Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 15810
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
` §
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
` §
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RACKSPACE US, INC., NETAPP, INC., §
`and SOLIDFIRE, INC.,
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
` §
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00961
`RWS-JDL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action for patent infringement. Plaintiff alleges
`
`that Defendants NetApp, Inc. and SolidFire, LLC (collectively, “NetApp”) infringe six
`
`Realtime patents and Defendant Rackspace infringes seven Realtime patents. (Doc. No. 33.)
`
`Specifically, Realtime alleges that all Defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 (“the ’530
`
`Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 (“the ’908 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513 (“the ’513
`
`Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992 (“the ’992 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ’506
`
`Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 (“the ’728 Patent”). (Id.) Realtime alleges that
`
`Rackspace additionally infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,358,867 (“the ’867 Patent”). (Id.)
`
`This claim construction opinion construes disputed claim terms in the Asserted Patents.
`
`Realtime has filed an Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc. No. 128), Defendants have filed
`
`a Response (Doc. No. 139), and Realtime has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 145). The parties
`
`additionally submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d). (Doc. No.
`
`148.) On April 27, 2017, the Court held a claim construction hearing. (See Doc. No. 157
`
`
`
`1
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 15811
`
`(Hearing Tr.).) Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and for the reasons stated herein,
`
`the Court adopts the constructions set forth below.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`
`The Asserted Patents can be categorized into two distinct families: (1) the content
`
`compression family, which includes the ’992, ’513, ’506, ’728, and ’867 Patents; and (2) the
`
`data acceleration family, which includes the ’530 and ’908 Patents. (See Doc. No. 128
`
`(Realtime Opening Claim Const. Br.), at 1.) The Court has previously construed terms of the
`
`’992, ’513, and ’728 Patent claims in Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp. et al., No. 6:15-cv-
`
`463, Doc. No. 362 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 28, 2016) (“Actian Order”). The Court also previously
`
`construed terms of the ’530 and ’908 Patent claims in the Actian Order as well as in Realtime
`
`Data LLC v. MetroPCS Texas, LLC, No. 6:10-cv-493, Doc. No. 438 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2012)
`
`(“MetroPCS Order”).
`
`The content compression patent family relates to systems and methods of data
`
`compression using different techniques based on the content of the data. ’513 Patent, at
`
`Abstract, 3:55-58. The Asserted Patents in the “content compression” patent family are related
`
`and have substantially the same specification. Two representative independent claims of the
`
`’513 Patent recite:
`
`1. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks, comprising:
`analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when an appropriate
`content independent compression algorithm is to be applied to the
`plurality of data blocks;
`applying the appropriate content independent data compression algorithm
`to a portion of the plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed
`data portion;
`analyzing a data block from another portion of the plurality of data blocks
`for recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is
`indicative of an appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply
`to the data block; and
`
`
`
`2
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 15812
`
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression algorithm to
`the data block to provide a compressed data block when the
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when the
`appropriate content independent compression algorithm is to be
`applied excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of
`the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter, and
`wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize the any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter excludes analyzing based only on the
`descriptor.
`
`
`15. A device for compressing data comprising:
`a first circuit configured to analyze a plurality of data blocks to recognize
`when an appropriate content independent compression algorithm is
`to be applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`a second circuit configured to apply the appropriate content independent
`data compression algorithm to a portion of the plurality of data
`blocks to provide a compressed data portion;
`a third circuit configured to analyze a data block from another portion of
`the plurality of data blocks for recognition of any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content
`dependent algorithm to apply to the data block; and
`a fourth circuit configured to apply the appropriate content dependent data
`compression algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed
`data block when the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter is
`identified,
`wherein the first circuit is further configured to analyze the plurality of
`data blocks to recognize when the appropriate content independent
`compression algorithm is to be applied by excluding analyzing
`based only on a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter, and
`wherein the third circuit is further configured to analyze the data block to
`recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter by
`excluding analyzing based only on the descriptor.
