Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:3654
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`James V. Selna
`Present: The Honorable
`Karla J. Tunis
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Present
`Court Reporter
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Not Present
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) Order on Regarding Claim Construction
`
`Plaintiffs Broadcom Corporation and Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore)
`Pte. Ltd. (together, “Broadcom”) and Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of
`America, Sony Interactive Entertainment America LLC, and Sony Electronics Inc.
`(together, “Sony”) have submitted proposed claim constructions for four terms contained
`in four of Broadcom’s patents and four terms contained in three of Sony’s patents. (Joint
`State., Docket No. 103.) Both parties have submitted opening and responsive claim
`construction briefs. (Broadcom Open. Br., Docket No. 117; Sony Open. Br., Docket No.
`119; Broadcom Resp. Br., Docket No. 131; Sony Resp. Br., Docket No. 132.) On April
`25, 2017, Sony filed a notice of supplemental evidence regarding claim construction.
`(Ntc. Suppl. Evid., Docket No. 143.) The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and
`construes the relevant claim language below.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The background of this dispute is familiar to the parties and to the Court. Five of
`Broadcom’s patents are currently at issue: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087 (the “’087
`Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 7,720,294 (the “’294 Patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No.
`6,744,387 (the “’387 Patent”); (4) U.S. Patent No. 6,982,663 (the “’663 Patent”); and (5)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,400,643 (the “’643 Patent”). Three of Sony’s patents are currently at
`issue: (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,919,896 (the “’896 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,706,028
`(the “’028 Patent”); and (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,792,400 (the “’400 Patent”). The parties
`have reached an agreement regarding one term in Broadcom’s ’643 Patent and one term
`in Sony’s ’896 Patent. (Sony Open. Br., Docket No. 119 at 2, 19.) The parties now ask
`the Court to construe eight terms involving seven of the patents.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 1 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:3655
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`It is well settled that claim construction is “exclusively within the province of the
`court.” Markman v. W. Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Such construction
`“must begin and remain centered on” the claim language itself, Interactive Gift Express,
`Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001), but extrinsic evidence
`may also be consulted “if needed to assist in determining the meaning or scope of
`technical terms in the claims.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211,
`1216 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`In construing the claim language, the Court begins with the principle that “the
`words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
`omitted). Further, this ordinary and customary meaning “is the meaning that the [claim]
`term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313.
`“[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the
`context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of
`the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.
`
`“In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person
`of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in
`such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`commonly understood words. In such circumstances general purpose dictionaries may be
`helpful.” Id. at 1314 (internal citation omitted). In other cases, “determining the ordinary
`and customary meaning of the claim requires examination of terms that have a particular
`meaning in a field of art.” Id. In those cases, “the court looks to those sources available
`to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed
`claim language to mean.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). These sources include
`“the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution
`history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of
`technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`However, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claim.
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[I]f we once
`begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim, in order to limit such claim . . . we
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 2 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 2 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:3656
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`should never know where to stop.”) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). “We do not
`import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a
`patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very specific
`embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment, unless the
`specification makes clear that ‘the patentee . . . intends for the claims and the
`embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.’” JVW Enters., Inc. v.
`Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations
`omitted) (italics supplied).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Broadcom’s Patents
`
`The Court construes a total of four terms across four Broadcom-owned patents: (1)
`one term in the ’087 Patent, (2) one term in the ’294 Patent, (3) one term in the ’387
`Patent, and (4) one term in the ’663 Patent. The parties have agreed to the construction of
`one term in Broadcom’s ’643 Patent, so the Court adopts that construction.
`
`1.
`
`The ’087 Patent
`
`The ’087 Patent is an “MPEG decoder system and method for performing video
`decoding or decompression which includes a unified memory for multiple functions.”
`(’087 Patent, Docket No. 117-2 at 1.) “[The] single unified memory . . . stores code and
`data for the transport, system controller and MPEG decoder functions.” (Id.) The
`invention “provides a video decoding system with reduced memory requirements” by
`implementing “various frame memory saving schemes, such as compression or dynamic
`allocation, to more efficiently use the memory.” (Id.) The savings in memory allow the
`transport and system controller functions to use portions of the single unified memory.
`(Id.) The claim term “memory” of independent claim 1 requires construction.1
`
`Independent claim 1 recites the following:
`
`1. An MPEG decoder system which includes a single memory for use by
`
`1 The Court’s construction also applies to claims 3, 5, and 7, which are dependent claims of
`independent claim 1.
