Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 138 PageID #: 7226
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE
`COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, et al.
`___________________________________
`
`SAINT LAWRENCE
`COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, et al.
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:15-CV-349-JRG
` Lead Case
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:15-CV-351-JRG
` Consolidated with Case No. 2:15-CV-349
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`
`
`On June 29, 2016, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 6,795,805, 6,807,524, 7,151,802, 7,191,123,
`
`and 7,260,521. After the June 29, 2016, the Court further permitted additional briefing regarding
`
`certain terms. See July 22, 2016 Order, Dkt. No. 100. After considering the arguments made by
`
`the parties at the hearing and in the parties’ claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 69, 70, 71,
`
`121 & 122;1 see Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-349, Dkt. Nos. 71, 74, 76, 206, 210 & 212), the Court
`
`issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
`page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated. Shortly
`before the start of the June 29, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties with preliminary
`constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating discussion. The
`preliminary constructions were essentially the same as the constructions that are set forth below
`(except as to terms that were further addressed by supplemental briefing after the June 29, 2016
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 1 of 138
`Apple v. Saint Lawrence
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 138 PageID #: 7227
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 8
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ......................................................................... 11
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS ALLEGED TO BE MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION ........................ 11
`A. “means for calculating a periodicity factor in response to the pitch codevector and the
`innovative codevector” ....................................................................................................... 16
`B. “means for calculating a [first] factor representative of voicing in the wideband signal
`in response to at least one second wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” ........ 17
`C. “means for determining a distance measure giving a similarity between adjacent,
`successive linear prediction filters computed during encoding of the wideband signal” ... 18
`D. “means for calculating a factor representative of stability of said wideband signal in
`response to at least one second wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” ............ 19
`E. “means for calculating a smoothing gain based on said first and second factors” .............. 20
`F. “means for calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said
`voicing representative factor” ............................................................................................. 21
`G. “means for calculating a smoothing gain using a non linear operation based on said
`stability representative factor” ............................................................................................ 22
`H. “means for finding an innovative codevector in an innovative codebook in relation to
`an index k of said innovative codebook” ............................................................................ 23
`I. “means for finding a codevector in relation to at least one first wideband signal
`encoding parameter of said set” .......................................................................................... 25
`
`hearing, see Dkt. Nos. 206, 210 & 212). The organization of the Court’s preliminary
`constructions was based on the briefing in Saint Lawrence Communications LLC v. HTC
`Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-919 (and the related Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-
`1510) (collectively, “HTC”). At the June 29, 2016 hearing, the parties in Civil Actions No. 2:15-
`CV-349 and 2:15-CV-351 did not state that any additional terms required construction. In light
`of this, and because the parties in all of the above-captioned cases presented substantially the
`same arguments as to substantially the same disputed terms, and because the parties agreed to
`hold a single claim construction hearing as to all of the above-captioned cases (see Civil Action
`No. 2:15-CV-349, Dkt. No. 95 at 3 n.2), this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order cites
`only the briefing in HTC. The HTC case has been stayed upon joint motion of the HTC parties
`announcing that a settlement agreement has been reached. See Dkt. Nos. 123 & 124. Thus,
`although citations to briefing herein refer to briefing filed in the HTC case, the present Claim
`Construction Memorandum and Order applies to only the above-captioned cases. Finally,
`although Plaintiff argues that various terms that were at issue in HTC are not at issue in ZTE (see
`Dkt. No. 216), the coordinated claim construction proceedings in HTC and ZTE warrant
`addressing all of the terms that were presented in those coordinated proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 2 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 3 of 138 PageID #: 7228
`
`J. “means for calculating a second factor representative of stability of said wideband
`signal in response to at least one third wideband signal encoding parameter of said set” . 26
`K. “means for calculating an energy of the corresponding pitch prediction error” ................. 27
`L. “means for amplifying the found codevector with said smoothing gain to thereby
`produce said gain-smoothed codevector” ........................................................................... 28
`M. “means for calculating said periodicity factor α using the relation: α = 0.125 (1 + rv),
`where rv = (Ev – Ec) / (Ev + Ec) where Ev is the energy of the pitch codevector and Ec is
`the energy of the innovative codevector” ........................................................................... 29
`N. “means for finding a codevector in a codebook in relation to said at least one first
`wideband signal encoding parameter” ................................................................................ 31
`O. “means for computing a voicing factor rv by means of the following relation: rv = (Ev–
`Ec) / (Ev+Ec)” ...................................................................................................................... 32