`
`
`’513 Patent, at 26:22–46, 27:32–28:19. Claim 48 of the ’992 Patent recites:
`
`48. A computer implemented method comprising:
`receiving a data block;
`associating at least one encoder to each one of several data types;
`analyzing data within the data block to identify a first data type of the data
`within the data block;
`
`
`
`3
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 15813
`
`compressing, if said first data type is the same as one of said several data
`types, said data block with said at least one encoder associated
`with said one of said several data types that is the same as said first
`data type to provide a compressed data block; and
`compressing, if said first data type is not the same as one of said several
`data types, said data block with a default encoder to provide said
`compressed data block;
`wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify one or
`more data types excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that
`is indicative of the data type of the data within the data block.
`
`
`’992 Patent, Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (Jan. 8, 2014), at 2:7–25. Claim 105 of the
`
`’506 Patent recites:
`
`105. A computer implemented method comprising:
`receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, said data block being
`included in a data stream;
`analyzing data within the data block to determine a type of said data
`block; and
`compressing said data block to provide a compressed data block;
`wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said type, compressing
`said data block with at least one of said one or more encoders,
`otherwise compressing said data block with a default data
`compression encoder, and
`wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify one or
`more data types excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that
`is indicative of the data type of the data within the data block.
`
`
`’506 Patent, Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (Jan. 8, 2014), at 2:50–64. Claim 1 of the
`
`’728 Patent recites:
`
`1. A system for compressing data comprising:
`a processor;
`one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and
`a single data compression encoder;
`wherein the processor is configured:
`to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or
`attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the
`data block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of
`the data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is
`indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data
`within the data block;
`
`
`
`4
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 15814
`
`to perform content dependent data compression with the one or more
`content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data are identified; and
`to perform data compression with the single data compression encoder, if
`the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not
`identified.
`
`
`’728 Patent, at 26:29–48. Claim 16 of the ’867 Patent recites:
`
`16. A method comprising:
`receiving a plurality of data blocks;
`determining whether or not to compress each one of said plurality of data
`blocks with a particular one or more of several encoders;
`if said determination is to compress with said particular one or more of
`said several encoders for a particular one of said plurality of data
`blocks:
`compressing said particular one of said plurality of data blocks with said
`particular one or more of said several encoders to provide a
`compressed data block;
`providing a data compression type descriptor representative of said
`particular one or more of said several encoders;
`outputting said data compression type descriptor and said compressed data
`block;
`if said determination is to not compress said particular one of said
`plurality of data blocks:
`providing a null data compression type descriptor representative of said
`determination not to compress; and
`outputting said null data compression type descriptor and said particular
`one of said plurality of data blocks.
`
`
`
`
`’867 Patent, Certificate of Correction (Jul. 8, 2008), pages 1–2.
`
`The data acceleration patent family generally relates to systems and methods to
`
`accelerate the storage and retrieval of data blocks from a memory device. ’530 Patent, at
`
`12:38–40. The two Asserted Patents in the data acceleration patent family also share a common
`
`specification. Claim 1 of the ’530 Patent is representative and recites:
`
`1. A system comprising:
`a memory device; and
`a data accelerator, wherein said data accelerator is coupled to said memory
`device, a data stream is received by said data accelerator in
`received form, said data stream includes a first data block and a
`
`
`
`5
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 15815
`
`second data block, said data stream is compressed by said data
`accelerator to provide a compressed data stream by compressing
`said first data block with a first compression technique and said
`second data block with a second compression technique, said first
`and second compression techniques are different, said compressed
`data stream is stored on said memory device, said compression and
`storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on
`said memory device in said received form, a first data descriptor is
`stored on said memory device indicative of said first compression
`technique, and said first descriptor is utilized to decompress the
`portion of said compressed data stream associated with said first
`data block.
