)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:87)(cid:71)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:87)(cid:71)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:3)
`(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:36)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:36)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:41)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:42)(cid:3)
`(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:42)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:17)(cid:54)(cid:17)(cid:36)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:61)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:36)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)
`(cid:11)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:180)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:17)(cid:54)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:179)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:182)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:3)
`(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:180)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:82)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:45)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:77)(cid:82)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:9)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:9)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:76)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)
`(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`(cid:69)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:9)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)
`(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:77)(cid:82)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:88)(cid:69)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:84)(cid:88)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)
`(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:9)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:77)(cid:82)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:77)(cid:88)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:82)(cid:70)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:12)
`
`(cid:20)
`
`(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:43)(cid:16)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:42)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:20) (cid:21) (cid:22) (cid:23) (cid:24) (cid:25) (cid:26) (cid:27) (cid:28)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`(cid:21)(cid:25)
`(cid:21)(cid:26)
`(cid:21)(cid:27)
`
`Page 1 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 36
`
`prehearing statement identifying the disputed claim terms from the ’482 patent. (Doc. No.
`148.) On August 5, 2016, the parties each filed an opening claim construction brief. (Doc.
`Nos. 157, 158.) On August 19, 2016, the parties each filed a responsive claim construction
`brief. (Doc. Nos. 160, 162.) On October 13, 2016, the Court issued a tentative claim
`construction order. (Doc. No. 189.)
`
`The Court held a hearing on the matter on October 14, 2016. Marc A. Fenster and
`Christian W. Conkle appeared for Plaintiff. Brian E. Ferguson, Christopher T. Marando,
`and Anne M. Cappella appeared for Defendant Apple. John E. Nilsson, Nicholas H. Lee,
`and Patrick Reidy appeared for Defendant Samsung. Christopher J. Siebens and Alex V.
`Chachkes appeared for Defendant LG. Everett M. Upshaw, Erik Dykema, and Sara J.
`O’Connell appeared for Defendant ZTE. Peter Wied appeared for Defendant Huawei. Eric
`S. Walters appeared for Defendant Microsoft. After considering the parties’ briefs, the
`parties’ arguments at the hearing, and all relevant information, the Court construes the
`disputed terms from the patents-in-suit.
`Background
`On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff FastVDO LLC filed several complaints for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
`of Texas, alleging infringement of the ’482 patent. (Doc. No. 1, Compl; 15-cv-386-Doc.
`No. 1; 15-cv-390-Doc. No. 1; 15-cv-394-Doc. No. 1; 15-cv-395-Doc. No. 1; 15-cv-396-
`Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones infringe and
`induce infringement of the ’482 patent. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 17–21.) On January 29,
`2016, the Texas district court consolidated the actions for all pretrial issues, except venue.
`(Doc. No. 58.)
`
`On February 11, 2016, the consolidated action was transferred from the Eastern
`District of Texas to the Southern District of California. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75.) On February
`18, 2016, the cases were transferred to the calendar of the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff.
`(Doc. No. 77.) On April 5, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order for the consolidated
`action. (Doc. No. 125.)
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`2
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 2 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 36
`
`The patent-in-suit is entitled “Error Resilient Method and Apparatus for Entropy
`
`Coding.” (Doc. No. 1-1, Compl. Ex. A.) The invention disclosed in the patent-in-suit
`“relates generally to methods and apparatus for compressing and decompressing data by
`entropy encoding and decoding and, more particularly, to error resilient methods and
`apparatus for entropy encoding and decoding. The present invention further relates to the
`application of said error resilient entropy coding methods and apparatus to image
`compression.” ’482 patent at 1:5–11.
`
`The specification of the ’482 patent details the problems that prior art digital data
`communication systems had with bit errors during data transmission resulting in loss of
`data synchronization and compromised data reconstruction, particularly when the error
`protection means is limited by transmission bandwidth and efficiency. See id. at 5:47–
`6:29. The specification provides the following summary of the invention:
`It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide an improved
`error resilient method and apparatus for entropy coding of data which can
`utilize unequal error protection techniques of channel coding.
`. . .
`
`These and other objects are provided, according to the present
`invention, by an error resilient method and apparatus for entropy coding of
`data which includes code word generating means for generating a plurality of
`code words representative of respective items in the data set. Each code word
`has two portions which we shall hereafter refer to as “fields,” namely, a first
`or prefix field which is susceptible to bit errors, and an associated second or
`suffix field which is resilient to bit errors. As explained hereinafter, the code
`words can be generated such that a bit error in the prefix field of a code word
`could result in a potential loss of code word synchronization, while a bit error
`in the suffix field of a code word shall only effect that particular code word.
