Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-1 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2014
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`(1 of 33)
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION
`
`OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 01/27/2014
`
` The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on
`the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
` Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.
`
` Costs are taxed against the appellant in favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`provided a bill of costs form and an instruction sheet with this notice.
`
` The parties are encouraged to stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumed correct in the absence of a
`timely filed objection.
`
` Costs are payable to the party awarded costs. If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to
`the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded against the government, payment should be made to
`the person(s) designated under the governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties' written settlement
`agreements. In cases between private parties, payment should be made to counsel for the party awarded costs or, if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`
` If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion
`provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same way as costs.
`
` Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk
`may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole
`Daniel E. O'Toole
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: John Michael Challis
`Arka Dev Chatterjee
`Stacey L. Cohen
`Brett E. Cooper
`Robert A. Cote
`Margaret Antinori Dale
`Bryan N. DeMatteo
`Daniel Alexander DeVito
`Gareth DeWalt
`John M. DiMatteo
`Stephanie Donahue
`Roderick George Dorman
`Geoffrey P. Eaton
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-1 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(2 of 33)
`
`James Elacqua
`Syed Fareed
`Lauren Lee Fornarotto
`Michael Scott Fuller
`Nolan Mathew Goldberg
`Keith Jude Grady
`Monica Grewal
`Laura A. Handley
`Roy W. Hardin
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach
`Michael Hawes
`J. Michael Hennigan
`Constance Sue Huttner
`Rachel Hannah Kaufman
`Lisa Catherine Kelly
`Gregory H. Lantier
`William F. Lee
`Mark G. Matuschak
`Daniel J. Melman
`Brian Eugene Moran
`Michael Martin Murray
`Scott F. Partridge
`Kevin Scott Prussia
`Lynn E. Rzonca
`Michael D. Saunders
`James Holman Shalek
`Joel Lance Thollander
`Dirk D. Thomas
`David Tobin
`
`13-1092 - Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley
`United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 11-CV-6696
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(3 of 33)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`MORGAN STANLEY, THE GOLDMAN SACHS
`GROUP, INC., J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
`MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., GOLDMAN
`SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &
`CLEARING, LP, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,
`AND J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.
`(formerly known as Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.),
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC. AND
`CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND
`HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC AND
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(4 of 33)
`
`
`
` 2
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`BNY CONVERGEX EXECUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`______________________
`
`2013-1092
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6696, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF THE
`CITY OF CHICAGO, INC., NEW YORK
`MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. (agent of Nymex),
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`BATS TRADING, INC., (also known as BATS Ex-
`change, Inc.)
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., AND
`NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(5 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`3
`
`
`NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PRICE REPORTING
`AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC., NYSE MKT, LLC
`(formerly known as NYSE Amex, LLC), AND
`SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION
`CORPORATION,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`______________________
`
`2013-1093
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6697, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`BLOOMBERG L.P.,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(6 of 33)
`
`
`
` 4
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`______________________
`
`2013-1095
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6698, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF THE
`CITY OF CHICAGO, INC., NEW YORK
`MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. (agent of Nymex),
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`BATS TRADING, INC., (also known as BATS Ex-
`change, Inc.)
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., AND
`NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(7 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`5
`
`
`NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PRICE REPORTING
`AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC., NYSE MKT, LLC
`(formerly known as NYSE Amex, LLC), AND
`SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION
`CORPORATION,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`______________________
`
`2013-1097
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6699, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`BLOOMBERG L.P.,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(8 of 33)
`
`
`
` 6
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`______________________
`
`2013-1098
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6700, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`v.
`
`MORGAN STANLEY, THE GOLDMAN SACHS
`GROUP, INC., J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
`MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., GOLDMAN
`SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &
`CLEARING, LP, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,
`AND J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.
`(formerly known as Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.),
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC. AND
`CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND
`HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(9 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC, BNY
`CONVERGEX EXECUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC, THE
`BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION,
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANC OF
`AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC, MERRILL LYNCH &
`CO., INC., AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
`FENNER & SMITH, INC.,
`Defendants,
`______________________
`
`2013-1099
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6701, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF THE
`CITY OF CHICAGO, INC., NEW YORK
`MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. (agent of Nymex),
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`BATS TRADING, INC., (also known as BATS Ex-
`change, Inc.)
