Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 9954
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIAN CORPORATION ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, and HP ENTERPRISE
`SERVICES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-463
`RWS-JDL
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-88
`RWS-JDL
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This claim construction opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`6,597,812 (“the ’812 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992 (“the ’992 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,415,530 (“the ’530 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513 (“the ’513 Patent”), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,116,908 (“the ’908 Patent”). Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC alleges that Defendants
`
`
`
`1
`
`DISH 1010
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 9955
`
`infringe the asserted patents.1 Plaintiff filed an opening claim construction brief (Doc. No.
`
`305), to which Defendants filed a Response (Doc. No. 317), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc.
`
`No. 331). The parties additionally submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart pursuant to P.R.
`
`4-5(d). Doc. No. 336. On July 7, 2016, the Court held a claim construction hearing. Upon
`
`consideration of the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the
`
`constructions set forth below.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendants literally infringe the asserted patents. The ’992 and
`
`’513 patents relate “generally to data compression and decompression and, more particularly, to
`
`systems and methods for data compression using content independent and content dependent
`
`data compression and decompression.” ’992 Patent at 1:22–26; ’513 Patent at 1:30–33. The
`
`’992 Patent is entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System.” None of
`
`the disputed terms are found in the ’992 Patent. The ’513 Patent is entitled “Data Compression
`
`Systems and Methods.” Claims 1 and 15 of the ’513 patent are representative and recite as
`
`follows:
`
`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
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression
`algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed data
`
`
`1 Defendants include: EchoStar Corporation, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., HP
`Enterprise Services, LLC, Riverbed Technology, Inc., Dell Inc., Oracle America, Inc., SAP America, Inc., and
`Sybase, Inc.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 9956
`
`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.
`
`
`The ’812 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Lossless Data Compression and
`
`
`
`Decompression” and relates “generally to data compression and decompression and, more
`
`particularly to systems and methods for providing lossless data compression and decompression
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 9957
`
`using a combination of dictionary and run length encoding.” ’812 Patent at 1:13–17. Claim 1 of
`
`the ’812 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`
`1. A method for compressing input data comprising a plurality of
`data blocks, the method comprising the steps of:
`detecting if the input data comprises a run-length sequence of
`data blocks;
`outputting an encoded run-length sequence, if a run-length
`sequence of data blocks is detected;
`maintaining a dictionary comprising a plurality of code words,
`wherein each code word in the dictionary is associated with
`a unique data block string;
`building a data block string from at least one data block in the
`input data that is not part of a run-length sequence;
`searching for a code word in the dictionary having a unique
`data block string associated therewith that matches the built
`data block string; and
`outputting the code word representing the built data block
`string.
`
`
`The ’530 and ’908 Patents are both entitled “System and Methods for Accelerated Data
`
`
`
`Storage and Retrieval” and relate “generally to data storage and retrieval and, more particularly
`
`to systems and methods for improving data storage and retrieval bandwidth utilizing lossless data
`
`compression and decompression.” ’530 Patent at 1:15–18; ’908 Patent at 1:15–18. Claim 1 of the
`
`’530 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 9958
`
`indicative of said first compression
`memory device
`technique, and said first descriptor is utilized to decompress
`the portion of said compressed data stream associated with
`said first data block.
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’908 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`
`
`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.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (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 1313-1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 9959
`
`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 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. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362
`
`F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 9960
`
`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.’”)
`
`(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 basic 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 9961
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 9962
`
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
` The parties dispute the meaning of the following claim terms:
`
`
`“recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`I.
