Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:2971
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. CV 18-3629-GW(JCx)
`Title
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC, et al.
`
`Date
`
`July 25, 2019
`
`Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Javier Gonzalez
`None Present
`Tape No.
`Deputy Clerk
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`None Present
`None Present
`PROCEEDINGS:
`IN CHAMBERS - FINAL RULING ON MARKMAN/CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`Attached hereto is the Court’s Final Ruling on Markman/Claims Construction.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`JG
`
`:
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 1 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:2972
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03629-GW-(JCx)
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-09344-GW-(JCx)
`Final Ruling on Markman/Claims Construction
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”) brought this action against
`Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively, “Google Defendants”), alleging that
`Google Defendants infringe five U.S. patents owned by Realtime. See Docket No. 1. Realtime
`also filed suit against Defendant Adobe Systems Inc. (“Adobe”), alleging that Adobe infringes
`seven U.S. patents owned by Realtime, including the five patents asserted against Google
`Defendants. See Case No. 18-09344, Docket No. 1.
`On March 28, 2019, a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement was filed in each
`of these actions. Docket No. 44; Case No. 18-09344, Docket No. 63. The Court issued an Order
`directing the parties to file consolidated claim construction briefs for certain of the disputed terms
`identified by the parties in their two Joint Statements. Docket No. 45. Google Defendants and
`Adobe jointly filed a Collective Opening Claim Construction Brief on June 6, 2019. Docket No.
`69. On the same day, Realtime filed an Opening Claim Construction Brief. Docket No. 70. The
`parties filed their responsive briefs on June 20, 2019. Docket No. 73; Docket No. 74.
`A hearing was held on the parties’ claim construction disputes on July 18, 2019 and the
`disputed matters were taken under submission.1
`The Court would construe the disputed terms as stated herein.
`BACKGROUND
`The five patents asserted against both Google Defendants and Adobe are U.S. Patent Nos.
`7,386,046 (“the ’046 Patent”), 8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”), 9,578,298 (“the ’298 Patent”),
`9,769,477 (“the ’477 Patent”), and RE46,777 (“the R777 Patent”). See Docket No. 37; Case No.
`18-09344, Docket No. 53. The two patents additionally asserted against Adobe are U.S. Patent
`Nos. 9,762,907 (“the ’907 Patent”) and 8,929,442 (“the ’442 Patent”). See Case No. 18-09344,
`Docket No. 53.
`
`II.
`
`1 At the hearing, the parties were provided with a Tentative Ruling reflecting the Court’s thoughts regarding
`the parties’ disputes. The Tentative Ruling is not a final ruling of the Court.
`
`1 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 2 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:2973
`
`A. The Fallon Patents
`The ’535, ’477, ’907, and ’442 Patents are each a continuation patent that claims priority
`back to the ’046 Patent. Both parties colloquially refer to these five patents as “the Fallon Patents”
`based on their first named inventor, James Fallon. As continuation patents, they share substantially
`the same specification.
`The Fallon Patents generally disclose systems and methods allowing for the selection
`between known data compression and decompression methods. See, e.g., ’535 Patent at Abstract.2
`The technology described and claimed by the Fallon patents will be explained in further detail in
`the later sections of this Ruling.
`In its operative pleadings, Realtime alleges that one or more Defendants infringe at least
`Claim 40 of the ’046 Patent, Claims 1 and 15 of the ’535 Patent, Claim 1 of the’477 and ’907
`Patents, and Claim 8 of the ’442 Patent. See Docket No. 37 ¶¶ 34, 52; Case No. 18-09344, Docket
`No. 53 ¶¶ 50, 57, 68, 75, 105, 112, 123, 130. The parties’ claim construction arguments primarily
`focus on the following asserted claims: Claims 1 and 23 of the ’046 Patent, Claims 1 and 14 of the
`’535 Patent, Claims 1, 16, 17, 20, and 22 of the ’477 Patent, and Claim 1 of the ’907 Patent. 3 See,
`e.g., Docket Nos. 69, 70.
`The ’046 Patent is titled “Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression.”
`Claim 1 of the ’046 Patent states:
`1. A method comprising:
`compressing data using a first compression routine providing a first
`compression rate, wherein
`the first compression routine
`comprises a first compression algorithm;
`tracking the throughput of a data processing system to determine if the
`first compression rate provides a throughput that meets a
`predetermined throughput threshold, wherein said tracking
`throughput comprises tracking a number of pending requests for
`data transmission; and
`when the tracked throughput does not meet the predetermined throughput
`threshold, compressing data using a second compression routine
`providing a second compression rate that is greater than the first
`compression rate, to increase the throughput of the data
`processing system to at least the predetermined throughput level,
`
`2 Because the Fallon Patents share substantially the same specification and the parties generally cite to the
`’535 Patent, the Court will do the same unless otherwise noted.
