Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:14096
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.: CV 16-08033-AB (FFMx)
`
`Date: September 23, 2019
`
`Title: Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.
` \
`Present: The Honorable ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge
`Carla Badirian
`N/A
`Court Reporter
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`None Appearing
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`None Appearing
`
`Proceedings:
`
`[IN CHAMBERS] CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Plaintiff Nomadix, Inc. (“Nomadix”) and Defendant Guest-Tek Interactive
`Entertainment Ltd. (“Guest-Tek”) have filed claim construction briefs regarding ten
`groupings of disputed claim terms found in six asserted patents assigned to Nomadix: (1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266 (“the ’266 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,725,899 (“the ’899
`Patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,606,917 (“the ’917 Patent”); (4) U.S. Patent No.
`7,953,857 (“the ’857 Patent”); (5) U.S. Patent No. 8,626,922 (“the ’922 Patent”); and (6)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,399 (“the ’399 Patent”).
`After presenting some disputes relating to their claim construction disclosures, the
`parties filed an amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. (“Joint
`Statement,” Dkt. 350.) The parties filed their Opening Claim Construction briefs on July
`12, 2019. (“Nomadix’s Opening Brief,” Dkt. 363; “Guest-Tek’s Opening Brief,” Dkt.
`365.) The parties filed Responsive Claim Construction Briefs on July 26, 2019.
`(“Nomadix’s Response Brief,” Dkt. 374; “Guest-Tek’s Response Brief,” Dkt. 377.) A
`hearing was held on August 22, 2019 and the matter was taken under submission.
`The disputed terms are construed as set forth in this Order.
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`1
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`GUEST TEK EXHIBIT 1025
`Guest Tek v Nomadix, IPR2019-00211
`
`

`

`
`claimed “then” limitation. If an intervening and unrecited condition is instead solely
`responsible for triggering the “then” limitation to occur, the claimed “if” limitation loses
`its meaning.
`
`Regarding the parties’ “temporal limitation” dispute, Guest-Tek does not re-urge
`
`its position on this issue in its responsive claim construction brief. As Nomadix notes, as
`a matter of semantics, adding a “sometime afterward” limitation does not make sense in
`the claims for certain of the “if” conditions. (Dkt. No. 363 at 21 (“the phrase ‘if the
`source IP address is not included in a profile associated with an authorized source device’
`merely tests an assertion. It does not mark the occurrence of an event and therefore
`cannot mark the beginning of a time period.”). The Court agrees.
`
`The Court finds that no construction is necessary for the “if . . . then . . .” clauses,
`
`with the understanding that the plain meaning of the terms “if” and “then” do require a
`causal relationship between the relevant claim limitations.
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 26 of 39 Page ID
` #:14121
`
`6.
`
`“calculate a delay period associated with a received packet” (’857
`Patent, Claim 1; ’922 Patent, Claim 1) / “calculating a delay period
`associated with the packet” (’857 Patent, Claim 9; ’922 Patent, Claim
`9)
`
`
`
`Nomadix’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary, but if the
`Court is inclined to construe the term,
`then the term should be construed to
`mean: “calculate a period of time based
`on which a received packet’s
`transmission will be delayed”
`
`Guest-Tek’s Proposed Construction
`“mathematically determine a length of
`time to delay transmission of a
`received packet”
`
`
`The parties have two disputes regarding the meaning of these terms. First, Guest-
`
`Tek strongly urges that the term “calculate” be construed as “mathematically determine.”
`Second, Guest-Tek argues that Nomadix’s alternative proposal, by using the phrase
`“period of time based on . . .” would broaden the meaning of “delay period” beyond its
`plain meaning.
`
`The Court notes that although Nomadix does not necessarily concede that
`
`“calculate” means “mathematically determine,” it does not strongly dispute it, either.