`
`
`’530 Patent, at 18:24–42; see also Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (Aug. 16, 2013)
`
`(confirming patentability of Claim 1 and other claims). Claim 1 of the ’908 Patent recites:
`
`1. A system comprising:
`a memory device; and
`a data accelerator configured to compress: (i) a first data block with a first
`compression technique to provide a first compressed data block;
`and (ii) a second data block with a second compression technique,
`different from the first compression technique, to provide a second
`compressed data block;
`wherein the compressed first and second data blocks are stored on the
`memory device, and the compression and storage occurs faster
`than the first and second data blocks are able to be stored on the
`memory device in uncompressed form.
`
`
`’908 Patent, at 18:50–62.
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“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) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
`
`F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
`
`the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–14; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`
`
`6
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 15816
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes
`
`the claims, the rest of the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips , 415 F.3d at
`
`1312–13; Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be
`
`highly instructive.” Id. Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional
`
`instruction because “terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id.
`
`Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide
`
`further guidance. Id.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’”
`
`Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
`
`“[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.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex. Inc. v.
`
`Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may
`
`define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than it would otherwise
`
`possess, or disclaim or disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the
`
`Court generally presumes terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be
`
`overcome by statements of clear disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced
`
`Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does
`
`
`
`7
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 15817
`
`not arise when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v.
`
`EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The specification may also resolve 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, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
`
`example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
`
`claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group Inc., 362
`
`F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
`
`the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
`
`claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be
`
`read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patentee may define a term during prosecution of 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.”). The well-
`
`established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through
`
`claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.” Omega Eng’g Inc. v.
`
`Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The prosecution history must show that the
`
`patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during
`
`prosecution to obtain claim allowance. Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002); see also Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (“The disclaimer . . . must be effected with ‘reasonable clarity and deliberateness.’”)
`
`
`
`8
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 15818
`
`(citations omitted)). “Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an
`
`applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.” Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d
`
`1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). “As a b asic principle of claim
`
`interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic
`
`evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324. Statements in the prosecution history that are subject to
`
`multiple reasonable interpretations do not constitute a clear and unmistakable departure from the
`
`ordinary meaning of a claim term. Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1332
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
`
`the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`
`treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
`
`skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
`
`definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
`
`pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
`
`term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
`
`In patent construction, “subsidiary fact finding is sometimes necessary” and the court
`
`“may have to make ‘credibility judgments’ about witnesses.” Teva v. Sandoz, 135 S.Ct. 831, 838
`
`(2015). In some cases, “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
`
`
`
`9
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:
` 15819
`
`the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Id. at 841. “If a
`
`district court resolves a dispute between experts and makes a factual finding that, in general, a
`
`certain term of art had a particular meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention, the district court must then conduct a legal analysis: whether a skilled artisan
`
`would ascribe that same meaning to that term in the context of the specific patent claim under
`
`review.” Id. (emphasis in original). When the court makes subsidiary factual findings about the
`
`extrinsic evidence in consideration of the “evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction,
`
`those findings are reviewed for clear error on appeal. Id.
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6;
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`
`relevant portion). Section 112, paragraph 6,1 provides that a structure may be claimed as a
`
`“means . . . for performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for
`
`performing a specified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002).
`
`But section 112, paragraph 6 does not apply to all functional claim language. There is a
`
`rebuttable presumption that section 112, paragraph 6 applies when the claim language includes
`
`“means” or “step for” terms, and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco
`
`Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326; Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls
`
`according to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the
`
`functional language, in the context of the entire specification, to denote sufficiently definite
`
`structure or acts for performing the function. See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin.
`
`
`1 The America Invents Act renumbered section 112, paragraph 6 to section 112(f). However, because each of the
`patents at issue in this case was originally filed before September 16, 2012, the Court will refer to this code section
`by its previous numbering, section 112, paragraph 6.