`
`3 The parties have not presented any disputed terms for the fifth Fallon Patent, the ’442 Patent, titled “System
`and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution.” Thus, the ’442 Patent is not further discussed in this Order.
`
`2 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 3 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:2974
`
`wherein the second compression routine comprises a second
`compression algorithm.
`
`’046 Patent at Claim 1.
`The ’535 Patent is titled “Systems and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and
`Distribution.” Claim 1 of the ’535 Patent states:
`1. A method, comprising:
`determining a parameter or attribute of at least a portion of a data block
`having audio or video data;
`selecting an access profile from among a plurality of access profiles
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute; and
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block with one or more
`compressors using asymmetric data compression and information
`from the selected access profile to create one or more compressed
`data blocks, the information being indicative of the one or more
`compressors to apply to the at least the portion of the data block.
`
`’535 Patent at Claim 1.
`The ’477 Patent is titled “Video Data Compression Systems.” Claim 1 of the ’477 Patent
`
`states:
`
`1. A system, comprising:
`a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders,
`wherein each asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of
`different asymmetric data compression encoders is configured to
`utilize one or more data compression algorithms, and
`wherein a first asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of
`different asymmetric data compression encoders is configured to
`compress data blocks containing video or image data at a higher
`data compression rate
`than a second asymmetric data
`compression encoder of the plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression encoders; and
`one or more processors configured to:
`determine one or more data parameters, at least one of the
`determined one or more data parameters relating to a
`throughput of a communications channel measured in bits
`per second; and
`select one or more asymmetric data compression encoders from
`among
`the plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression encoders based upon, at least in part, the
`determined one or more data parameters.
`
`’477 Patent at Claim 1.
`The ’907 Patent is titled “System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution.”
`
`3 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 4 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:2975
` 
`
`Claim 1 of the ’907 Patent states:
`1. A system comprising:
`one or more different asymmetric data compression algorithms, wherein
`each algorithm of the one or more different asymmetric data
`compression algorithms utilizes one or more asymmetric data
`compression routines of a plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression
`routines, wherein a
`first asymmetric data
`compression routine of the plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression routines is configured to produce compressed data
`with a higher data rate for a given data throughput than a second
`asymmetric data compression routine of the plurality of different
`asymmetric data compression routines; and
`a processor configured:
`to analyze one or more data parameters from one or more data
`blocks containing video data, wherein at least one data
`parameter relates to an expected or anticipated throughput
`of a communications channel; and
`to select two or more different data compression routines from
`among a plurality of different data compression routines
`based upon, at least in part, the one or more data
`parameters relating to the expected or anticipated
`throughput of the communications channel.
`
`
`’907 Patent at Claim 1.
`B. The R777 Patent
`The R777 Patent is titled “Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding.” It discloses video
`encoding methods that rely on a “quantization” process and the calculation of “quantization
`efficiency” for those processes. See R777 Patent at 1:14-16, 4:10-25.
`In its operative pleadings, Realtime alleges that one or more Defendants infringe at least
`Claim 1 of the R777 Patent. See Docket No. 37 ¶ 72; Case No. 18-09344, Docket No. 53 ¶¶ 27,
`39. The parties dispute the meaning of two terms in the R777 Patent, both of which appear in
`Claim 11.
`Claim 11 of the R777 Patent states:
`11. A coder for coding a video signal using hybrid coding, comprising:
`means for reducing temporal redundancy by block based motion
`compensated prediction in order to establish a prediction error
`signal,
`a quantizer that quantizes the prediction error signal in order to establish
`quantized values representing samples or coefficients, wherein
`the prediction error signal includes a plurality of subblocks,
`control means for:
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 5 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:2976
`
`calculating a first quantization efficiency of at least one subblock
`of the plurality of subblocks;
`setting the quantized values of the at least one subblock to all
`zeroes;
`calculating a second quantization efficiency for the at least one
`subblock while all of the quantized values are zeroes;
`selecting which of the first and second quantization efficiencies is
`a higher efficiency; and
`selecting, for further proceeding, the at least one subblock with the
`quantized values prior to setting the quantized values of
`the at least one subblock to all zeroes if the first
`quantization efficiency is higher and selecting the at least
`one subblock with the quantized values set to zero, for
`further proceeding, if the second quantization efficiency is
`higher.
`
`R777 Patent at Claim 11 (bracketed language, i.e. language removed from reissued patent claim,
`omitted; emphasis omitted).
