Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 31120
`
`** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION **
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-493
`
`JUDGE CLARK
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC, d/b/a IXO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW AS TO INVALIDITY
`
`Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, d/b/a IXO originally filed suit against multiple Defendants,
`
`claiming infringement of a number of different patents. When the case was tried in February 2013,
`
`Realtime proceeded to trial against one Defendant—T-Mobile USA, Inc.—and only claimed literal
`
`infringement of claims 93 and 94 of United States Patent No. 7,161,506; claims 23, 36, 42, 46, and
`
`59 of United States Patent No. 7,352,300; and claims 17, 19, 21, and 23 of United States Patent No.
`
`7,415,530. The jury found all asserted claims not infringed, and all asserted claims obvious in light
`
`of one or more combinations of prior art. Realtime now moves for judgment as a matter of law on
`
`the issue of invalidity.
`
`After careful review of the record, and taking into consideration T-Mobile’s burden to prove
`
`invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, the court will grant Realtime’s motion for JMOL in part.
`
`The court upholds the jury’s verdict that: (1) claims 36, 42, and 59 of the ‘300 patent were rendered
`
`obvious by the Hoffman/Lafe combination; and (2) claims 93 and 94 of the ‘506 patent were
`
`1
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 31121
`
`rendered obvious by the Hoffman/Franaczek and Lafe/Franaczek combinations. The court reverses
`
`the jury’s verdict that: (1) claims 23 and 46 of the ‘300 patent were rendered obvious by the
`
`Tanaka/POSITA combination; and (2) claims 17, 19, 21, and 23 of the ‘530 patent were rendered
`
`obvious by the Hoffman/Sebastian and Dye/Aakre combinations. The Final Judgment will reflect
`
`this ruling.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`At trial, Realtime asserted claims 93 and 94 of the ‘506 patent; claims 23, 36, 42, 46, and 59
`
`of the ‘300 patent; and claims 17, 19, 21, and 23 of the ‘530 patent. With the exception of claim 42
`
`of the ‘300 patent, all asserted claims are dependent claims: (1) claims 93 and 94 of the ‘506 patent
`
`depend from claim 86 of the ‘506 patent; (2) claims 23 and 36 of the ‘300 patent depend from claim
`
`19 of the ‘300 patent; (3) claims 46 and 59 of the ‘300 patent depend from claim 42 of the ‘300
`
`patent; and (4) claims 17, 19, 21, and 23 of the ‘530 patent depend from claim 1 of the ‘530 patent.
`
`T-Mobile asserted that the claims of the patents-in-suit were obvious over one or more of the
`
`following prior art combinations:
`
`Patent
`‘506
`
`‘506
`
`‘300
`
`‘300
`
`‘530
`
`Claims
`93 and 94
`
`93 and 94
`
`Prior art combination
`Hoffman, “Data Compression in Digital Systems” in
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`U.S. Patent No. 6,449,658 to Lafe in combination with
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`23, 36, 42, 46, and 59 U.S. Patent No. 5,832,126 to Tanaka in combination with
`the knowledge known to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art (“POSITA”)
`Hoffman, “Data Compression in Digital Systems” in
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,449,658 to Lafe
`U.S. Patent No. 7,190,284 to Dye in combination with
`U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 to Aakre
`
`36, 42, and 59
`
`17, 19, 21, and 23
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 31122
`
`‘530
`
`17, 19, 21, and 23
`
`Hoffman, “Data Compression in Digital Systems” in
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,253,364 to Sebastian
`
`During trial, both T-Mobile’s expert Dr. Clifford Reader and Realtime’s expert Dr. Kenneth
`
`Zeger testified on the issue of whether the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were obvious in light
`
`of one or more of the above prior art combinations. Tr. at 1603:22-1701:5 (Reader); 1702:19-1719:6
`
`and 1741:6-1835:24 (Zeger). It is undisputed the above prior art combinations were the only
`1
`
`combinations discussed by the parties’ experts, and the only combinations submitted to the jury. No
`
`other theories of invalidity were submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict that all asserted
`2
`
`claims of the patents-in-suit were obvious in light of every prior art combination listed above.
`
`Realtime moved for judgment as a matter of law on validity twice: orally at the close of T-
`
`Mobile’s case on February 8, 2013, Tr. at 1729:11-1736:10, and in writing after the close of all
`
`evidence on February 11, 2013. Doc. # 644. Both the oral and written motions raise the same five
`
`points, which the court will address below.