`P. “means for computing a factor λ using the following relation: λ = 0.5 (1–rv)” ................... 33
`Q. “means for calculating an Imimitance [sic, Immitance] Spectral Pair distance measure
`between the Immitance Spectral Pairs in a present frame n of the wideband signal and
`the Immitance Spectral Pairs of a past frame n-1 of the wideband signal . . .” .................. 35
`R. “means for calculating a gain smoothing factor Sm based on both the first λ and second
`θ factors through the following relation: Sm = λθ” ............................................................. 37
`S. “means for calculating said pitch gain b(j) using the relation: b(j)=xty(j)/||y(j)||2” .................. 38
`T. “means for comparing the energies of said pitch prediction errors of the different signal
`paths and for choosing as the signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction
`error the signal path having the lowest calculated energy of the pitch prediction error” ... 40
`U. “spectral shaping unit for shaping the spectrum of the noise sequence in relation to
`linear prediction filter coefficients related to said down-sampled wideband signal” ......... 41
`V. “gain adjustment module, responsive to said white noise sequence and a set of gain
`adjusting parameters, for producing a scaled white noise sequence” ................................. 45
`W. “convolution unit for convolving the pitch codevector with a weighted synthesis filter
`impulse response signal” .................................................................................................... 48
`X. “pitch search unit for producing pitch codebook parameters” ............................................ 50
`Y. “signal fragmenting device for receiving an encoded wideband speech signal and
`extracting from said encoded wideband speech signal at least pitch codebook
`parameters, innovative codebook parameters, and synthesis filter coefficients” ............... 52
`Z. “pitch codebook search device responsive to said perceptually weighted signal for
`producing pitch codebook parameters and an innovative search target vector” ................. 55
`AA. “innovative codebook search device, responsive to said synthesis filter coefficients
`and to said innovative search target vector, for producing innovative codebook
`parameters” ......................................................................................................................... 57
`BB. “signal forming device for producing an encoded wideband [speech] signal” ................ 59
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 3 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 4 of 138 PageID #: 7229
`
`CC. “signal fragmenting device for receiving an encoded version of a wideband signal
`previously down-sampled during encoding and extracting from said encoded wideband
`signal version at least pitch codebook parameters, innovative codebook parameters,
`and linear prediction filter coefficients” ............................................................................. 61
`DD. “signal synthesis device including a linear prediction filter for filtering said
`excitation signal in relation to said linear prediction filter coefficients to thereby
`produce a synthesized wideband signal” ............................................................................ 64
`EE. “pitch analysis device for producing a set of pitch codebook parameters” ...................... 66
`FF. “pitch prediction error calculating device for calculating a pitch prediction error of
`said pitch codevector from said pitch codebook search device” ........................................ 69
`GG. “pitch codebook search device responsive to the perceptually weighted signal and
`linear prediction synthesis filter coefficients for producing the pitch codevector and an
`innovative search target vector” ......................................................................................... 71
`HH. “pitch analysis device responsive to the pitch codevector for selecting, from said sets
`of pitch codebook parameters, the set of pitch codebook parameters associated to the
`signal path having the lowest calculated pitch prediction error” ........................................ 74
`II. “innovative codebook search device responsive to a weighted synthesis filter impulse
`response signal, and the innovative search target vector, for producing innovative
`codebook parameters” ......................................................................................................... 76
`JJ. “device for enhancing periodicity of an excitation signal produced in relation to a pitch
`codevector and an innovative codevector for supplying a signal synthesis filter in view
`of synthesizing a wideband speech signal” and “periodicity enhancing device” ............... 78
`KK. “perceptual weighting device for producing a perceptually weighted signal in
`response to a wideband speech signal” ............................................................................... 81
`LL. “device for producing a gain-smoothed codevector during decoding of an encoded
`wideband signal from a set of wideband signal encoding parameters” and “gain-
`smoothed codevector producing device” ............................................................................ 83
`MM. “innovation filter for filtering the innovative codevector in relation to said
`periodicity factor to thereby reduce energy of a low frequency portion of the
`innovative codevector and enhance periodicity of a low frequency portion of the
`excitation signal” ................................................................................................................ 85
`NN. “combiner circuit for combining said pitch codevector and said innovative
`codevector filtered by said innovation filter to thereby produce said periodicity
`enhanced excitation signal” and “combiner circuit for combining said pitch codevector
`and [said] innovative codevector to thereby produce an excitation signal” ....................... 90
`OO. “signal synthesis filter for filtering said [periodicity enhanced] excitation signal in
`relation to said synthesis filter coefficients to thereby produce said synthesized
`wideband speech signal” ..................................................................................................... 93
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 4 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 5 of 138 PageID #: 7230
`
`PP. “signal preemphasis filter responsive to the wideband speech signal for enhancing a
`high frequency content of the wideband speech signal to thereby produce a