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE,
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(10 of 33)
`
`
`
` 8
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., AND
`NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PRICE REPORTING
`AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC., NYSE MKT, LLC
`(formerly known as NYSE Amex, LLC), AND
`SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION
`CORPORATION,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`______________________
`
`2013-1100
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6702, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`BLOOMBERG L.P.,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(11 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`9
`
`
`FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee,
`
`AND
`
`INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`______________________
`
`2013-1101
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6703, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`v.
`
`MORGAN STANLEY, THE GOLDMAN SACHS
`GROUP, INC., J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
`MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., GOLDMAN
`SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &
`CLEARING, LP, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,
`AND J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.
`(formerly known as Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.),
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC. AND
`CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(12 of 33)
`
`
`
` 10
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND
`HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`AND
`
`BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC, BNY
`CONVERGEX EXECUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC, THE
`BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION,
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANC OF
`AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC, MERRILL LYNCH &
`CO., INC., AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
`FENNER & SMITH, INC.,
`Defendants,
`______________________
`
`2013-1103
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6704, Judge
`Katherine B. Forrest.
`______________________
`
`Decided: January 27, 2014
`______________________
`
`
`DIRK D. THOMAS, McKool Smith, P.C., of Washington,
`DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief
`were JOEL L. THOLLANDER, of Austin, Texas; ROBERT A.
`COTE, BRETT E. COOPER, DANIEL J. MELMAN, LAURA A.
`HANDLEY, and LAUREN L. FORNAROTTO, of New York, New
`York; and J. MICHAEL HENNIGAN and RODERICK G.
`DORMAN, of Los Angeles, California.
`
`WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
`Dorr, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for all
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(13 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`11
`
`defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were MARK
`G. MATUSCHAK, MONICA GREWAL, and KEVIN PRUSSIA, of
`Boston, Massachusetts; and GREGORY H. LANTIER, of
`Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Credit Suisse
`Holdings (USA) Inc., et al.; DANIEL A. DEVITO and STACEY
`L. COHEN, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP,
`of New York, New York, JAMES J. ELACQUA, GARETH DE
`WALT, and MICHAEL D. SAUNDERS, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
`Meagher & Flom, LLP, of Palo Alto, California, for de-
`fendants-appellees, Morgan Stanley, et al.; ROY W.
`HARDIN, M. SCOTT FULLER, Locke Lord LLP, of Dallas,
`Texas, for defendants-appellees, HSBC Bank USA, et al.;
`JOHN M. DIMATTEO, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, of
`New York, New York, for defendant-appellee, Bloomberg
`L.P.; CONSTANCE S. HUTTNER and STEPHANIE L. DONAHUE,
`Vinson & Elkins, LLP, of New York, New York, DAVID J.
`TOBIN, of Dallas, Texas, and SYED K. FAREED, of Austin,
`Texas, for defendant-appellee Thomson Reuters Corp.;
`BRIAN E. MORAN, Robinson & Cole, LLP, of Stamford
`Connecticut, for defendant-appellee, FactSet Research
`Systems Inc. and BENJAMIN W. HATTENBACH and ARKA D.
`CHATTERJEE, Irell & Manella LLP, of Los Angeles, Cali-
`fornia, for defendant-appellee Interactive Data Corpora-
`tion.
`
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`Realtime Data, LLC (“Realtime”) appeals from multi-
`ple decisions of the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York, granting motions filed by
`several companies in the financial services industry (the
`“Defendants”) for summary judgment of (i) noninfringe-
`ment of various claims of U.S. Patents 7,417,568 (the
`“’568 patent”), 7,714,747 (the “’747 patent”), and 7,777,651
`(the “’651 patent”), and (ii) invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §
`112 of several claims of the ’651 and ’747 patents. See
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(14 of 33)
`
`
`
` 12
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, No. 11 Civ. 6696,
`2012 WL 5835303 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012) (“Summary
`Judgment Opinion”); Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan
`Stanley, No. 11 Civ. 6696, 2012 WL 2545096 (S.D.N.Y.
`June 27, 2012) (“Written Description Opinion”). Addition-
`ally, Realtime appeals from the district court’s construc-
`tion of certain claim terms and its decision to preclude
`Realtime from asserting infringement under the doctrine
`of equivalents. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stan-
`ley, 875 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Claim Con-
`struction Opinion”); Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan
`Stanley, No. 11 Civ. 6696, 2012 WL 3158196 (S.D.N.Y.
`Aug. 2, 2012) (“DOE Opinion”).