`C. The ’298 Patent
`The ’298 Patent is titled “Method for Decoding 2D-Compatible Stereoscopic Video
`Flows.” It relates to “a method for decoding a stereoscopic digital video stream.” ’298 Patent at
`1:8-12. The stereoscopic digital video stream is a video signal produced for 3D display. See Id.
`at 1:19-23. For 3D display, it carries “two independent video streams intended for the right eye
`and for the left eye.” Id. at 1:27-31. Recognizing the need for “2D compatibility of the
`stereoscopic signals,” the ’298 Patent describes “a decoding method that allows extracting a 2D-
`compatible (2D) video signal from a stereoscopic digital video stream.” Id. at 2:10-13, 3:3-5.
`In its operative pleadings, Realtime alleges that one or more Defendants infringe at least
`Claim 1 of the ’298 Patent. See Docket No. 37 ¶ 96; Case No. 18-09344, Docket No. 53 ¶¶ 86,
`94. The parties have one disputed term included in Claim 1 of the ’298 Patent.
`Claim 1 of the ’298 Patent states:
`1. A method for processing a video stream of digital images, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`receiving the video stream which comprises at least one composite frame
`(FC), each composite frame containing a pair of stereoscopic
`digital images (L,R) according to a predetermined frame packing
`format;
`generating an output video stream which can be reproduced on a
`visualization apparatus,
`receiving metadata which determine an area occupied by one of the two
`
`5 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 6 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:2977
` 
`
`images within said composite frame (FC), said metadata
`indicating either a geometry of the frame packing format or a
`frame packing type of said composite frame (FC);
`determining the area in the composite frame (FC) which is occupied by
`said one image of the stereoscopic pair within the composite
`frame based on said metadata;
`decoding only that part of the composite frame (FC) which contains said
`one image to be displayed, and
`generating an output frame containing said decoded image.
`
`
`’298 Patent at Claim 1.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Claim Construction
`Claim construction is an interpretive issue “exclusively within the province of the court.”
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). It is “a question of law in the
`way that we treat document construction as a question of law,” with subsidiary fact-finding
`reviewed for clear error pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
`Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 837-40 (2015). The claim language itself is the best guide to the meaning of
`a claim term. See Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is
`because the claims define the scope of the claimed invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But a “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.” Id. at 1313. Thus, claims “must be read in view of the specification,”
`which is “always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315
`(internal quotations omitted).
`Although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`must not be imported into the claims. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
`2009). “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations can be discerned with
`reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s focus remains on understanding how a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`The prosecution history may lack the clarity of the specification, but it is “another
`established source of intrinsic evidence.” Vederi, 744 F.3d at 1382. “Like the specification, the
`prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted). “Furthermore, like the specification, the prosecution
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 7 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:2978
`
`history was created by the patentee in attempting to explain and obtain the patent.” Id. “Yet
`because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.
`Claim construction usually involves resolving disputes about the “ordinary and customary
`meaning” that the words of the claim would have had “to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal quotations and
`citations omitted). But in some cases, claim terms will not be given their ordinary meaning because
`the specification defines the term to mean something else. “[A] claim term may be clearly
`redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition,” so long as a person of skill in the art can
`ascertain the definition by a reading of the patent documents. Id. at 1320; see also Trustees of
`Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Where the patent itself does not make clear the meaning of a claim term, courts may look
`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,” including the prosecution history and “extrinsic
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of
`the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotations omitted). Sometimes, the use of “technical
`words or phrases not commonly understood” may give rise to a factual dispute, the determination
`of which will precede the ultimate legal question of the significance of the facts to the construction
`“in the context of the specific patent claim under review.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841, 849. “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.” Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1314. “In such circumstances, general purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id.
`B. Indefiniteness
`A patent’s specification must conclude “with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 (2006). In order to meet this
`“definiteness” requirement, “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution
`history, [must] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (“Nautilus I”), 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`
`7 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 8 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:2979
` 
`
`The Supreme Court in Nautilus I emphasized that patents must be precise enough to afford clear
`notice of what is claimed, thereby “appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them,” while
`recognizing that absolute precision is unobtainable given “the inherent limitations of language.”
`Id. at 899, 910 (quoting Markman, 517 U.S. at 373).
`General claim construction principles apply to indefiniteness challenges, but the burdens
`are slightly different. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) (“In the face of an allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of claim construction
`apply”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). While courts construing claim language sit in
`relative equipoise, a patent is “presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282.” Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`v. Nautilus, Inc. (“Nautilus II”), 783 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[C]onsistent with that
`principle, a fact finder is instructed to evaluate . . . whether an invalidity defense has been proved
`by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91,
`111 (2011)) (emphasis added, brackets removed); Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1345
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Because a patent is presumed to be valid, the evidentiary burden . . . is one of
`clear and convincing evidence.”).
