`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIAN CORPORATION ET AL.,
`ACTIAN CORPORATION ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, and HP ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, and HP ENTERPRISE
`SERVICES, LLC,
`SERVICES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-463
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-463
`RWS-JDL
`RWS-JDL
`
`LEAD CASE
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-88
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-88
`RWS-JDL
`RWS-JDL
`
`LEAD CASE
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`TYLER DIVISION
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This claim construction opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent No.
`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.
`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
`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
`No. 9,116,908 (“the ’908 Patent”). Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC alleges that Defendants
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`Page 1
`
`NETFLIX, INC
`Exhibit 1014
`IPR2018-01630
`
`

`

`infringe the asserted patents.1 Plaintiff filed an opening claim construction brief (Doc. No.
`infringe the asserted patents.' 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.
`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.
`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
`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
`consideration of the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the
`
`constructions set forth below.
`constructions set forth below.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`
`Plaintiff contends that Defendants literally infringe the asserted patents. The '992 and
`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
`’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
`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
`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
`’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
`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
`Systems and Methods.” Claims 1 and 15 of the ’513 patent are representative and recite as
`
`follows:
`follows:
`
`1. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks, comprising:
`1. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks, comprising:
`analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when an
`analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when an
`appropriate content independent compression algorithm is
`appropriate content independent compression algorithm is
`to be applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`to be applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`applying the appropriate content independent data compression
`applying the appropriate content independent data compression
`algorithm to a portion of the plurality of data blocks to
`algorithm to a portion of the plurality of data blocks to
`provide a compressed data portion;
`provide a compressed data portion;
`analyzing a data block from another portion of the plurality of
`analyzing a data block from another portion of the plurality of
`data blocks for recognition of any characteristic, attribute,
`data blocks for recognition of any characteristic, attribute,
`or parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content
`or parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content
`dependent algorithm to apply to the data block; and
`dependent algorithm to apply to the data block; and
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression
`algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed data
`algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed data
`
`
`1 Defendants include: EchoStar Corporation, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., HP
`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
`Enterprise Services, LLC, Riverbed Technology, Inc., Dell Inc., Oracle America, Inc., SAP America, Inc., and
`Sybase, Inc.
`Sybase, Inc.
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`block when the characteristic, attribute, or parameter is
`block when the characteristic, attribute, or parameter is
`identified,
`identified,
`wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize
`wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize
`when the appropriate content independent compression
`when the appropriate content independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied excludes analyzing based only on
`algorithm is to be applied excludes analyzing based only on
`a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter, and
`parameter, and
`wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize the any
`wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize the any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter excludes analyzing
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter excludes analyzing
`based only on the descriptor.
`based only on the descriptor.
`
`
`
`15. A device for compressing data comprising:
`15. A device for compressing data comprising:
`a first circuit configured to analyze a plurality of data blocks to
`a first circuit configured to analyze a plurality of data blocks to
`recognize when an appropriate content
`independent
`recognize when an appropriate content
`independent
`compression algorithm is to be applied to the plurality of
`compression algorithm is to be applied to the plurality of
`data blocks;
`data blocks;
`a second circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`a second circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the
`independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the
`plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed data
`plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed data
`portion;
`portion;
`a third circuit configured to analyze a data block from another
`a third circuit configured to analyze a data block from another
`portion of the plurality of data blocks for recognition of any
`portion of the plurality of data blocks for recognition of any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply to the
`appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply to the
`data block; and
`data block; and
`a fourth circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`a fourth circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`dependent data compression algorithm to the data block to
`dependent data compression algorithm to the data block to
`provide a compressed data block when
`the any
`provide a compressed data block when
`the any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter is identified,
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the first circuit is further configured to analyze the
`wherein the first circuit is further configured to analyze the
`plurality of data blocks to recognize when the appropriate
`plurality of data blocks to recognize when the appropriate
`content independent compression algorithm is to be applied
`content independent compression algorithm is to be applied
`by excluding analyzing based only on a descriptor
`by excluding analyzing based only on a descriptor
`indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter,
`indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter,
`and
`and
`wherein the third circuit is further configured to analyze the
`wherein the third circuit is further configured to analyze the
`data block to recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or
`data block to recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter by excluding analyzing based only on the
`parameter by excluding analyzing based only on the
`descriptor.
`descriptor.
`
`
`The '812 Patent is entitled "System and Method for Lossless Data Compression and
`The ’812 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Lossless Data Compression and
`
`
`
`Decompression" and relates "generally to data compression and decompression and, more
`Decompression” and relates “generally to data compression and decompression and, more
`
`particularly to systems and methods for providing lossless data compression and decompression
`particularly to systems and methods for providing lossless data compression and decompression
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`using a combination of dictionary and run length encoding." '812 Patent at 1:13-17. Claim 1 of
`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:
`the ’812 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`
`1. A method for compressing input data comprising a plurality of
`1. A method for compressing input data comprising a plurality of
`data blocks, the method comprising the steps of:
`data blocks, the method comprising the steps of:
`detecting if the input data comprises a run-length sequence of
`detecting if the input data comprises a run-length sequence of
`data blocks;
`data blocks;
`outputting an encoded run-length sequence, if a run-length
`outputting an encoded run-length sequence, if a run-length
`sequence of data blocks is detected;
`sequence of data blocks is detected;
`maintaining a dictionary comprising a plurality of code words,
`maintaining a dictionary comprising a plurality of code words,
`wherein each code word in the dictionary is associated with
`wherein each code word in the dictionary is associated with
`a unique data block string;
`a unique data block string;
`building a data block string from at least one data block in the
`building a data block string from at least one data block in the
`input data that is not part of a run-length sequence;
`input data that is not part of a run-length sequence;
`searching for a code word in the dictionary having a unique
`searching for a code word in the dictionary having a unique
`data block string associated therewith that matches the built
`data block string associated therewith that matches the built
`data block string; and
`data block string; and
`outputting the code word representing the built data block
`outputting the code word representing the built data block
`string.