`In particular, the code words can be generated such that a bit error in the suffix
`field of a code word will not result in a loss of code word synchronization, but
`the resulting misdecoded value shall, instead, fall within a predetermined
`interval about the correct value. Thus, according to the present invention, the
`error resilient method and apparatus for entropy coding of data shall be
`suitable for use with unequal error protection means such that the prefix fields
`are channel encoded with a relatively higher level of error protection and the
`suffix fields are channel encoded with a relatively lower level of error
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`3
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 36
`
`protection, if any at all.
`Id. at 6:33–7:4. Figure 1 of the ’482 patent displays an embodiment of the claimed
`method/apparatus:
`
`As an example of the claimed invention, claim 1 of the ’482 patent provides:
`
`An error resilient method of encoding data comprising the steps of:
`generating a plurality of code words representative of respective portions of
`the data, wherein each code word comprises a first portion and an associated
`second portion, and wherein said code word generating step comprises the
`steps of:
`generating the first portion of each code word, wherein said first portion
`generating step comprises the step of including information within the
`first portion that is representative of a predetermined characteristic of
`the associated second portion; and
`generating the second portion of each code word, wherein said second
`portion generating step comprises the step of including information
`within the second portion that is representative of the respective portion
`of the data; and
`providing error protection to at least one of the first portions of the plurality
`
`4
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`Page 4 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 36
`
`of code words while maintaining any error protection provided to the
`respective second portion associated with the at least one first portion at a
`lower level than the error protection provided to the respective first portion.
`
`Id. at 18:8–29.
`
`Discussion
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction
`I.
`Claim construction is an issue of law for the court to decide. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`
`v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 838 (2015); Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S.
`370, 372 (1996). Although claim construction is ultimately a question of law, “subsidiary
`factfinding is sometimes necessary.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 838.
`
`“The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and scope of the
`patent claims asserted to be infringed.’” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
`Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “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, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Claim terms “‘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.” Id. at 1312–13. “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of
`claim language as understood by a [PHOSITA] may be readily apparent even to lay judges,
`and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “However, in many
`cases, the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is not readily
`apparent.” O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1360. If the meaning of the term is not readily apparent,
`the court must look to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of
`skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean,” including intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. A court should begin with the
`intrinsic record, which consists of the language of the claims, the patent specification, and,
`if in evidence, the prosecution history of the asserted patent. Id.; see also Vederi, LLC v.
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`5
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 5 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 6 of 36
`
`Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In construing claims, this court relies
`primarily on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history.”).
`
`In determining the proper construction of a claim, a court should first look to the
`language of the claims. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582; see also Comark Commc’ns v.
`Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The appropriate starting point . . . is
`always with the language of the asserted claim itself.”). The context in which a disputed
`term is used in the asserted claims may provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of
`the term. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In addition, the context in which the disputed
`term is used in other claims, both asserted and unasserted, may provide guidance because
`“the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in
`other claims.” Id. Furthermore, a disputed term should be construed “consistently with its
`appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the same patent.”
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); accord
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008); see also Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the
`claims should be given the same meaning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover,
`“‘[a] claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over
`one that does not do so.’” Vederi, 744 F.3d 1383.
`
`A court must also read claims “in view of the specification, of which they are a part.”
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 979; see 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (“The specification shall conclude with
`one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
`which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”). “‘Apart from the claim
`language itself, the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term.’”
`Vederi, 744 F.3d at 1382. For example, “a claim construction that excludes [a] preferred
`embodiment [described in the specification] ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require
`highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo
`Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`6
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 6 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 7 of 36
`
`But “[t]he written description part of the specification does not delimit the right to
`
`exclude. That is the function and purpose of claims.” Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). “[A] claim construction must not import
`limitations from the specification into the claims.” Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers
`Products Co., 717 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Therefore, “it is improper to read
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the
`only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315,
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The patentee is entitled to the full scope of his claims, and we will not
`limit him to his preferred embodiment or import a limitation from the specification into the
`claims.”).
`
`In most situations, analysis of the intrinsic evidence will resolve claim construction
`disputes. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583; Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841. However, “[w]here the
`intrinsic record is ambiguous, and when necessary,” district courts may “rely on extrinsic
`evidence, which ‘consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’” Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317). A court must evaluate all extrinsic evidence in
`light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319. “Extrinsic evidence may not be
`used ‘to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.’”
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Bell
`Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir.
`2001 (“[E]xtrinsic evidence . . . may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the
`claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file
`history.”); Vederi, 744 F.3d at 1382 (“[E]xtrinsic evidence may be less reliable than the
`intrinsic evidence.”). In cases where subsidiary facts contained in the extrinsic evidence
`“are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`7
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 7 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 8 of 36
`
`evidence.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841.