`C. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations
`A claim limitation may also be phrased as “a means or step for performing a specified
`function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6; 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).4 Such limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. This “means plus
`function” interpretation applies “only to purely functional limitations that do not provide the
`structure that performs the recited function.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1311. To construe a means-
`plus-function claim, first, “the court must first identify the claimed function.” Williamson v. Citrix
`Online, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Second, “the court must determine what structure,
`if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. Structures in the
`specification are “corresponding structure[s]” when “the intrinsic evidence clearly links or
`associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. at 1352. If the patent does not
`
`                                                            
`4 Section 112 ¶ 6 was renamed as § 112(f) by the America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, which took effect
`on September 16, 2012. One of the relevant patents in this case for purposes of the parties’ means-plus-function
`dispute was filed after the America Invents Act took effect, while the other patents have priority dates to applications
`filed before the Act took effect. As such, the § 112, ¶ 6 and § 112(f) nomenclature are used section-by-section
`depending on the asserted patent(s) at issue.
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 9 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:2980
` 
`
`disclose an “adequate corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite.” Id.
`IV. ANALYSIS
`A. Agreed Terms
`The parties have agreed on constructions for the following terms. Docket No. 44; Case
`No. 18-09344, Docket No. 63.
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Parties’ Agreed Construction
`
`“compressing” / “compress[ed]” /
`“compression” (All asserted claims)
`
`“means for reducing temporal redundancy by
`block based motion compensated prediction
`in order to establish a prediction error signal”
`(R777 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`[representing / represented / representation] of
`data with fewer bits
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Function: reducing temporal redundancy by
`block based motion compensated prediction
`in order to establish a prediction error signal
`
`Corresponding structure: adder, subtractor,
`and equivalents thereof
`
`
`B. Disputed Terms
`1. “access profile” (’535 Patent Claims 1, 14)
`
`Realtime’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`
`
`“information that enables the controller to
`select a suitable compression algorithm that
`provides a desired balance between execution
`speed (rate compression) and efficiency
`(compression ratio)”
`
`
`“information regarding the number or
`frequency of reads or writes”
`
`
`The term “access profile” appears in Claims 1 and 14 of the ’535 Patent. Again, Claim 1
`of the ’535 Patent states:
`1. A method, comprising:
`determining a parameter or attribute of at least a portion of a data block
`having audio or video data;
`selecting an access profile from among a plurality of access profiles
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute; and
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block with one or more
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 10 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:2981
`
`compression and
`asymmetric data
`compressors using
`information from the selected access profile to create one or
`more compressed data blocks, the information being indicative of
`the one or more compressors to apply to the at least the portion
`of the data block.
`
`’535 Patent at Claim 1 (emphasis added). Claim 14 of the ’535 Patent is another independent
`method claim that similarly refers to “selecting an access profile from among a plurality of access
`profiles based upon the determined parameter or attribute.” See ’535 Patent at Claim 14.
`The parties appear to be in agreement that the term “access profile” as it is used in the
`Fallon Patents is essentially a coined term. See Docket No. 73 at 3 (recognizing that Defendants
`assert the term “access profile” “has no ordinary meaning” and not rebutting that assertion); Docket
`No. 74 at 2. The parties, however, disagree about what construction is mandated by the disclosure
`in the patent specification.
`To support its proposal, Plaintiff refers to a portion of the patent specification that states:
`In another aspect, a system for providing bandwidth sensitive data
`compression comprises a plurality of access profiles, operatively accessible
`by the controller that enables the controller to determine a compression
`routine that is associated with a data type of the data to be compressed. The
`access profiles comprise information that enables the controller to select a
`suitable compression algorithm that provides a desired balance between
`execution speed (rate of compression) and efficiency (compression ratio).
`
`’535 Patent at 8:4-12.