`
`II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where “a party has been fully heard on an issue
`
`during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
`
`When the court cites to “Tr.” in this Order, it is referring to the February 2013 trial
`1
`transcript. Citations are provided as “Tr. at [page]:[line].”
`
`During trial, the court excluded the opinion of Dr. Reader that the Hoffman reference
`2
`anticipated the asserted claims of the ‘530 patent. The court explained in some detail on the
`record, after an extended colloquy with T-Mobile’s counsel, why it considered Dr. Reader’s
`opinion on this particular point to be untimely. Tr. at 1279:1-1292:10. No question on
`anticipation was submitted to the jury, and no party has asked the court to reconsider this ruling.
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 31123
`
`evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); see also Reeves
`
`v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2109 (2000).
`
`In entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court must review all of the
`
`evidence in the record. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150, 120 S. Ct. at 2110. In doing so, “the court must
`
`draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility
`
`determinations or weigh the evidence.” Id. “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence,
`
`and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Id.
`
`Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence
`
`favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Id. That is, the court should
`
`give credence to the evidence favoring the non-movant as well as that “evidence supporting the
`
`moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that evidence comes from
`
`disinterested witnesses.” Id. A jury’s verdict is given great weight and all reasonable inferences are
`
`drawn in the light most favorable to the verdict. Thomas v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d
`
`389, 392 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Krystek v. Univ. of S. Miss., 164 F.3d 251, 258 (5th Cir. 1999)
`
`(“We accord great deference to a jury’s finding of facts.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit reviews an appeal from a grant or denial of a motion for JMOL under
`
`the law of the regional circuit in which the appeal from the district court would usually lie. See
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co. Ltd., 501 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A finding
`
`in a patent case by a jury in the Fifth Circuit is reviewed under the “substantial evidence” rule.
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., –F.3d–, 2013 WL 516366 at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2013).
`
`“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 31124
`
`mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp. ,376 F.3d
`
`1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW ON INVALIDITY
`
`T-Mobile bears the burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, and the
`
`burden of proof never shifts to Realtime, the patentee, to prove validity. Scanner Techs. Corp. v.
`
`ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V., 528 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008).Clear and convincing evidence
`
`has been described as “evidence that places in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the
`
`truth of its factual contentions are highly probable.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1359
`
`n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S. Ct. 2433 (1984)).
`
`It is true that once T-Mobile presented a prima facie case of invalidity, Realtime had the burden of
`
`going forward with rebuttal evidence. However,
`
`all that means is that even though a patentee never must submit evidence to support a
`conclusion by a judge or jury that a patent remains valid, once a challenger introduces
`evidence that might lead to a conclusion of invalidity – what we call a prima facie case – the
`patentee would be well advised to introduce evidence sufficient to rebut that of the
`challenger.
`
`Pfizer, 480 F.3d at 1360 (internal quotation omitted). This requirement does not shift the burden of
`
`persuasion to Realtime, because the presumption of patent invalidity “remains intact and the ultimate
`
`burden of proving invalidity remains with the challenger throughout the litigation.” Id. On a motion
`
`for JMOL, the court must therefore consider “the totality of the evidence, including any rebuttal
`
`evidence presented by the patentee.” Id.
`
`IV. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`Realtime’s first argument is that T-Mobile provided no motivation to combine any of the
`
`asserted prior art references.
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 31125
`
`A.
`
`T-Mobile is not required to demonstrate a motivation to combine, although such a
`motivation may be important
`
`Contrary to Realtime’s assertion in the written motion for JMOL (“T-Mobile never presented
`
`any ‘motivation to combine’ these references, as required by Federal Circuit law.”) T-Mobile is not
`
`required to present evidence of a motivation to combine the prior art references. See, e.g., Hearing
`
`Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[O]ur law does not require
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references . . . .”); KSR Int’l Co.
`
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-19, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). The court would also note that the
`
`parties’ agreed jury instructions also reflected this understanding of the law. Doc. # 621 at 23
`
`(“Accordingly, you may evaluate whether there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole, before the time of the claimed invention, although proof
`
`of this is not a requirement to prove obviousness.”).
`
`Surely Realtime would never deliberately misstate the law; what it undoubtedly meant to say
`
`was that even though no such requirement exists, “it may nevertheless be ‘important to identify a
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does.’” Shure, 600 F.3d at 1374 (quoting KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 418, 127 S. Ct. 1727).
`
`6
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 31126
`
`B.