`preemphasised signal” ........................................................................................................ 95
`QQ. “signal injection circuit for injecting said spectrally-shaped noise sequence in said
`over-sampled synthesized signal version” .......................................................................... 97
`RR. “a band-pass filter responsive to said filtered scaled white noise sequence for
`producing a band-pass filtered scaled white noise sequence” ............................................ 98
`SS. “filter for filtering the pitch codevector before supplying said pitch codevector to the
`pitch prediction error calculating device” ......................................................................... 100
`TT. “combiner circuit for combining the amplified convolved pitch codevector with the
`pitch search target vector to thereby produce the pitch prediction error” ........................ 101
`UU. “factor generator for calculating a periodicity factor related to the wideband speech
`signal” ............................................................................................................................... 103
`VV. “voicing factor calculator . . . delivering a first factor representative of voicing in the
`wideband signal in response to said at least one second wideband signal encoding
`parameter” ......................................................................................................................... 104
`WW. “stability factor calculator . . . delivering a second factor representative of stability
`of said wideband signal in response to said at least one third wideband signal encoding
`parameter” ......................................................................................................................... 105
`XX. “smoothing gain calculator . . . delivering a smoothing gain based on said first and
`second factors” .................................................................................................................. 106
`V. DISPUTED TERMS NOT ALLEGED TO BE MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION .............. 107
`AAA. “[synthesized] [weighted] wideband [speech] signal” ................................................ 107
`BBB. “signal path” and “signal paths” .................................................................................. 113
`CCC. “low frequency portion” .............................................................................................. 117
`DDD. “[enhanced] / [enhancing a] high frequency content” ................................................. 121
`EEE. “said full-spectrum synthesized wideband signal” ....................................................... 123
`FFF. “a frequency bandwidth generally higher than a frequency bandwidth of [the / said]
`over-sampled synthesized signal version” ........................................................................ 126
`GGG. “weighting of said wideband speech signal in a formant region is substantially
`decoupled from a spectral tilt of said wideband speech signal” ....................................... 129
`HHH. “reduce a difference between the wideband speech signal and a subsequently
`synthesized wideband speech signal” ............................................................................... 135
`III. “α is a periodicity factor” ................................................................................................. 137
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 138
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 5 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 6 of 138 PageID #: 7231
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patents No. 6,795,805 (“the
`
`’805 Patent”), 6,807,524 (“the ’524 Patent”), 7,151,802 (“the ’802 Patent”), 7,191,123 (“the ’123
`
`Patent”), and 7,260,521 (“the ’521 Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). Plaintiff submits
`
`that “[a]ll five patents have been declared essential to the AMR-WB [(Adaptive Multi-Rate
`
`Wideband)] [audio coding] standard.” Dkt. No. 70 at 1.
`
`
`
`The ’805 Patent, titled “Periodicity Enhancement in Decoding Wideband Signals,” issued
`
`on September 21, 2004, and the Abstract states:
`
`An alternative approach by which periodicity enhancement of an excitation signal
`is achieved through filtering an innovative codevector by an innovation filter to
`reduce low frequency content of the innovative codevector and enhance the
`periodicity at low frequencies more than high frequencies.
`
`The ’524 Patent, titled “Perceptual Weighting Device and Method for Efficient Coding of
`
`
`
`Wideband Signals,” issued on October 19, 2004, and the Abstract states (formatting of equations
`
`modified):
`
`A perceptual weighting device for producing a perceptually weighted signal in
`response to a wideband signal comprises a signal pre-emphasis filter, a synthesis
`filter calculator, and a perceptual weighting filter. The signal pre-emphasis filter
`enhances the high frequency content of the wideband signal to thereby produce a
`pre-emphasized signal. The signal pre-emphasis filter has a transfer function of
`the form: P(z) = 1–μz-1, wherein μ is a pre-emphasis factor having a value located
`between 0 and 1. The synthesis filter calculator is responsive to the pre-
`emphasized signal for producing synthesis filter coefficients. Finally, the
`perceptual weighting filter processes the pre-emphasized signal in relation to the
`synthesis filter coefficients to produce the perceptually weighted signal. The
`perceptual weighting filter has a transfer function, with fixed denominator, of the
`form: W(z) = A (z/γ1) / (1–γ2z–1) where 0<γ2<γ1<1.
`
`The ’802 Patent, titled “High Frequency Content Recovering Method and Device for
`
`
`
`Over-Sampled Synthesized Wideband Signal,” issued on December 19, 2006, and the Abstract
`
`states:
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 6 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 7 of 138 PageID #: 7232
`
`In a method and device for recovering the high frequency content of a wideband
`signal previously down-sampled, and for injecting this high frequency content in
`an over-sampled synthesized version of the wideband signal to produce a fill-
`spectrum [sic, full-spectrum] synthesized wideband signal, a random noise
`generator produces a noise sequence having a given spectrum. A spectral shaping
`unit spectrally shapes the noise sequence in relation to linear prediction filter
`coefficients related to the down-sampled wideband signal. A signal injection
`circuit finally injects the spectrally-shaped noise sequence in the over-sampled
`synthesized signal version to thereby produce the full-spectrum synthesized
`wideband signal.