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 3 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 3 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:3657
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`transport, decode and system controller functions, comprising:
`
`a channel receiver for receiving and MPEG encoded stream;
`
`transport logic coupled to the channel receiver which demultiplexes one
`or more multimedia data streams from the encoded stream;
`
`a system controller coupled to the transport logic which controls
`operations within the MPEG decoder system;
`
`an MPEG decoder coupled to receive one or more multimedia data
`streams output from the transport logic, wherein the MPEG decoder
`operates to perform MPEG decoding on the multimedia data streams;
`and
`
`a memory coupled to the MPEG decoder, wherein the memory is used by
`the MPEG decoder during MPEG decoding operations, wherein the
`memory stores code and data useable by the system controller which
`enables the system controller to perform control functions within the
`MPEG decoder system, wherein the memory is used by the transport
`logic for demultiplexing operations;
`
`wherein the MPEG decoder is operable to access the memory during
`MPEG decoding operations;
`
`wherein the transport logic is operable to access the memory to store and
`retrieve data during demultiplexing operations; and
`
`wherein the system controller is operable to access the memory to
`retrieve code and data during system control functions.
`
`(Id. at 17:15–45 (italics supplied) (alteration to paragraph format).)
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 4 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 4 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:3658
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`Broadcom’s Proposed
`Construction
`memory functioning as a
`unit
`
`Sony’s Proposed
`Construction
`single memory
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`single unified memory
`
`The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has construed the term
`“memory” in the ’087 Patent. The ITC construed “single memory,” “memory,”
`and “first unified memory” of the ’087 Patent as “memory functioning as a unit.”2
`In re Certain Audiovisual Components, No. 337–TA–837, 2013 WL 4406820, at
`*7 (USITC July 18, 2013). In its construction, the ITC rejected the construction of
`“memory” as “a single unified memory which stores code and data for the
`transport, logic, system controller and MPEG decoder functions, with reduced
`memory requirements compared to prior art designs (i.e., less than 20 or 24
`Mbits).” Id. The ITC reasoned that the specification neither (1) limited the
`claimed memory to a single chip nor (2) limited the size of the memory. Id.
`
`A district court in the Northern District of California also construed the term
`memory in the ’087 Patent, and it agreed with the ITC to the extent that the
`specification does not include a “single chip” limitation. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v.
`LSI Corp., No. C–11–2709, 2014 WL 1365422, at *13–15 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7,
`2014). However, the district court also rejected the ITC’s construction of
`“memory” as “memory functioning as a unit.” Id. at 15 (construing “single
`memory” and “first unified memory” as “a single memory device which stores
`code and data for the transport logic, system controller and MPEG decoder
`
`2 This Court notes that it is not required to follow other court decision regarding claim
`construction. See Verizon Cal. Inc. v. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1069 (C.D.
`Cal. 2003) (“Both parties recognize that the [prior claim construction order] does not enjoy
`issue-preclusive effect at least as asserted against Verizon, a non-participant in that litigation.”); see also
`Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2033 n.7 (2011) (“[a] decision of a federal district court judge is not
`binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same
`judge in a different case”) (internal citations omitted); State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Zamora (In re
`Silverman), 616 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We have also held that ‘[t]he doctrine of stare decisis
`does not compel one district court judge to follow the decision of another.’”) (citing Starbuck v. City
`and Cty. of S.F., 556 F.2d 450, 457 n.13 (9th Cir. 1977)).
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 5 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 5 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:3659
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`functions”).
`
`Here, the Court construes “memory” as “single unified memory.” This
`construction (1) matches the specification’s description of memory, particularly in
`relation to the prior art, and (2) avoids the imposition of a “single chip” limitation
`on the claims. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d
`1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the
`claim construction analysis and is, in fact the single best guide to the meaning of a
`disputed term.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted)).
`
`First, the specification describes the invention in relation to the prior art:
`
`[P]rior art MPEG decoder systems include different memory systems for
`the transport and system controller logic 204 and the MPEG decoder
`logic 224. These separate memories are required because of the separate
`bandwidth and processing requirements for each memory, as well as the
`memory size requirements of each block. . . . [T]he present invention
`includes a single or unified memory which is used for each of the
`transport and system controller block 204 and the MPEG A/V decoder
`logic 224.