`
`With one exception, T-Mobile has presented sufficient evidence to survive JMOL
`
`T-Mobile argues that Dr. Reader’s testimony leads to the conclusion that a general motivation
`
`to combine different prior art data compression teachings existed at the time of the patents-in-suit.3
`
`The court agrees, with one exception.
`
`1.
`
`JMOL is denied on lack of motivation to combine with respect to the prior art
`combinations for the ‘506 patent and the ‘530 patent, as well as for the ‘300 patent
`on the Hoffman/Lafe combination only
`
`The court will deny JMOL with respect to the ‘506 patent (Hoffman/Franaczek and
`
`Lafe/Franaszek combinations), the ‘530 patent (Dye/Aakre and Hoffman/Sebastian combinations),
`
`and the ‘300 patent (Hoffman/Lafe combination only). Dr. Reader provided testimony at trial
`
`concerning the two references in each of these combinations, which specifically pointed out where
`
`claim elements could be found in one reference versus the other. Tr. at 1638-17-1646:20 (‘506
`
`patent, Hoffman/Franaczek); 1646:20-1655:3 (‘506 patent, Lafe/Franaczek); 1628:16-1638:3 (‘530
`
`patent, Dye/Aakre); 1617:10-1628:12 (‘530 patent, Hoffman/Sebastian); and 1670:17-1688:3 (‘300
`
`patent, Hoffman/Lafe).
`
`Dr. Reader also testified that at the time of the patents-in-suit in 1999 and 2001, it would
`
`have been well-known to a person of ordinary skill to combine different data compression techniques
`
`in digital compression systems. Tr. at 1607:11-1608:1; 1611:20-1612:9. He specifically testified that
`
`the Hoffman reference was a “road map to the development of data compression,” insofar as it
`
`covered “applications of digital data compression in the marketplace . . .different algorithms . . .[and]
`
`The parties stipulated at trial that the patents-in-suit claimed priority dates in March 1999
`3
`(the ‘530 patent) and October 2001 (the ‘506 and ‘300 patents).
`
`7
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 31127
`
`gives examples of how data compression can be integrated into complete systems such as the Internet
`
`. . . .” Tr. at 1615:13-22. Even Realtime’s expert, Dr. Zeger, testified that all the references were
`
`found in the general field of data compression, even though he did not believe that this was
`
`ultimately sufficient to demonstrate a motivation to combine. Tr. at 1744:2-7; 1772:21-1773:4.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Reader testified that he was personally involved in developing products that
`
`responded to market forces, specifically the digitization of media and services like videoconferencing
`
`and speech compression, that combined different compression techniques like audio and video
`
`compression. Tr. at 1605:17-1608:13. The Court observed in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 127 S. Ct. 1727,
`
`that a motivation to combine can be found in the “demands known to the design community or
`
`present in the marketplace”.
`
`The court therefore denies Realtime’s motion for JMOL on the issue of motivation to
`
`combine as to the ‘506 patent (Hoffman/Franaczek and Lafe/Franaszek combinations), the ‘530
`
`patent (Dye/Aakre and Hoffman/Sebastian combinations), and the ‘300 patent (Hoffman/Lafe
`
`combination only). The merits of Realtime’s other arguments as to the ‘506 and ‘530 patents are
`
`addressed below; Realtime raised no further arguments with respect to the ‘300 patent,
`
`Hoffman/Lafe combination.
`
`2.
`
`JMOL is granted as to the ‘300 patent, Tanaka/POSITA combination, because Dr.
`Reader provided no testimony as to what gaps in Tanaka are filled by the knowledge
`of the POSITA
`
`Dr. Reader attempted to testify that the combination of the Tanaka reference with the
`
`knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) rendered all asserted claims of the
`
`‘300 patent invalid. A close reading of the transcript, however, leads to the conclusion that this
`
`8
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 31128
`
`“combination” of prior art is little more than an attempt to assert the Tanaka reference as
`
`anticipating.
`
`Dr. Reader testified for about 15 pages in the transcript about Tanaka. Tr. at 1655:25-
`
`1670:16. Although he gave lip service to the idea of combining Tanaka with the knowledge known
`
`to a POSITA, nowhere in his testimony does he actually point out the specific gaps in the Tanaka
`
`reference that would have to be filled by the POSITA’s knowledge. The only real attempt by counsel
`
`to elicit testimony about what gaps the POSITA could fill is thwarted by Dr. Reader himself:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`All right. And, so, the language of the patent is a “lossy compression encoder”; and
`Tanaka focuses on lossless and then lossy encoders. Do you think that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have viewed that in a certain way?