`appropriate content dependent algorithm” (’513 Patent, Claims 1 & 15)
`
`Term/Phrase
`recognition of any
`characteristic,
`attribute, or
`parameter that is
`indicative of an
`appropriate content
`dependent algorithm
`(’513 Patent Claims
`1 & 15)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively: Recognition of any
`data type, data structure, data
`block format, file substructure,
`file type, and/or any other
`parameter that is indicative of an
`appropriate content dependent
`algorithm
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Recognition of any data type that is
`indicative of a content dependent
`algorithm associated with the data
`type
`
`
`
`Plaintiff contends that construction is unnecessary because this term is “understandable to
`
`
`
`a person of ordinary skill and even a lay person.” Doc. No. 305 at 12. Plaintiff proposes an
`
`alternative construction and asserts that the Court should reject Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction because it “improperly limits the claimed phrase ‘characteristic, attribute, or
`
`parameter’ to only one of the described parameters: ‘data type.’” Id. at 12–13. Essentially,
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendants have attempted to rewrite the claims by importing the “data
`
`type only” limitation. Plaintiff argues that (1) the ’513 Patent claims do not recite “data type,”
`
`(2) the patentee does not define “characteristic, attribute, or parameter” to mean “data type” only,
`
`and (3) the patentee does not disavow the full scope of the phrase. Id. at 13.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff contends that its alternative proposal, on the other hand, is consistent with the
`
`plain meaning of term because it “is derived directly from the specification.” Id. at 12.
`
`Specifically, the specification “provides explicit examples of data-content parameters in addition
`
`to the data type that can be recognized with respect to content dependent algorithm, including all
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 9963
`
`of the items in [Plaintiff’s] proposal.” Id. at 13 (citing ’513 Patent at 16:15–21; 4:42–45; 22:65–
`
`23:4) (emphasis omitted). In other words, data type is merely one of several parameters that may
`
`be used to identify an appropriate content dependent algorithm. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’
`
`proposed construction improperly excludes some of the specification’s described embodiments.
`
`Doc. No. 305 at 13 (citing SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)). Finally, Plaintiff argues that if the Court limited this term to “data type,” independent
`
`claim 1 would be narrower than dependent claims 11 and 13. Doc. No. 305 at 13–14.
`
`
`
`Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s proposal improperly broadens the meaning of
`
`“characteristic, attribute, or parameter” because it ignores surrounding claim language. Doc. No.
`
`317 at 8. Defendant contends that “data type” recognition is the only method of selecting a
`
`content dependent algorithm, and therefore, “characteristic, attribute, or parameter” should be
`
`construed to mean “data type” only. Id. at 8–9 (citing ’513 Patent at 3:55–66, 15:60–63, 16:15–
`
`16, 16:24–27, 16:37–39, 22:65–23:4, Fig. 13(a), Fig. 15(a), Fig. 17(a)). Specifically, Defendants
`
`argue that “‘data types, data structures, data block formats, file substructures, file types, and/or
`
`any other parameters,’ are all ultimately reduced to ‘data type,’ because the specification teaches
`
`that only ‘data type’ is ultimately indicative of when content dependent compression should be
`
`applied.” Doc. No. 317 at 10–11. Defendants also point to this Court’s decision in Packeteer,
`
`where it held that “content dependent data compression is applied to identified data types based
`
`on the encoder’s ability to effectively compress the data type . . . .” Id. at 9 (citing Realtime
`
`Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Packeteer et al., No. 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL at Doc. No. 371 at 32
`
`(E.D. Tex., June 22, 2009) (emphasis added). Finally, Defendants point to a statement Plaintiff
`
`made to the Patent Office during the second reexamination of the ’992 Patent, where Plaintiff
`
`stated “[t]he new descriptive matter defined ‘analyzing’ in the context of evaluating an incoming
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 9964
`
`data stream in order to recognize, from the data itself, the associated data type.” Doc. No. 348 at
`
`3 (emphasis omitted). Defendants argue that Plaintiff is now attempting to improperly expand the
`
`meaning of this term. Id. at 3–4.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’513 Patent states, in relevant part: “A method of compressing a plurality
`
`of data blocks, comprising: . . . 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 . . . .” Similarly, claim 15
`
`states: “A device for compressing data comprising: . . . 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 . . . .” Additionally, dependent claim 13 states: “The method
`
`of claim 1, wherein the any characteristic attribute, or parameter is associated with a data block
`
`format or a file type information associated with the data block.” These claims provide that the
`
`“characteristic, attribute, or parameter” must be indicative of the appropriate content dependent
`
`algorithm that is to be applied. Importantly however, the independent claims give no indication
`
`that “characteristic, attribute, or parameter” should be interpreted as “data type.”