`
`(’087 Patent, Docket No. 117-2 at 11:21–30.) In contrast to the prior art, the ’087
`Patent does not require different and separate memories for the transport and
`system controller functions. Rather, the transport logic and system controller share
`a single unified memory with the MPEG decoder. The Court recognizes that
`throughout the specification, the memory is referred to as “single unified memory”:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`The present invention relates . . . particularly to an MPEG decoder
`system which includes a single unified memory for MPEG transport,
`decode and system controller functions;
`
`The video decoding system of the present invention includes a single
`unified memory which stores code and data for the transport logic,
`system controller and MPEG decoder functions;
`
`The single unified memory is preferably a 16 Mbit memory;
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 6 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 6 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:3660
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The MPEG decoder logic preferably includes a memory controller
`which couples to the single unified memory; and
`
`The present invention comprises a video decoder system and method
`which includes a single unified memory for MPEG transport, decode,
`and system controller functions;
`
`(Id. at 1:30–34; 5:3–5:10; 5:24–26; 6:22–27; 7:48–7:51; 11:15–30; 17:1–5 (italics
`supplied).)
`
`Thus, the ’087 invention is an improvement from the prior art because of the
`single unified memory. The invention unifies the memory systems for (1) the
`transport logic, (2) the system controller, and (3) the MPEG decoder into one
`single memory component of the invention. Accordingly, the language in the
`specification compels this Court to construe “memory” as “single unified
`memory.” The Court’s construction better captures the concept of unified memory
`better than the ITC construction.
`
`Furthermore, construing “memory” as “single unified memory” does not
`impose a “single chip” limitation on the claims. See Barnes & Noble, Inc., 2014
`WL 1365422, at *15 (replacing the “single chip” limitation with the phrase “single
`memory device”). The Court’s construction—single unified memory—is
`consistent with the embodiment in figure 3 of the ’087 Patent, showing multiple
`chips forming a single unified memory:
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 7 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 7 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:3661
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`The specification states that “[t]he transport and system controller block 204
`couples through a memory controller 211 in MPEG decoder 224 to an external
`memory 212, also referred to as the single unified memory 212.” (’087 Patent,
`Docket No. 117-2 at 8:38–41 (emphasis added).) Thus, according to figure 3, a
`memory comprising of multiple memory chips constitutes a “single unified
`memory.”
`
`In conclusion, the Court construes the term “memory” as “single unified
`memory.”3
`
`2.
`
`The ’294 Patent
`
`The ’294 Patent discloses “a unified decoder architecture.” (’294 Patent,
`Docket No. 117-3 at 1.) The system comprises of “a video decoder, instruction
`memory, and a host processor.” (Id.) The video decoder decodes video data
`encoded with a particular standard. (Id.) The instruction memory stores a first and
`second set of instructions for particular encoding standards. (Id.) The video
`decoder executes the particular encoding standard based on the host processor’s
`
`indication of what standard to use. (Id.) Within independent claims 1 and 9, the
`
`3 Because the Court construes the term as “single unified memory,” the Court does not need to
`address Sony’s supplemental briefing.
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 8 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 8 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:3662
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`parties dispute whether the term “discrete” requires construction. (Joint State.,
`Docket No. 103 at 2.)
`
`Independent claim 1 recites the following:
`
`1. A system for decoding video data encoded with a particular
`standard, said system comprising:
`
`a video decoder for decoding the video data encoded with the
`particular standard, wherein the video decoder comprises a master
`processor;
`
`instruction memory for storing;
`
`a first set of instructions for decoding encoded video data
`according to a first encoding standard; and
`
`a second set of instructions for decoding encoded video data
`according to a second encoding standard;
`
`a host processor for providing an indication to the video decoder
`indicating the particular encoding standard, wherein the video
`decoder, comprising the master processor, for decoding the video
`data encoded with the particular standard is discrete from the host
`processor; and
`
`wherein the video decoder executes the first set of instructions if
`the indication indicates that the particular encoding standard is the
`first encoding standard and executes the second set of instructions
`if the indication indicates that the particular encoding standard is
`the second encoding standard.
`
`(Id. at 5:46–67 (italics supplied) (alteration to paragraph format).)
`
`Independent claim 9 recites the following:
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 9 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 10 of 41 Page ID
` #:3663
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`9. A method for decoding video data encoded with a particular
`standard, said method comprising:
`
`receiving an indication from a host processor by a video decoder
`indicating the particular encoding standard, wherein the video
`decoder comprises a master processor and is discrete from the
`host processor;
`
`executing a first set of instructions if the indication indicates that
`the particular encoding standard is a first encoding standard; and
`
`executing a second set of instructions if the indication indicates
`that the particular encoding standard is the second encoding
`standard; providing an indication by a host processor to the video
`decoder indicating the particular encoding standard, wherein the
`video decoder, comprising the master processor, for decoding the
`video data encoded with the particular standard is discrete from
`the host processor; and
`
`wherein the video decoder executes the first set of instructions if
`the indication indicates that the particular encoding standard is the
`first encoding standard and executes the second set of instructions
`if the indication indicates that the particular encoding standard is
`the second encoding standard.