`Defendants’ proposal, meanwhile, is based on some later passages of the specification. In
`describing Figure 1, the specification states that it “depicts a host system 10 comprising a controller
`11 (e.g., a file management system), a compression/decompression system 12, a plurality of
`compression algorithms 13, a storage medium 14, and a plurality of data profiles 15.” Id. at 10:34-
`38 (emphasis added); see also id. at 11:6-7 (“The controller 11 utilizes information comprising a
`plurality of data profiles.”). The specification goes on to state:
`In a preferred embodiment, the overall throughput (bandwidth) of the host
`system 10 is one factor considered by the controller 11 in deciding whether
`to use an asymmetrical or symmetrical compression algorithm for processing
`data stored to, and retrieved from, the storage medium 14. Another factor that
`is used to determine the compression algorithm is the type of data to be
`processed. In a preferred embodiment, the data profiles 15 comprise
`information regarding predetermined access profiles of different data sets,
`which enables the controller 11 to select a suitable compression algorithm
`
`10 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 11 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:2982
` 
`
`based on the data type. For instance, the data profiles may comprise a map
`that associates different data types (based on, e.g., a file extension) with
`preferred one(s) of the compression algorithms 13. For example, preferred
`access profiles considered by the controller 11 are set forth in the following
`table.
`
`
`Id. at 11:25-48 (emphasis added). The specification explains each of the preferred access profiles
`and then goes on to state:
`The following table summarizes the three data access profiles and the type
`of compression algorithm that would produce optimum throughput.
`
`Id. at 12:47-67 (emphasis added).
`
`In a later passage, the ’535 Patent refers back to the access profiles described in these tables.
`It states:
`
`
`
`With the above-described method depicted in FIG. 2, the selection of the
`compression routine is performed automatically . . . . In another embodiment,
`a user . . . can command the system . . . to utilize a desired compression routine
`. . . . Alternatively, the system can detect the type of data being installed or
`stored to disk (via file extension, etc.) and automatically select an
`appropriate algorithm using the Access Profile information as described
`above. For instance, the user could indicate to the controller that the data
`being installed comprises an application program which the controller would
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 12 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:2983
` 
`
`determine falls under Access Profile 1.
`
`Id. at 14:27-42 (emphasis added).
`
`Defendants state that technical dictionaries for the term “access” in the context of the
`relevant technology area also support their proposed construction. Docket No. 69 at 12 n.4 (citing
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 13 (6th ed. 2003), Docket No. 69-6 at
`4 (defining “access” as “[t]he reading of data from storage or the writing of data into storage”);
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 6 (7th ed. 2000), Docket No. 69-7 at 4
`(defining “access” as “the process of obtaining data from or placing data into a storage device”);
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary 13 (5th ed. 2002), Docket No. 69-8 at 4 (defining “access” as
`“[t]he act of reading data from or writing data to memory”)); Declaration of Dr. Iain E. Richardson
`in Support of Defendants’ Claim Constructions (“Richardson Decl.”), Docket No. 69-2 ¶ 35.
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction refers to a portion of the patent specification that is not
`definitional (it uses the claim-drafting term “comprises”) and, as Defendants note, only provides
`information about the intended use of an access profile rather than what information is actually
`included in an access profile. The specification’s proffered example of three types of “access
`profiles” is also generally consistent with the technical definitions of “access” submitted by
`Defendants. Although Defendants appear to acknowledge that the phrase “access profile” need
`not be limited to the exact three examples provided in the specification, the technical meaning of
`“access” and its consistency with what is disclosed in the intrinsic record factually support the
`conclusion that the term “access” should be given the same meaning in the context of the coined
`phrase “access profile” as it generally has in this field.
`
`However, the Court still has some concerns with Defendants’ (and also Plaintiff’s)
`proposal. The disclosure in the specification supports the conclusion that the word “profile” as it
`is used in the phrase “access profile” also has meaning. That meaning does not necessarily appear
`to be captured by the phrase “information regarding.” The parties do not appear to otherwise
`dispute the meaning of the word “profile” and the Court is not persuaded on the current record that
`construction of the word “profile” itself is necessary.
`
`The Court is separately concerned that using the words “reads” and “writes” in a
`construction for this term would not be helpful to a lay juror, who would likely be unfamiliar with
`their specific meaning in the context of the claimed technology.
`Accordingly, the term “access profile” is construed as “profile relating to the number
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2019
`IPR2018-01342
`Page 13 of 37
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC Document 84 Filed 07/25/19 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:2984
`
`and/or frequency at which information is obtained (“read”) or placed (“written”).”
`2. “data profile” (’477 Patent Claim 17)
`
`Realtime’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Alternatively: “information associating
`data with a compression algorithm”
`
`“information associating an access profile
`with a compression/decompression
`algorithm”
`
`The term “data profile” appears only in asserted dependent Claim 17 of the ’477 Patent.
`Claim 17 depends from Claim 1 of the ’477 Patent. Together, these claims state in relevant part:
`
`1. A system, comprising:
`. . .
`one or more processors configured to:
`determine one or more data parameters, at least one of the
`determined one or more data parameters relating to a
`throughput of a communications channel measured in
`bits per second; and
`select one or more asymmetric data compres