`string.
`
`
`The '530 and '908 Patents are both entitled "System and Methods for Accelerated Data
`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
`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
`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
`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:
`’530 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`
`1. A system comprising:
`1. A system comprising:
`a memory device; and
`a memory device; and
`a data accelerator, wherein said data accelerator is coupled to
`a data accelerator, wherein said data accelerator is coupled to
`said memory device, a data stream is received by said data
`said memory device, a data stream is received by said data
`accelerator in received form, said data stream includes a
`accelerator in received form, said data stream includes a
`first data block and a second data block, said data stream is
`first data block and a second data block, said data stream is
`compressed by said data accelerator
`to provide a
`compressed by said data accelerator
`to provide a
`compressed data stream by compressing said first data
`compressed data stream by compressing said first data
`block with a first compression technique and said second
`block with a first compression technique and said second
`data block with a second compression technique, said first
`data block with a second compression technique, said first
`and second compression techniques are different, said
`and second compression techniques are different, said
`compressed data stream is stored on said memory device,
`compressed data stream is stored on said memory device,
`said compression and storage occurs faster than said data
`said compression and storage occurs faster than said data
`stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said
`stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said
`received form, a first data descriptor is stored on said
`received form, a first data descriptor is stored on said
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`indicative of said first compression
`memory device
`indicative of said first compression
`memory device
`technique, and said first descriptor is utilized to decompress
`technique, and said first descriptor is utilized to decompress
`the portion of said compressed data stream associated with
`the portion of said compressed data stream associated with
`said first data block.
`said first data block.
`
`
`Claim 1 of the '908 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`Claim 1 of the ’908 patent is representative and recites as follows:
`
`
`1. A system comprising:
`1. A system comprising:
`a memory device; and
`a memory device; and
`a data accelerator, configured to compress: (i) a first data block
`a data accelerator, configured to compress: (i) a first data block
`with a first compression technique to provide a first
`with a first compression technique to provide a first
`compressed data block; and (ii) a second data block with a
`compressed data block; and (ii) a second data block with a
`second compression technique, different from the first
`second compression technique, different from the first
`compression technique, to provide a second compressed
`compression technique, to provide a second compressed
`data block;
`data block;
`wherein the compressed first and second data blocks are stored
`wherein the compressed first and second data blocks are stored
`on the memory device, and the compression and storage
`on the memory device, and the compression and storage
`occurs faster than the first and second data blocks are able
`occurs faster than the first and second data blocks are able
`to be stored on the memory device in uncompressed form.
`to be stored on the memory device in uncompressed form.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`"It is a 'bedrock principle' of patent law that 'the claims of a patent define the invention
`“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,
`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
`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
`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
`the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313-1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Intrinsic evidence includes
`Commc'ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`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
`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
`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
`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,
`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.
`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
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`highly instructive." Id. Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional
`highly instructive.” Id. Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional
`
`instruction because "terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent."
`Id.
`instruction because “terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id.
`
`Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide
`Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide
`
`further guidance. Id.
`further guidance. Id.
`
`"[C]laims 'must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." 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
`(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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`the patentee acts as his own lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite
`
`Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms "where the ordinary and
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
`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
`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.
`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.
`1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`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
`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
`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-
`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
`established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through
`
`claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution." Omega Eng'g Inc. v.
`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
`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
`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.
`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.
`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.")
`2003) (“The disclaimer . . . must be effected with ‘reasonable clarity and deliberateness.’”)
`
`(citations omitted)). "Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an
`(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
`applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.” Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d
`
`"As a basic principle of claim
`1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).
`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
`interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic
`
`evidence and protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution."
`evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”
`
`Omega Eng'g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.
`Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.
`
`Although "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`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
`meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`the relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`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
`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
`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,
`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
`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
`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
`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.
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
`
`In patent construction, "subsidiary fact finding is sometimes necessary" and the court
`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
`“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
`(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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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
`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,
`extrinsic evidence in consideration of the “evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction,
`
`those findings are reviewed for clear error on appeal. Id.
`those findings are reviewed for clear error on appeal. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`DISCUSSION
`DISCUSSION
`
`The parties dispute the meaning of the following claim terms:
` The parties dispute the meaning of the following claim terms:
`
`
`" recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`I.
`“recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`I.
`appropriate content dependent algorithm" ('513 Patent, Claims 1 & 15)
`appropriate content dependent algorithm” (’513 Patent, Claims 1 & 15)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposal
`Term/Phrase
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`Term/Phrase
`No construction necessary.
`recognition of any
`No construction necessary.
`recognition of any
`characteristic,
`
`characteristic,
`Alternatively: Recognition of any
`attribute, or
`Alternatively: Recognition of any
`attribute, or
`data type, data structure, data
`parameter that is
`data type, data structure, data
`parameter that is
`block format, file substructure,
`indicative of an
`block format, file substructure,
`indicative of an
`file type, and/or any other
`appropriate content
`file type, and/or any other
`appropriate content
`dependent algorithm parameter that is indicative of an
`parameter that is indicative of an
`dependent algorithm
`appropriate content d