`
`(Id. at 6:31–53 (italics supplied) (alteration to paragraph format).)
`
`Broadcom’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, no construction
`necessary
`
`Sony’s Proposed
`Construction
`separate
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`separate
`
`Broadcom argues that “discrete” does not require construction because the
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 10 of 41
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 10 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 11 of 41 Page ID
` #:3664
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`term is a non-technical word that is not vague or ambiguous. (Broadcom Brs.,
`Docket Nos. 117 at 5, 131 at 4.) Although Sony’s construction reflects the plain
`meaning of “discrete,” Sony argues that the Court should adopt the term’s actual
`definition—separate—because Broadcom used the definition during prosecution to
`distinguish the invention from the prior art. (Sony Open. Br., Docket No. 119 at
`17.) The Court finds that construction is necessary.
`
`“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain
`and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one
`‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not
`resolve the parties dispute.” O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
`Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that the “ordinary” meaning of
`a term did not resolve the parties’ dispute therefore requiring the court to construe
`the claim scope in the context of the patents-in-suit). The ordinary meaning of
`claim language, as understood by a person of skill in the art, occasionally “involves
`little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, courts also look to
`sources, such as the prosecution history and the state of the art, to identify “what a
`person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.”
`Id.
`
`The Court adopts Sony’s construction because (1) Sony’s construction
`provides a widely accepted meaning of “discrete,” which is also consistent with the
`prosecution history and (2) reliance on the “ordinary” meaning of the term would
`not resolve the parties’ dispute.
`
`During prosecution, Broadcom explicitly defined “discrete” as “separate” to
`overcome anticipating prior art regarding claim 1:
`
`[T]he Applicant notes that the Applicant’s independent claim 1 explicitly
`recites that “the video decoder, comprising the master processor, for
`decoding the video data encoded with the particular standard is discrete
`from the host processor.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary
`defines “discrete” as “constituting a separate entity.” Thus, contrary to
`the assertion in the Office Action, the Applicant notes that by reciting
`that the video decoder is discrete from the host processor, the
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 11 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 11 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 12 of 41 Page ID
` #:3665
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`Applicant’s independent claim 1 clearly indicates that the host processor
`and the video decoder are separate from each other.
`
`(Rokach Decl. Ex. L, Docket No. 120-12 at 8–9 (emphasis in original) (internal
`citations omitted).)4
`
`Because the ’294 Patent’s prosecution history explicitly states the widely
`accepted meaning of “discrete” to distinguish the invention from prior art, the
`Court adopts Sony’s construction. Furthermore, by construing the term, the Court
`resolves the parties’ dispute over the construction of “discrete.” See O2 Micro,
`521 F.3d at 1362.
`
`In conclusion, the Court construes “discrete” as “separate.”
`
`3.
`
`The ’387 Patent
`
`The ’387 Patent “is directed to an improved method for the binarization of
`data in an MPEG data stream.” (’387 Patent, Docket No. 117-5 at 1.) To improve
`the method for binarization, the invention uses “unary binarization to create
`codewords up until an index threshold.” (Id.) Then,“[o]nce the threshold has been
`met, succeeding code symbols have appended to them an exp-Golomb suffix. (Id.)
`This invention is an improvement because the “hybrid binarization scheme reduces
`the number of binary codewords to be processed by a Binary Arithmetic Coder
`(BAC), thus reducing the computation required by the BAC.” (Id.) Within
`independent claim 3, the parties dispute the term “means for constructing a
`codeword using a exp-Golomb binarization if said code symbol index value is [not]
`less than said threshold value.”5 (Joint State., Docket No. 103 at 3.)
`Independent claim 3 recites the following:
`
`3. A binarization system comprising:
`
`4 The Court confirms that Merriam-Webster defines “discrete” as “constituting a separate entity.”
`See discrete: n.1, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrete.
`
`5 The first version of the printed ’387 Patent omitted the “not,” so a certificate of correction
`remedied the omission. (’387 Patent Cert. Correc., Docket No. 117-5.)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 12 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 12 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 13 of 41 Page ID
` #:3666
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`means for determining if a code symbol index value is less than a
`threshold value
`
`means for constructing a codeword using a unary binarization if
`said code symbol index value is less than said threshold value; and
`
`means for constructing a codeword using a exp-Golomb
`binarization if said code symbol index value is [not] less than said
`threshold value.
`
`(Id. 8:54–63 (italics supplied) (alternation to paragraph format).)