`
`“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation
`present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362. In certain situations,
`it is appropriate for a court to determine that a claim term needs no construction and its
`plain and ordinary meaning applies. See id.; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. But “[a]
`determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary
`meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when
`reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” O2 Micro,
`521 F.3d at 1361. If the parties dispute the scope of a certain claim term, it is the court’s
`duty to resolve the dispute. Id. at 1362; accord Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring
`Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`II. Analysis of the Disputed Terms
`
`A.
`“code word”
`Plaintiff proposes that the term “code word” be construed as “a sequence of bits
`assigned to represent a symbol.” (Doc. No. 157 at 4.) Certain Defendants propose that the
`term “code word” be construed as “a sequence of bits assigned to represent a symbol (e.g.,
`a coefficient).” (Doc. No. 158 at 4.) The other Defendants propose that the term be
`construed as “code in a codebook representing a symbol.” (Id. at 3.)
`Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the term “code word” refers to “a sequence of
`bits assigned to represent a symbol.” (See Doc. No. 157 at 4; Doc. No. 158 at 4.) The only
`difference is that Defendants’ proposed construction also contains a parenthetical stating
`“e.g., a coefficient” after the word “symbol.” (Doc. No. 158 at 4.) Plaintiff argues that
`construing the term as “a sequence of bits, associated with input data, which is assigned to
`represent a symbol” is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term to one
`of skill in the art. (Doc. No. 157 at 4.) In response, Defendants argue that although
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction is substantially similar to theirs, Plaintiff impermissibly
`seeks to give the term “symbol” a broader meaning than does the ’482 patent. (Doc. No.
`165 at 2.) Defendants contend that when read in the context of the ’482 patent, the term
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`8
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 9 of 36
`
`“code word” has the narrower meaning of “a symbol representing highly-susceptible data,
`such as a coefficient representing compressed data, that when subject to even a single bit
`error can cause a catastrophic error—not just any input data.” (Id.; see also Doc. No. 158
`at 5-6.)
`The Court rejects Defendants’ proposed construction. By using the term “e.g.” in
`their proposed construction, Defendant concede that “a coefficient” is merely an example,
`not a limitation, of the claimed “code word.” Further, in arguing for their narrower
`meaning, Defendants rely on the following language from the specification: “the prefix
`and suffix field of each code word shall together include information representative of a
`specific symbol associated with a specific bin of the quantized coefficient histogram.” ’482
`Patent at 8:25–28; accord id. at 14:49–52. (See Doc. No. 158 at 5; Doc. No. 165 at 2.) But
`the referenced language comes from a paragraph describing “one advantageous
`embodiment” of the invention. ’482 Patent at 8:12–14; accord id. at 14:38–39. “[I]t is
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—
`even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic
`record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at
`1327. Here, there is no clear indication that the patentee of the ’482 patent intended to
`limit the claim term “code word” to be a coefficient.
`Defendants also cite to the following language in the specification: “According to
`the present invention, an entropy encoder and, more preferably, code word generating
`means generates a plurality of code words which are representative of the quantized
`significant coefficients.” ’482 Patent at 13:36–39. Generally, a court should not import
`limitations from the specification into the claims absent a clear indication that the patentee
`intended that the claims should be so limited. See Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1327; Hill-Rom
`Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But the Federal Circuit
`has explained: “When a patentee describes the features of the present invention as a whole,
`he alerts the reader that this description limits the scope of the invention.” Pacing Techs.,
`LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`9
`
`3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`
`Page 9 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 192 Filed 10/17/16 Page 10 of 36
`
`omitted)); accord Regents of Univ. of Minnesota v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 936
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, including a limitation that the claimed “code word” be a
`coefficient in the Court’s construction would be inconsistent with Defendants’ own
`proposed construction which asserts that a coefficient is merely an example of the claimed
`“code word.” (See Doc. No. 165 at 2; see also id. at 2 (Defendants stating that the invention
`relates to the coding of a symbol “such as” a coefficient representing compressed data).)
`Indeed, at the claim construction hearing, defense counsel conceded that “a coefficient” is
`not a requirement of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the Court declines to include the
`“e.g., coefficient” language in its construction of the term “code word.”
`Turning to the other Defendants’ request that the Court’s construction include the
`limitation that the claimed code word be “in a codebook,” the Court notes that the language
`of the independent claims at issue does not contain this specific requirement. See ’482
`Patent at 18:8-29, 19:8-30, 19:66-20:22, 21:21-46, 22:22-49. Indeed, the word “codebook”
`is never used at all in the claim language. See id. In support of their argument, Defendants
`rely on the following language in the specification: “The data encoder of the present
`invention can encode the quantized data according to a predetermined codebook.” ’482
`Patent at 13:20–21; see also id. at 13:51–56 (“According to split field coding, the prefix
`field includes information representative of the associated suffix field, while the suffix field
`associated with the prefix field includes information representative of the respective
`significant coefficient, typically encoded according to a predetermined codebook.”).