`We conclude that the district court did not err in con-
`struing the disputed claim terms of the patents or in
`granting summary judgment of noninfringement of the
`appealed claims based on that construction. Additionally,
`the court did not err in granting summary judgment of
`invalidity of the appealed claims under § 112 or in pre-
`cluding Realtime from asserting infringement under the
`doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`I. The ’568, ’651, and ’747 Patents
`Realtime owns the ’568, ’651, and ’747 patents, which
`relate to compressing data for transmission. The patents
`disclose content-based compression, a process that uses
`specialized encoders to compress data based on the con-
`tent of those data. E.g. ’747 patent col. 4 ll. 4–20. The
`data are received by a system in a data stream and pro-
`cessed in blocks. E.g. id. col. 8 ll. 1–9. If the compression
`system analyzes a data block and determines that the
`block is a specific data block type, i.e., it consists of a
`specific type of content (such as text or video), then a
`content specific data encoder will be used to maximize the
`compression for that block of data, id. col. 4 ll. 27–34;
`otherwise a content-independent encoder will be used, id.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(15 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`13
`
`col. 4 ll. 21–26. After compression, the system appends a
`content type descriptor to indicate the encoder that was
`used to compress the data block. Id. col. 8 ll. 52–53. This
`descriptor is needed to tell the system receiving the data
`how to decompress it. Id. col. 15 ll. 20–31.
`’747 patent claim 14 is exemplary and is reproduced
`below:
`14. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks
`to create a compressed data packet in a data stream using
`a data compression processor, wherein multiple encoders
`applying a plurality of lossless compression techniques
`are applied to data blocks, the method comprising:
`receiving a data block;
`analyzing content of the data block to determine a
`data block type;
`selecting one or more lossless encoders based on
`the data block type and a computer file, where-
`in the computer file indicates data block types
`and associated lossless encoders;
`compressing the data block with a selected encod-
`er utilizing content dependent data compres-
`sion, if the data block type is recognized as
`associated with a lossless encoder utilizing
`content dependent data compression;
`compressing the data block with a selected loss-
`less encoder utilizing content independent data
`compression, if the data block type is not rec-
`ognized as associated with a lossless encoder
`utilizing content dependent data compression;
`and
`providing a descriptor for the compressed data
`packet in the data stream, wherein the de-
`scriptor indicates the one or more selected loss-
`less encoders for the encoded data block.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(16 of 33)
`
`
`
` 14
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`’747 patent col. 27 l. 44–col. 28 l. 10.
`The Defendants all utilize systems incorporating a fi-
`nancial industry standard for transferring financial
`information called FAST. Summary Judgment Opinion,
`2012 WL 5835303, at *2. FAST transmits financial data
`in “messages,” which conform to pre-defined Templates.
`Id. at *3. Those Templates are not attached to a message.
`Id. FAST systems compress messages using a process
`known as “field encoding.” The system will analyze each
`field of a message and determine whether the field is: (1)
`a copy of the same value in the same field from a previous
`message; (2) an increment, i.e., the value in that message
`is one more than the value of the previous message; or (3)
`the default value of that field in the message Template.
`See CME Br. 15–16. By field encoding, some message
`fields may be removed, thus reducing the message size.
`Based on the result of the field encoding, the FAST sys-
`tem will generate a presence map (“PMAP”) that indicates
`whether a field in a message is present or not. J.A. 1813.
`After field encoding, transfer encoding is applied to the
`message to remove redundant information, further reduc-
`ing the message size. J.A. 1812. The message is then
`sent with both a Template ID (to tell the receiving system
`what message Template to use) and the PMAP (to inform
`the system of the field encoding parameters). See Morgan
`Stanley Br. 22–23.
`II. District Court Proceedings
`Realtime initially sued a variety of financial industry
`companies in the Eastern District of Texas, loosely cate-
`gorized as stock exchanges, banks, and market data
`providers, alleging that the Defendants infringed its
`patents by utilizing systems
`incorporating FAST.
`Realtime brought three suits, each against defendants in
`a similar line of business, alleging infringement of several
`patents including the ’568 patent. J.A. 4918–48. That
`suit was transferred to the Southern District of New York.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 15 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(17 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`15
`
`See DOE Opinion, 2012 WL 3158196, at *1. After the
`suits were transferred, the ’651 and ’747 patents issued
`and new actions for each patent were brought against
`members of each of the three defendant categories, total-
`ing nine cases. Realtime Br. 5. These actions were con-
`solidated with the three original cases for purposes of
`pretrial proceedings.