`
`Certainly a person of ordinary skill in the art would do that; but, I mean, Tanaka also
`does talk about lossless compression.
`
`Both lossless and lossy?
`
`It talks about both lossless and lossy compression.
`
`Tr. at 1666:23-1667:8.
`
`In fact, when asked to “sum up with respect to the ‘300 patent in light of Tanaka and the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill,” Dr. Reader responds that “Tanaka discloses everything in
`
`the asserted claims and renders those claims invalid.” Tr. at 1670:11-16. Dr. Reader does not say that
`
`“Tanaka in combination with the POSITA” renders the claims invalid; rather, he says that Tanaka
`
`by itself renders the claims invalid. This is anticipation, not obviousness. Anticipation with respect
`
`to the Tanaka reference was not claimed by T-Mobile, and was not submitted to the jury. T-Mobile
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
` 31129
`
`cannot sneak an invalidating reference through the back door when its failure to comply with the
`
`rules concerning invalidity contentions and disclosures would bar the front door to that reference.
`
`Accordingly, the court will grant JMOL with respect to the Tanaka/POSITA combination for
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘300 patent because there is no evidence in the record that Dr. Reader
`
`actually combined the two references at all.
`
`This is more than an academic discussion: granting JMOL as to the Tanaka/POSITA
`
`combination has practical consequences. Even though the court concluded above that there is
`
`sufficient evidence with respect to the Hoffman/Lafe combination on the ‘300 patent to survive
`
`JMOL on the issue of motivation to combine, the Hoffman/Lafe combination was asserted for only
`
`three of the five asserted claims of the ‘300 patent. Only the Tanaka/POSITA combination was
`
`asserted for claims 23 and 46. Given the grant of JMOL as to the only prior art combination asserted
`
`for these two claims, the court reverses the jury’s verdict that claims 23 and 46 of the ‘300 patent
`
`are invalid.
`
`Because the court concludes that the Tanaka/POSITA combination is not invalidating, it need
`
`not consider Realtime’s additional JMOL argument that T-Mobile failed to allege a “desirability
`
`factor” set before compression in the Tanaka reference for claims 36 and 59 of the ‘300 patent.
`
`V. ‘506 PATENT
`
`With respect to the ‘506 patent, Realtime argues that the Hoffman/Franaczek reference
`
`combination does not teach the “receiving a data block, wherein said data block is included in a data
`
`stream” limitation of claim 86.
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
` 31130
`
`Prior to trial, the term “receiving a data stream” was construed as “receiving from an external
`
`source one or more data blocks transmitted in sequence.” Doc. # 438 at 18. Later, during trial, the
`
`court construed the term “receiving a data block, wherein said data block is included in a data
`
`stream” to require that the data block, “since it’s part of the data stream,” to come from an external
`
`source. Tr. at 875:23-876:3. Realtime suggests that Dr. Reader did not testify as to where the
`
`“external source” required by the court’s construction for “receiving a data block . . .” in claim 86
`
`can be found in the Hoffman/Franaczek combination. The court disagrees.
`
`When testifying to the Hoffman/Franaczek combination, specifically when he was testifying
`
`as to whether this precise claim limitation was met, Dr. Reader stated that a data block can be
`
`received by audio and video capture devices that uses data compression to record the external audio
`
`signal. Tr. at 1642:5-15. To support this statement, Dr. Reader referred to and explained several
`
`pages of the Hoffman reference, DX 22 at 351-52, which reference two types of audio capture
`4
`
`devices using compression (MiniDisc and DCC recorder) and a digital video camcorder using
`
`compression.
`
`It is true that Dr. Reader does not specifically use the phrase “external source.” However,
`5
`
`given the examples cited in Hoffman—examples Dr. Reader provided when asked specifically about
`
`The Hoffman reference is a 415 page textbook. In keeping with the court’s stated
`4
`practice on lengthy exhibits, only those pages specifically referenced by the parties are admitted
`as exhibits and given to the jury. Counsel received the court clerk’s lists of each side’s admitted
`exhibits, and both sides signed off on each list. Docs. # 657, 658. In this case, pages 351 and 352
`of DX 22 were both admitted. Doc. # 658 at 3. See William W. Schwarzer, Reforming Jury
`Trials, 132 F.R.D. 575, 589-90 (1991); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 12.32 (2004).
`
`In fact, Dr. Reader uses the phrase only once in his testimony, when discussing the Lafe
`5
`reference, also in the context of the ‘506 patent.