`
`Broadcom’s Proposed
`Construction
`Structure is disclosed in
`Fig. 2, which describes
`an encoder, and in
`particular binarization
`block 62 in conjunction
`with Fig. 4, and Fig. 4,
`steps 102, 106, 108, 110,
`112; Col. 4, lines 1-13,
`Tables 3 and 4, Col. 6,
`line 26 through Col. 8,
`line 23; and Claims 1-2.
`
`Sony’s Proposed
`Construction
`Function: constructing a
`codeword using a
`exp-Golomb binarization
`if said code symbol
`index value is [not] less
`than a threshold value
`
`Corresponding structure:
`binarization module 62
`and steps 106, 108, 110
`of Fig. 4 as described at
`columns 7:49-60 and
`8:1-10
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`Function: constructing a
`codeword using a
`exp-Golomb binarization
`if said code symbol index
`value is [not] less than a
`threshold value
`
`Corresponding structure:
`binarization module 62
`and steps 102, 106, 108,
`110, and 112 of Figure 4
`as described in 7:40–8:10
`
`The parties agree that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 governs this term because it is a
`means-plus-function limitation. (Broadcom Resp., Docket No. 131 at 6; Sony
`Resp., Docket No. 132 at 7–13.) A court uses two steps to construct a means-plus-
`function limitation: “First, the court must determine the claimed function. Second,
`the court must identify the corresponding structure in the written description of the
`patent that performs the function.” AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance
`Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Applied Med. Res.
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`Page 13 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 13 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 14 of 41 Page ID
` #:3667
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For a
`computer-implemented means-plus-function claim, a corresponding structure is
`composed of (1) a part of the computer that can perform the particular function and
`(2) an algorithm that makes the part of the computer perform the particular
`function. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d
`1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The parties agree that (1) the function is “constructing a codeword using a
`exp-Golomb binarization if said code symbol index value is [not] less than a
`threshold value” and (2) the corresponding structure includes an algorithm.
`(Broadcom Resp., Docket No. 131 at 6; Sony Resp., Docket No. 132 at 7–13.)
`However, the parties disagree about (1) how to define the algorithm and (2)
`whether the part of the computer that can perform the function includes other
`portions of Figure 2 in addition to binarization module 62. (Broadcom Resp.,
`Docket No. 131 at 7–10; Sony Resp. Br., Docket No. 132 at 8–13.) Therefore, the
`Court focuses on these issues.
`
`Ultimately, the Court finds (1) that the patent defines the algorithm as steps
`102, 106, 108, 110, and 112 of Figure 4 as described in columns 7:40–8:10, which
`contains necessary mathematical formulas, and (2) that binarization module 62 is
`the part of the computer that performs the function. Therefore, the final
`construction is the following: (1) function: “constructing a codeword using a
`exp-Golomb binarization if said code symbol index value is [not] less than a
`threshold value” and (2) corresponding structure: “binarization module 62 and
`steps 102, 106, 108, 110, and 112 of Figure 4 as described in 7:40–8:10.”
`
`1.
`
`The Algorithm
`
`“[T]he patent must disclose, at least to the satisfaction of one of ordinary
`skill in the art, enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under §
`112, ¶ 6.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
`2008). The patentee can “express that algorithm in any understandable terms
`including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other
`manner that provides sufficient structure.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “In
`software cases, . . . algorithms in the specification need only disclose adequate
`defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to one of
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`Page 14 of 41
`
`AMAZON 1013
`Page 14 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG Document 150 Filed 05/18/17 Page 15 of 41 Page ID
` #:3668
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. SACV 16-1052 JVS (JCGx)
`Broadcom Corp., et al. v. Sony Corp., et al.
`Title
`
`ordinary skill in the art.” AllVoice, 504 F.3d at 1245.
`
`Date May 18, 2017
`
`Broadcom argues that the algorithm is broader than the mathematical
`formula in columns 7 and 8 and that there is no basis for limiting the algorithm to
`the formula in those columns. (Broadcom Open. Br., Docket No. 117 at 11.)
`According to Broadcom, Figure 4 of the patent discloses the algorithm. (Id. at 12.)
`In addition, Tables 3 and 4 embody the algorithm. (Id. at 13.) “A person of
`ordinary skill would have understood that the disclosed algorithm was not
`restricted to such formal mathematical definition.” (Id. at 13–14.) “Although [the
`algorithm] includes the more specific formulas set forth in columns 7 and 8, it is
`not, as Sony contends, limited to those formulas.” (Id. at 14.)
`
`However, the Court finds that the patent’s language defines the algorithm in
`column 7:40–60. In column 7, the patent states that “[a] detailed description of the
`method for constructing such hybrid binerization follows.” (’387 Patent, Dock