` See DOE Opinion, 2012 WL
`3158196, at *1.
`The district court construed several disputed claim
`terms, including: (1) “descriptor indicates” to mean
`“[r]ecognizable data that is appended to the encoded data
`for specifying [an encoder]”; (2) “data field/block type” to
`mean “[c]ategorization of the data in the field (or block) as
`one of [several types of data], or other data type”; and (3)
`“data stream” to mean “[o]ne or more blocks transmitted
`in sequence from an external source . . . .” Claim Con-
`struction Opinion, 875 F. Supp. 2d at 296. The court
`analyzed both the written description and the claims in
`construing the terms “descriptor indicates” and “data
`field/block type.” Id. at 295–96, 290–91. For construction
`of the term “data stream,” the court relied on statements
`that Realtime made during reexamination of similar
`related patents and in another litigation involving related
`patents. Id. at 287–88.
`The Defendants moved for summary judgment of in-
`validity of several claims of the ’651 and ’747 patents for
`failure to meet the definiteness and written description
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 based on the recitation of
`“content dependent data decompression” in those claims.
`The court granted the motion as to nine claims of those
`patents, holding that the content of the originally com-
`pressed file was irrelevant for purposes of decompression.
`The court found that “[a]ll that matters [after content is
`compressed] is what encoder was used—not the method of
`its selection (i.e., not the content on which the encoder
`selection was based).” Written Description Opinion, 2012
`WL 2545096, at *8. In other words, “decompression has
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 16 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(18 of 33)
`
`
`
` 16
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`everything to do with the algorithm used at the front-end
`compression and nothing to do with the content on which
`the selection of that algorithm was based.” Id. Because
`the term itself could not be construed, the court found
`claims utilizing that term to be indefinite. Id. Addition-
`ally, because the written description of the ’651 and ’747
`patents did not provide guidance on “what is meant to be
`captured by content dependent data decompression that is
`distinct from content independent data decompression,”
`the court found that claims reciting that limitation failed
`to satisfy the written description requirement. Id.
`The court also precluded Realtime from asserting in-
`fringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to
`Realtime’s failure to comply with both: (1) the local rules
`of the Eastern District of Texas, requiring disclosure to
`the Defendants “not later than 10 days” prior to the case
`management conference whether Realtime was alleging
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; and (2)
`the local rules of the Southern District of New York,
`requiring a similar disclosure within 14 days after ap-
`pearing in an action. DOE Opinion, 2012 WL 3158196, at
`*1, *4.
`The Defendants also moved for summary judgment of
`noninfringement, which the district court granted, finding
`that the accused products did not meet the “descriptor
`indicates,” “data field/block type,” and “data stream”
`limitations of the remaining asserted patent claims.
`Summary Judgment Opinion, 2012 WL 5835303, at *19.
`Specifically, the court found that many of the accused
`products did not meet the “descriptor indicates” limitation
`because the Templates utilized in the FAST systems were
`not “with” or “appended” to the encoded data, nor did the
`Template ID or PMAP, either alone or together, indicate
`the encoders that were used to compress the message. Id.
`at *18–19. The court concluded that the accused products
`did not meet the “data field/block type” limitation because
`the values identified by Realtime in the PMAP—copy,
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 17 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(19 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`17
`
`increment, and default—did not specify the type of data
`being encoded, only how the system should treat certain
`fields within the message. Id. at *15–16. The court held
`that the accused products did not meet the “data stream”
`limitation because none of the products received data for
`compression from an external source. Id. at *12. Finally,
`the court concluded that some accused decompression
`products did not meet an encoding requirement of claims
`95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent, which required
`selection of encoders based on analysis of the data blocks
`during decompression. Id. at *13.
`In summary, the court granted summary judgment of
`noninfringement for all claims asserted in the litigation
`that were not found invalid under § 112.
`Realtime timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
`suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`DISCUSSION
`I. Standard of Review
`This appeal comes to us as nine separate appeals pre-
`sented in one appellate brief and three appellee briefs
`from the three groups of defendants in related businesses.
`At oral argument, we heard from appellant’s counsel and
`three counsel for the appellee groups of defendants.