`
`11
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
` 31131
`
`the limitation of “receiving a data block, wherein said data block is included in a data stream”—and
`
`the fact that Dr. Reader did use the word “capture,” the court concludes that there is sufficient
`
`evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that the Hoffman/Franaczek reference renders
`
`the asserted claims of the ‘506 patent invalid. 6
`
`VI. ‘530 PATENT
`
`With respect to the ‘530 patent, Realtime raises two issues: (1) neither the Hoffman/Sebastian
`
`nor Dye/Aakre combinations teach the “data stream is received by said data accelerator in received
`
`form” limitation of claim 1; and (2) there is no showing that the “said compression and storage
`
`occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said related form”
`
`limitation of claim 1 is met by the Hoffman/Sebastian combination. All four asserted claims are
`
`dependent from claim 1.
`
`A.
`
`There is insufficient evidence in the record that Hoffman/Sebastian and Dye/Aakre
`combinations teach the “data stream” limitation of claim 1
`
`As discussed above in the context of the ‘506 patent, several phrases—“receiving a data
`
`stream” and “receiving a data block, wherein said data block is included in a data stream”—were
`
`construed to require that the data comes from an external source. While the language of the ‘530
`
`patent, claim 1, is not identical, it is similar—“a data stream is received by said data accelerator in
`
`received form, said data stream includes a first data block and a second data block.” T-Mobile does
`
`not suggest that the “data stream” limitation of claim 1 does not require an external source, nor
`
`The court puts little stock in T-Mobile’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the
`6
`art would know that one could receive an external, rather than an internal, signal for compression
`purposes. T-Mobile points to no testimony in the record that a POSITA would know that, and the
`court has not found any such testimony.
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
` 31132
`
`request that the court further construe this term. If such a construction were required, the court would
`
`again conclude, for the same reasons discussed on the record at Tr. at 875:23-876:3 with respect to
`
`the ‘506 patent, that the data comes from an external source.
`
`Realtime argues that Dr. Reader did not testify that this claim limitation is met in either the
`
`Hoffman/Sebastian or Dye/Aakre combinations because he did not mention an external source. As
`
`noted in an earlier footnote, the court agrees that the only time Dr. Reader mentions the phrase
`
`“external source” comes when he is discussing the Lafe reference in the context of the ‘506 patent.
`
`1.
`
`The court grants JMOL as to the Hoffman/Sebastian combination
`
`Taking the Hoffman/Sebastian combination first, Sebastian teaches a data source comprising
`
`a plurality of data blocks. DX 20 at 2:28-42; Tr. at 1623:23-1624:16.T-Mobile argues that Dr.
`
`Reader also referenced Figure 1.4 of Hoffman during his testimony, which teaches receiving data
`
`from external sources like computers, telephones, microphones, and video camcorders for
`
`subsequent encoding and compression. The court agrees that Dr. Reader referenced this figure, and
`
`that this figure is on a page of the Hoffman reference—page 13—that was admitted as an exhibit
`
`(DX 22). Doc. # 658 at 3; Tr. at 1616:16-1617:7.
`
`However, T-Mobile still has a problem. When discussing Figure 1.4, Dr. Reader was
`
`generally describing what the Hoffman reference was; Dr. Reader had not yet even mentioned the
`
`‘530—or any other—patent. He was certainly not using this figure to specifically state that Hoffman
`
`disclosed the “data stream is received by said data accelerator in received form” limitation in claim
`
`1 of the ‘530 patent. In fact, when Dr. Reader did discuss this limitation, he cited only the Sebastian
`
`reference as satisfying the limitation. Tr. at 1623:25-1624:16. He does not mention Hoffman at all,
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
` 31133
`
`much less Figure 1.4. Sebastian does not itself disclose an external source, nor does T-Mobile even
`
`try to suggest that it does in JMOL briefing.
`
`The jury is not required to go on a scavenger hunt, piecing together T-Mobile’s case from
`
`scraps of seemingly unrelated testimony. Dr. Reader testified about a lot of information in a fairly
`
`short period of time. No reasonable jury could have found that this offhand mention of Figure 1.4,
`
`tethered to nothing more than a general description of the Hoffman reference, is clear and convincing
`
`evidence of invalidity as to this claim limitation, especially when Dr. Reader later testified it was
`
`only satisfied by the Sebastian reference.
`
`The court puts little stock in T-Mobile’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would know that one could receive an external, rather than an internal, data stream. T-Mobile points
`
`to no testimony in the record that a POSITA would know that, and the court has not found any such
`
`testimony. JMOL is granted as to the Hoffman/Sebastian reference.