`
`The ’123 Patent, titled “Gain-Smoothing in Wideband Speech and Audio Signal
`
`
`
`Decoder,” issued on March 13, 2007, and the Abstract states:
`
`The gain smoothing method and device modify the amplitude of an innovative
`codevector in relation to background noise present in a previously sampled
`wideband signal. The gain smoothing device comprises a gain smoothing
`calculator for calculating a smoothing gain in response to a factor representative
`of voicing in the sampled wideband signal, a factor representative of the stability
`of a set of linear prediction filter coefficients, and an innovative codebook gain.
`The gain smoothing device also comprises an amplifier for amplifying the
`innovative codevector with the smoothing gain to thereby produce a gain-
`smoothed innovative codevector. The function of the gain-smoothing device
`improves the perceived synthesized signal when background noise is present in
`the sampled wideband signal.
`
`The ’521 Patent, titled “Method and Device for Adaptive Bandwidth Pitch Search in
`
`
`
`Coding Wideband Signals,” issued on August 21, 2007, and the Abstract states:
`
`An improved pitch search method and device for digitally encoding a wideband
`signal, in particular but not exclusively a speech signal, in view of transmitting, or
`storing, and synthesizing this wideband sound signal. The new method and
`device which achieve efficient modeling of the harmonic structure of the speech
`spectrum uses several forms of low pass filters applied to a pitch codevector, the
`one yielding higher prediction gain (i.e. the lowest pitch prediction error) is
`selected and the associated pitch codebook parameters are forwarded.
`
`The ’805 Patent, the ’524 Patent, the ’802 Patent, and the ’521 Patent all list a foreign
`
`
`
`priority document dated October 27, 1998, namely Canadian Patent Application No. 2,252,170.
`
`The ’123 Patent lists a foreign priority document dated November 18, 1999, namely Canadian
`
`Patent Application No. 2,290,037.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 7 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 8 of 138 PageID #: 7233
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“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) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the
`
`court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to
`
`look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to
`
`understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art
`
`during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841
`
`(2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need
`
`to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
`
`factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312-13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 8 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 9 of 138 PageID #: 7234
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 9 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 10 of 138 PageID #: 7235
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 10 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 11 of 138 PageID #: 7236
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`In their Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, the parties have
`
`stated: “At this time, there are no agreed upon constructions.” Dkt. No. 61 at 1.
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS ALLEGED TO BE MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION
`
`
`
`Many of the disputed terms are terms that Defendants allege are means-plus-function
`
`terms that lack corresponding structure and are therefore indefinite. In light of this, rather than
`
`addressing terms on a patent-by-patent basis, the Court first addresses the terms as to which there
`
`is a means-plus-function allegation and then addresses terms as to which there is no such
`
`allegation, below.
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that for all of the terms that defendants allege are indefinite under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, “sufficient structure is recited in the corresponding patent specification and/or
`
`the claim language itself.” Dkt. No. 70 at 3.
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that “mathematical formulas are mere abstractions; they have no
`
`structure and cannot implement themselves.” Dkt. No. 69 at 5. Defendants further explain:
`
`“Formulae require specialized hardware circuits, or if implemented through software, a processor
`
`or other computing machine with specialized programming, to serve their intended purpose.” Id.
`
`Defendants then submit that “[t]he asserted patents here do not identify any computer or
`
`processor.” Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Ex. 1019 / Page 11 of 138
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00349-JRG Document 236 Filed 10/25/16 Page 12 of 138 PageID #: 7237
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “despite the fact that five different examiners reviewed the
`
`specifications, [Defendants] contend[] that no person skilled in the art would understand that the
`
`patents’ digital data compression and decompression algorithms are performed on a computer.”
`
`Dkt. No. 71 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that “[Defendants’] assumption that those functions could
`
`be implemented in analog circuitry is incorrect.” Id. at 5 (citing Dkt. No. 71-8, May 26, 2016
`
`Ogunfunmi Suppl. Decl. at ¶ 9).
`
`
`
`At the June 29, 2016 hearing, Defendants urged that disclosure of a general-purpose
`
`processor or computer is not implicit in the specification because the claimed functionality could
`
`be performed by special-purpose hardware, such as an application-specific integrated circuit, a
`
`digital signal processor, or a field-programmable gate array.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`The specification repeatedly discloses processing, computing, and calculating. See, e.g.,
`
`’805 Patent at 1:39 (“the sampled speech signal is processed”), 1:42-43 (“a linear prediction (LP)
`
`synthesis filter is computed . . .”), 1:65 (“the synthesi