`(See Dkt. No. 374 at 18 (“Even assuming mathematically determine does not change the
`meaning of calculate in this context, calculate is much more intuitive to a lay juror and
`does not require further elaboration. Guest-Tek fails to identify any aspect of calculate
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`26
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 27 of 39 Page ID
` #:14122
`
`that mathematically determine would clarify.” (emphasis in original)).) Ultimately, at
`least based on the limited information presented by the parties regarding the impact of a
`particular construction on dispositive issues in this case,2 the Court agrees with
`Nomadix’s position regarding juror understandability and is not persuaded at this time by
`Guest-Tek’s arguments that the term “calculate” requires construction in the manner it
`urges.
`
`Regarding the parties’ second dispute, a review of the claim language in context is
`helpful. Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent states:
`
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically control an amount of
`bandwidth available to the user in a network, the system comprising:
`. . .
`a processor configured to calculate a delay period associated with a
`received packet based on the network communication
`bandwidth associated with the user, and the processor further
`configured to delay transmission of the packet based on the
`delay period to prevent the user device from achieving a
`bandwidth greater than the network communication
`bandwidth associated with the user device.
`
`’922 Patent, Claim 1. Claim 9 of the ’922 Patent states:
`
`9. A method of dynamically managing transmission of packets, the method
`comprising:
`. . .
`associating a data transmission parameter with the user device, the
`data transmission parameter being retrieved from a user profile
`associated with the user;
`receiving a packet and calculating a delay period associated with the
`packet based on the data transmission parameter; and
`delaying transmission of the packet based on the delay period to
`prevent the user device from achieving a data transmission
`greater than the data transmission parameter associated with the
`
`2 Guest-Tek argues with citation that “Nomadix alleges that Guest-Tek’s accused
`products somehow ‘calculate’ a delay period even though they do not mathematically
`determine any delay period.” (Dkt. No. 377 at 14.) Without additional information and
`clarification regarding the parties’ position and dispute, the Court declines to rely on this
`assertion as a basis to construe the claims.
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (12/02)
`27
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 28 of 39 Page ID
` #:14123
`
`user device and retrieved from the user profile associated with
`the user.
`
`’922 Patent, Claim 9; see also ’857 Patent, Claim 9.
`
`The claims thus require (1) calculating a delay period and (2) delaying
`transmission based on the delay period, with the specific requirement in place that
`delaying transmission, for instance, “prevent[s] the user device from achieving a data
`transmission greater than the data transmission parameter associated with the user device
`and retrieved from the user profile associated with the user.”
`
`Guest-Tek argues, in essence, that the “delay period” must be the exact length of
`time “to delay transmission of a received packet.” Nomadix argues that this
`characterization of the claim language would narrow it. Nomadix refers on a portion of
`the specification explaining that delays can be implemented using “ring buffers.” The
`specification explains that in a preferred embodiment, “the virtual queue is implemented
`by a ring buffer having 120 time slots (set to equal the number of system ticks), each slot
`being 1/60th of a second. Thus, the ring buffer can delay delivery of a packet up to two
`seconds.” ’857 Patent at 12:32–35. Nomadix explains that in this example, because the
`ring buffers have set time slots (1/60th of a second, in this example) a packet may be
`assigned to a particular ring buffer based on a “delay period,” but the delay “may not
`correspond to the exact delay period calculated.” (Dkt. No. 374 at 18.) Nomadix
`provides this explanation in its responsive claim construction brief, and it is not an aspect
`of the disclosure that is addressed by Guest-Tek. The Court agrees, however, that the
`claim language itself is consistent with this embodiment by requiring that transmission is
`delayed “based on the delay period,” not requiring that the delay be exactly the same
`period of time as the calculated delay period. The Court thus rejects Guest-Tek’s
`contrary proposal as conflicting with this understanding of the intrinsic record.
`
`Having rejected Guest-Tek’s proposal, the Court opts not to explicitly construe the
`term according to Nomadix’s alternative proposed construction. The Court agrees with
`Guest-Tek that it is largely redundant of the claim language itself and would not
`contribute to a juror’s understanding of this term or the patent claims as a whole.
`Accordingly, “calculat[e]/[ing] a delay period associated with [a received]/[the] packet”
`is not construed.
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`28
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`