`
`2.
`
`The court grants JMOL as to the Dye/Aakre combination
`
`This combination fares no better. The only testimony in the record as to this claim limitation
`
`in the Dye/Aakre combination comes at 1632:6-20 of the transcript. Dr. Reader testified that the
`
`limitation is found in Dye at 22:46-48, 1:62-68, 2:5-9, and Figure 7. Figure 7 was not admitted , but
`7
`
`all other cited portions were. Doc. # 658 at 3. Dr. Reader mentions nothing about external sources,
`
`Even though Figure 7 could theoretically have been admitted, as Dr. Reader mentioned it
`7
`briefly in testimony, Figure 7 was not on the list of pages from the Dye reference that the parties
`agreed would be submitted to the jury. Doc. # 658 at 3 (including only Figures 21 and 22 from
`DX 15, the Dye reference). Regardless, even if it had been submitted to the jury, Dr. Reader did
`not explain anything about Figure 7 at all, much less anything relating to an external source in
`this Figure.
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
` 31134
`
`or anything that could remotely be construed as implying an external source; rather, he states only
`
`that the reference discloses a plurality of data blocks at column 1. Other than reeling off the citations
`
`to columns 2 and 22, he provides no explanation of their significance.
`
`The only portion of the Dye specification cited by Dr. Reader than has any significance is a
`
`statement at 22:46-48 that “the method receives uncompressed input data, wherein the uncompressed
`
`data comprises a plurality (or group) of symbols.” “Input” data could imply an external source, but
`
`Dr. Reader never actually testified as such. Given the paucity of testimony on this point, no
`
`reasonable juror could have concluded that the Dye/Aakre combination rendered the asserted claims
`
`of the ‘530 patent obvious. JMOL is granted as to the Dye/Aakre reference.
`
`3.
`
`Why the court reached a different conclusion with respect to the ‘506 patent claims
`
`The ‘506 and ‘530 patents have similar claim language, and the court allows the jury verdict
`
`to stand on the ‘506 patent and not on the ‘530 patent. Therefore, it is worth reiterating briefly the
`
`difference between Dr. Reader’s testimony on the two patents.
`
`With respect to the‘506 patent, Dr. Reader specifically cited two pages from Hoffman when
`
`discussing the “receiving a data block” limitation, explained what the Hoffman passage said, and
`
`stated that the devices mentioned in Hoffman received a data block by “capturing” with these
`
`devices. Although he did not specifically say that a data block could be received from an external
`
`source, the passages explained from Hoffman can be interpreted as such. Again, the key is that Dr.
`
`Reader actually explained what the Hoffman reference meant in the context of the claim limitation,
`
`rather than leaving the jury to pull together far-flung testimony (Hoffman/Sebastian combination)
`
`15
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
` 31135
`
`or pick through a patent passage not deemed important enough for Dr. Reader to explain (Dye/Aakre
`
`combination).
`
`B.
`
`The court need not reach Realtime’s argument regarding “data accelerator”
`
`The court concludes that no reasonable juror could have concluded that the
`
`Hoffman/Sebastian combination rendered the asserted claims of the ‘530 patent obvious. There is
`
`insufficient evidence in the record that either reference taught the external source limitation of claim
`
`1. The court need not reach Realtime’s argument that there was no showing that the “said
`
`compression and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory
`
`device in said related form” limitation of claim 1 was met by the Hoffman/Sebastian combination.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`After careful review of the record, and in light of T-Mobile’s burden to prove invalidity by
`
`clear and convincing evidence, the court will grant Realtime’s motion for JMOL on the issue of
`
`invalidity in part. The court upholds the jury’s verdict that claims 36, 42, and 59 of the ‘300 patent
`
`were rendered obvious by the Hoffman/Lafe combination, and that claims 93 and 94 of the ‘506
`
`patent were rendered obvious by the Hoffman/Franaczek and Lafe/Franaczek combinations. The
`
`court reverses the jury’s verdict that claims 23 and 46 of the ‘300 patent were rendered obvious by
`
`the Tanaka/POSITA combination, and that the claims of the ‘530 patent were rendered obvious by
`
`the Hoffman/Sebastian and Dye/Aakre combinations. Final Judgment will reflect this ruling.
`
`16
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00493-RC-JDL Document 662 Filed 03/04/13 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
` 31136
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC, d/b/a IXO’s Motion for
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law As to Invalidity [Doc. # 644] is GRANTED IN PART.
`
`17
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 017
`
`