`
`
`
`The specification is further instructive on this claim term. As discussed above,
`
`“[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. Additionally, “[a] claim interpretation
`
`that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 9965
`
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583).
`
`
`
`The specification states:
`
`A content dependent data recognition module 1300 analyzes the incoming data
`stream to recognize data types, data structures, data block formats, file
`substructures, file types, and/or any other parameters that may be indicative of
`either the data type/content of a given data block or the appropriate data
`compression algorithm or algorithms (in serial or parallel) to be applied.
`
`’513 Patent at 16:15–21; see also id. at 4:42–45 (“the step of analyzing the data block
`
`comprising analyzing the data block to recognize one of a data type, data structure, data block
`
`format, file substructure, and/or file types”); 22:65–23:4 (“a content dependent data recognition
`
`and[/]or estimation module 1700 is utilized to analyze the incoming data stream for recognition
`
`of data types, data strictures [sic], data block formats, file substructures, file types, or any other
`
`parameters that may be indicative of the appropriate data compression algorithm . . . to be
`
`applied.”).
`
`
`
`This language indicates that any of the parameters listed—including but not limited to
`
`data type—can be used to identify an appropriate data compression algorithm. Defendants
`
`contend that “data type” is the only parameter able to identify an appropriate data compression
`
`algorithm and that the other parameters listed within the specification are merely proxies for such
`
`identification. In support, Defendants have pointed to sections of the specification that state data
`
`type can be used to select an appropriate compression algorithm (citing ’513 Patent at 16:15–16,
`
`16:37–39), but those preferred embodiments cannot exclude other parameters that may be used
`
`(see ’513 Patent at 4:42–45, 16:15–21, 22:65–23:4). Globetrotter Software, 362 F.3d at 1381.
`
`
`
`Defendants also rely on this Court’s decision in Packeteer, where the Court construed
`
`“content dependent data compression.” Notably however, the patent at issue in Packeteer did not
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 9966
`
`define (or even discuss) “any characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`
`appropriate content dependent algorithm.” Instead, the actual patent language in Packeteer
`
`limited the parameters to include data type only. See U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761 (the ’761 Patent)
`
`at Claim 1 (“analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify a data type of the data
`
`block, the input data stream comprising a plurality of disparate data types; performing content
`
`dependent data compression . . . if the data type . . . is identified; performing content
`
`independent data compression . . . if the data type . . . is not identified.”); see also U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,161,506 (the ’506 Patent) at Claim 1 (“analyzing a data block of an input data stream to
`
`identify one or more data types of the data block . . . .”). The ’513 Patent, however, provides no
`
`similar limitation, and therefore, the Packeteer construction does not support Defendants’
`
`proposal.
`
`
`
`On the other hand, lending additional support to Plaintiff’s interpretation of this term are
`
`dependent claims 11 and 13. Claim 11 states “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing the
`
`plurality of data blocks includes analyzing data structures or file substructures associated with
`
`the plurality of data blocks,” and Claim 13 states “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the any
`
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter is associated with a data block format or a file type
`
`information associated with the data block.” ’513 Patent at Claims 11 and 13. If the Court were
`
`to construe “characteristic, attribute, or parameter” as limited to data type, it would render these
`
`dependent claims nonsensical because those claims are not limited to data type. The dependent
`
`claims would be broader than independent Claim 1, which indicates that Defendants’
`
`construction is not in accordance with proper claim construction principles.
`
`
`
`If the Court were to limit this term to “data type” only, such a finding would exclude
`
`preferred embodiments. The specification discloses preferred embodiments that allow for the use
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 9967
`
`of parameters other than data type to identify a compression algorithm. ’513 Patent at 4:42–45,
`
`16:15–21, 22:65–23:4. Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ proposal because it is
`
`inconsistent with portions of the specification. See Globetrotter Software, Inc., 362 F.3d at 1381.