`We review de novo the district court’s grant of sum-
`mary judgment, drawing all reasonable inferences in
`favor of the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639
`F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is
`appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any
`material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We address claim
`construction as a matter of law, which we review without
`deference. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d
`1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). “Compliance with
`the written description requirement is a question of fact
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 19
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 18 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(20 of 33)
`
`
`
` 18
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`but is amenable to summary judgment in cases where no
`reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the non-
`moving party.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`II. Claim Construction
`Realtime first argues that the district court erred in
`its construction of three claim terms: “descriptor indi-
`cates,” “data field/block type,” and “data stream.”
`A. “Descriptor indicates”
`Realtime argues that the term “descriptor indicates”
`in claims 15 and 32 of the ’568 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 13,
`14, and 19 of the ’747 patent; and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13,
`18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108,
`and 112 of the ’651 patent, is defined in the written
`description as “any recognizable data token or descriptor
`that indicates which data encoding technique has been
`applied to the data.” E.g. ’747 patent col. 8 ll. 53–56.
`Realtime contends that the court added additional limita-
`tions, requiring that the indicator be appended to the
`encoded data for the purposes of specifying the encoder
`used, limitations that are not required by the claim lan-
`guage or the written description of the patents. The
`Defendants respond that, in the patented system, the
`encoder is selected dynamically after determining the
`type of data being encoded, and therefore it must be
`appended to the data message to identify what type of
`encoding was used.
`We agree with the Defendants. Although the written
`description does define the “data compression type de-
`scriptor” as “any recognizable data token or descriptor
`that indicates which data encoding technique has been
`applied to the data,” ’747 patent col. 8 ll. 53–56, ’568
`patent col. 16 ll. 9–12, the preceding sentence also teaches
`that “[a]n appropriate data compression type descriptor is
`appended [to the encoded data block].” ’747 patent col. 8
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 20
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 19 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(21 of 33)
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`19
`
`ll. 52–53; see also ’568 patent col. 16 ll. 6–9 (stating that
`the system “appends a corresponding compression type
`descriptor to each encoded data block . . . so as to indicate
`the type of compression format”). That requirement is
`further highlighted by figure 3b of the ’747 patent, which
`shows an “append corresponding descriptor” step after a
`step requiring selection of an encoded data block with the
`greatest compression ratio. ’747 patent fig. 3b. Addition-
`ally, the claims require receiving a data packet and ex-
`tracting from that packet the descriptors, which were
`previously selected based on an analysis of the content of
`the pre-encoded data blocks, highlighting that the de-
`scriptors must be sent with the block. E.g. id. col. 26 ll.
`24–31. The district court thus did not err in construing
`the “descriptor indicates” term in claims 15 and 32 of the
`’568 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 of the ’747
`patent; and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26,
`29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651
`patent, to mean “[r]ecognizable data that is appended to
`the encoded data for specifying [an encoder].”
`B. “Data field/block type”
`Realtime argues that the “data field/block type” limi-
`tation in claims 15, 20, 22, and 32 of the ’568 patent;
`claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 of the ’747 patent; and claims
`1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 43, 47,
`49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent, should be
`construed as any characteristic, attribute, or parameter of
`the data field or block that is used to select an appropriate
`encoder. Realtime contends that the district court nar-
`rowed the claim limitation to specific data types, and that
`such narrowing is specifically discouraged in the written
`description of the ’747 patent. The Defendants respond
`that the written description and the claim language
`support the construction of “data field/block type” as being
`one of several different types of data and that the exam-
`ples included in the construction of the term are only
`exemplary and do not narrow the limitation.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1031, p. 21
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1093 Document: 93-2 Page: 20 Filed: 01/27/2014
`
`(22 of 33)
`
`
`
` 20
`
` REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY
`
`We also agree with the Defendants on this claim limi-
`tation. As the district court recognized, the construction
`urged by Realtime could encompass “any characteristic or
`any attribute of data.” Claim Construction Opinion, 875
`F. Supp. 2d at 290. The claims of the patents consistently
`use the terms “data field type” and “data block type” to
`refer to the content of the data. E.g. ’568 patent col. 23 ll.
`38–41 (requiring the claim to recognize a data field type
`and select an encoder based on that recognized data field
`type); id. col. 24 ll. 56–59 (disclosing that the method
`recognizes data field types within a data stream and
`selects encoders based on those recognized data field
`types); ’747 patent col. 27 ll. 50–51 (requiring method to
`analyze the content of a data block in order to determine a
`data block type)