`
`
`
`10
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:
` 15820
`
`Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when “the claim
`
`language, read in light of the specification, recites sufficiently definite structure” (quotation
`
`marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349; Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769
`
`F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply
`
`when “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have
`
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”); Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326 (§ 112,
`
`¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes an “act” corresponding to “how the function is
`
`performed”); Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 704
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes “sufficient structure,
`
`material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited function . . . even if the
`
`claim uses the term ‘means.’” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`I. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`
`a. Compression/Compressing/Compress
`
`Claim Term
`compression /
`compressing
`/compress (’728 cl.
`1, 9, 10, 17, 20, 24;
`’867 cl. 16–17; ’908
`cl. 1–3, 21, 22, 25;
`’513 cl. 1, 4, 6, 14,
`15, 22; ’530 cl. 1, 18;
`’506 cl. 105; ’992 cl.
`48)
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposal
`[representation of / representing /
`represent] data with fewer bits
`
`Alternative proposed
`construction:
`
`[reduction of / reducing / reduce]
`the amount of data required to
`process, transmit, or store a
`given quantity of information
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`encoding input data in an effort to
`reduce the amount of data required
`to process, transmit, or store a
`given quantity of information
`
`
`
`
`Realtime argues that its proposed construction, “representation of data with fewer bits,” is
`
`effectively the ordinary meaning of the term “compression” and that this construction is
`
`supported by the specification. (Doc. No. 128, at 5 (citing ’530 Patent, at 2:15–19 (“data
`
`
`
`11
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:
` 15821
`
`compression economizes on data storage and allows more information to be stored for a fixed
`
`memory size by representing information more efficiently.”)).) “To narrow the scope of the
`
`dispute,” Realtime also submits an alternative proposal, “[reduction of / reducing / reduce] the
`
`amount of data required to process, transmit, or store a given quantity of information.” Realtime
`
`argues that this construction is likewise consistent with the intrinsic evidence. (Id. at 6 (citing
`
`’513 Patent, at 1:65–67 (“Data compression is widely used to reduce the amount of data required
`
`to process, transmit, or store a given quantity of information.”)).)
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that compression, in the context of the specification, does not always
`
`result in less data. (Doc. No. 139, at 3 (citing ’513 Patent, 2:43–47 (“A further problem is that
`
`negative compression may occur when certain data compression techniques act upon many types
`
`of highly compressed data. Highly compressed data appears random and many data
`
`compression techniques will substantially expand, not compress this type of data.”)).)
`
`Defendants argue that the specification accounts for the fact that compression algorithms may
`
`not result in a smaller data output compared to input. (Id. at 4 (citing ’513 Patent, 7:58–66 (a
`
`compression ratio module determines “if at least one of the encoded data blocks output from the
`
`enabled encoders E1 . . . En achieves a compression that exceeds an a priori-specified threshold.
`
`As is understood by those skilled in the art, the threshold limit may be specified as any value
`
`inclusive of data expansion, no data compression or expansion, or any arbitrarily desired
`
`compression limit.”)).) Defendants also argue that Claims 16 and 17 of the ’728 Patent and
`
`Claims 12 and 15 of the ’867 Patent support this reading by reciting, for example:
`
`16. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output
`the data block in uncompressed form if the content dependent data compression
`results in a compressed data block indicative of data expansion.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:
` 15822
`
`’728 Patent, at 27:29–31. To support the use of the phrase “encoding input data” in their
`
`proposed construction, Defendants argue that the specification equates compression with
`
`encoding. (Doc. No. 139, at 6.)
`
`
`
`In reply, Plaintiff compares “compressing” to “shredding”:
`
`Running an object through a shredding machine may not always result in a
`shredded object, but that does not change the ordinary meaning of ‘shred’ to one
`with an aspirational requirement. “Shred” means to “cut,” not acting “in an effort
`to cut.” Likewise, running data through a compression system (or encoder,
`algorithm, or technique) may not always result in a compressed data, but that
`does not change the ordinary meaning of “compressing,” which is reducing the
`amount of data.
`
`(Doc. No. 145, at 1.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ citations are similarly referencing
`
`compression techniques, not compression itself, and are thus consistent with this plain
`
`understanding of compression. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that using the term “encoding” in the
`
`construction is unnecessary and likely to confuse the jury. (Id. at 3.)