`
`
`
`Finally, with respect to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff concedes to the use of only
`
`data type in the second ’992 Patent reexamination, the Court does not agree. The portion of the
`
`reexamination Defendants are referencing is depicted below:
`
`
`
`Doc. No. 348, Ex. 1 at 11 (REALTIME039863).
`
`
`
`As shown above, the patentee explained that merely retrieving a data type descriptor is
`
`not “analyzing.” Further, the patentee made the above-reproduced statements in the context of
`
`claims that included “data type” limitations. See id. at 10 (REALTIME039862). Therefore,
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 9968
`
`Defendants’ assertion that the reexamination solidifies their argument that this term is limited to
`
`data type only is unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`Having resolved the parties’ dispute, the Court finds the phrase “recognition of any
`
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content dependent
`
`algorithm” requires no construction.
`
`II.
`“content dependent algorithm/content dependent data compression algorithm/
`content dependent compression algorithm” (’513 Patent, Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, &
`22) and “content independent compression algorithm / content independent data
`compression” (’513 Patent, Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 15, 18, & 20)
`
`Claim Term
`content dependent
`algorithm /
`content dependent
`data compression
`algorithm /
`content dependent
`compression
`algorithm (’513
`Patent, Claims 1, 3,
`4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, &
`22)
`content independent
`compression
`algorithm / content
`independent data
`compression (’513
`Patent, Claims 1, 3,
`4, 10, 12, 15, 18, &
`20)
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Compression algorithm that is
`applied to input data that is not
`compressed with content
`independent data compression, the
`compression using one or more
`encoders selected based on the
`encoder’s (or encoders’) ability to
`effectively encode the data type of
`the data block
`
`
`Compression [algorithm] that is
`applied to input data that is not
`compressed with content dependent
`data compression, the compression
`applied using one or more encoders
`without regard to the encoder’s (or
`encoders’) ability to effectively
`encode the data type of the data
`block
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposal
`Content dependent compression
`is compression that is applied
`using one or more encoders based
`on the encoder’s (or encoders’)
`ability to effectively encode the
`data type or content of the data
`block
`
`
`
`Content independent compression
`is compression that is applied
`using one or more encoders
`without regard to the encoder’s
`(or encoders’) ability to
`effectively encode the data type
`or content of the data block
`
`
`
`
`The parties’ argument with respect to these terms revolves around whether encoders are
`
`selected based on their ability “to effectively encode the data type or content,” as Plaintiff
`
`contends or “to effectively encode the data type,” as Defendants propose. The parties have
`
`stipulated that the Court should construe “data type” as “categorization of the data as one of
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL Document 362 Filed 07/28/16 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 9969
`
`ASCII, image data, multimedia data, signed and unsigned integers, pointers, or other data type.”
`
`Doc. No. 336-1 at 3. The parties have not agreed upon a construction of—nor have they asked
`
`the Court to construe—“content.”
`
`Plaintiff urges that it would be improper to import the “data type” limitation into this
`
`term. Doc. No. 305 at 15. Plaintiff argues that the claim language itself—and for that matter, the
`
`language within this term—is sufficient to define the term. Id.; ’513 Patent, Claim 1. Plaintiff
`
`also contends that the specification supports its position that data type and/or content can indicate
`
`the appropriate data compression algorithm. Doc. No. 305 at 16–18 (citing ’513 Patent at 4:42–
`
`47; 16:15–21; 18:1–4; 18:17–21; 19:13–18; 20:44–48; 21:2–6; 21:65–22:3; 22:64–23:7). In
`
`further support, Plaintiff points to Defendants’ agreement (in a recently filed petition for inter
`
`partes review) that content dependent compression is based on the data type or content of the
`
`data. Doc. No. 305 at 18. Plaintiff contends that because Defendants seek to limit this term to
`
`“data type” only, their proposal improperly excludes a preferred embodiment. Id.
`
`Addition