`
`The specifications of the Asserted Patents consistently refer to the term “compression” in
`
`its plain and ordinary sense. For instance, the ’530 Patent states “data compression economizes
`
`on data storage and allows more information to be stored for a fixed memory size by
`
`representing information more efficiently.” ’530 Patent, at 2:15–19. Similarly, the ’513 Patent
`
`states, “Data compression is widely used to reduce the amount of data required to process,
`
`transmit, or store a given quantity of information.” ’513 Patent, at 1:65-67; see also ’530 Patent,
`
`at 1:50–52. Defendants’ argument that compression in the context of the Asserted Patents may
`
`not always result in a smaller data output is unpersuasive.
`
`Defendants refer to a section of the ’513 Patent that states, “[a] further problem is that
`
`negative compression may occur when certain data compression techniques act upon many types
`
`of highly compressed data. Highly compressed data appears random and many data compression
`
`
`
`13
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:
` 15823
`
`techniques will substantially expand, not compress this type of data.” ’513 Patent, 2:43–47.
`
`However, this excerpt from the specification specifically refers to the problem of “negative
`
`compression,” acknowledging that compression in its normal sense does not refer to expanding
`
`data. Further, by stating “many data compression techniques will substantially expand, not
`
`compress this type of data,” the patentee again uses the term “compress” in a plain and ordinary
`
`fashion; that is, juxtaposed against the term “expand.”
`
`Defendants also refer to an example repeated several times in the Asserted Patents where
`
`a “compression ratio” is calculated for compressed data and compared to a “prior-specified
`
`compression ratio threshold.” See, e.g., ’513 Patent, 7:58–66. The Asserted Patents state “[i]t is
`
`to be understood that the threshold limit may be specified as any value inclusive of data
`
`expansion, no data compression or expansion, or any arbitrarily desired compression limit.” Id.
`
`Defendants argue that this example acknowledges that compression may not always result in the
`
`representation of data with fewer bits. This example merely shows, however, that using an
`
`encoder, i.e. a compression technique, may not always result in actual compression. This is a
`
`distinct issue from whether the Asserted Patents have departed from the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the word “compression.” Indeed, the patentee continues to refer to data expansion in
`
`this example, rather than assuming that the word compression itself implies the possibility of
`
`expansion. This example is not a sufficient basis to depart from the plain meaning of
`
`“compression” in the context of the patent claims.
`
`Nor do Claims 16 and 17 of the ’728 Patent lead to a different result. These claims
`
`recite:
`
`16. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output
`the data block in uncompressed form if the content dependent data compression
`results in a compressed data block indicative of data expansion.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`NetApp; Rackspace Exhibit 1011 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL Document 183 Filed 06/14/17 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:
` 15824
`
`17. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output
`the data block in uncompressed form if the data compression with the single data
`compression encoder results in a compressed data block indicative of data
`expansion.
`
`As with the specification example described above, these claims relate to whether the output of a
`
`specific encoder, i.e. a specific compression technique, is expanded data. Indeed, the claims use
`
`the phrase “results in a compressed data block indicative of data expansion.” They do not say
`
`that the compressed data block itself is expanded.
`
`
`
`At the hearing, Defendants also argued that Claims 12 and 15 of the ’867 Patent show
`
`that compression includes expansion in the context of the patents. (See Doc. No. 157 (Hearing
`
`Tr.), 7:21–8:2.) Claim 12 recites comparing a compression output to a pre-determined threshold.
`
`Claim 15 depends from Claim 12 and recites, “wherein said pre-determined threshold is that no
`
`expansion occurred.” Defendants argue that under the doctrine of claim differentiation, Claim
`
`12 must be broader than Claim 15, and thus must include pre-determined thresholds where data
`
`expansion has occurred. This argument is also unpersuasive. Again, whether an encoder results
`
`in data expansion is a distinct issue from whethe