Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-09278-JPO
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL
`SHAMOS IN SUPPORT OF ROVI
`GUIDES, INC.; ROVI
`TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; AND
`VEVEO, INC.’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.; ROVI
`
`TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; and VEVEO, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`COMCAST CORPORATION; COMCAST
`CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC;
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
`MANAGEMENT, LLC; COMCAST OF
`HOUSTON, LLC; COMCAST BUSINESS
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; COMCAST
`HOLDINGS CORPORATION; COMCAST
`SHARED SERVICES, LLC; ARRIS
`INTERNATIONAL PLC; ARRIS GROUP
`INC.; ARRIS TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ARRIS
`ENTERPRISES LLC.; ARRIS SOLUTIONS,
`INC.; PACE LTD.; PACE AMERICAS
`HOLDINGS, INC.; PACE AMERICAS
`INVESTMENTS, LLC; PACE AMERICAS,
`LLC; TECHNICOLOR SA; TECHNICOLOR
`USA, INC.; and TECHNICOLOR
`CONNECTED HOME USA LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL SHAMOS
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Michael Shamos, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am Michael Shamos, Ph.D. of the Institute for Software Research in the School
`
`of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. I have been retained by McKool Smith,
`
`attorneys for Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corp., and Veveo, Inc. (collectively, “Rovi”),
`
`to provide expert opinions in the above-captioned litigation. The statements of fact made in this
`
`declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and analysis.
`
`2.
`
`I am employed as a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, where I research and
`
`teach in the Computer Science department. I receive $550/hour for my work preparing this
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 11
`
`declaration; that compensation is not dependent on the content of my declaration or the outcome
`
`of this litigation. I have no financial interest in any of the parties to this litigation1.
`
`3.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Yale, where I studied
`
`computer science. My CV listing my education, employment and other related details is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`4.
`
`I have read and am familiar with U.S. Patent Numbers 8,713,595 (“the ’595
`
`patent”), 8,755,666 (“the ’666 patent”), and 9,172,987 (“the ’987 patent”), their file histories, the
`
`technical materials discussed herein (e.g. the books and dictionaries), and other technical
`
`materials concerning interactive program guides. I have also read and am familiar with both
`
`Rovi and Defendants’ positions regarding construction of certain claim terms for the ’595, ’666,
`
`and the ’987 patents (collectively, the “Patents”). My opinions are also based on my background
`
`and experience.
`
`5.
`
`I will consider these patents as would a person having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. I have considered the specifications and claims of the Patents. It is my
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to understand the specifications and in
`
`order to make and use the claimed inventions without undue experimentation, would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two
`
`to three years of experience relating to electronic content delivery, such as experience with
`
`design or technical analysis of cable or satellite television systems, set-top boxes, multimedia
`
`systems or electronic program guides, or any equivalent knowledge, training, and/or experience.
`
`6.
`
`Based on my knowledge of the subject matter of the Patents, I consider myself to
`
`be a person having at least ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`1 It is possible that I own mutual funds that may at times invest in one or more of the parties to
`this litigation. I have no opportunity to direct or control such investments.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 11
`
`7.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the term “tuner,” as
`
`used in the ’595 patent, and it does not need construction. A tuner is an electronic circuit that
`
`enables a device to selectively receive a signal out of a selection of a plurality of signals.
`
`Specifically, it means “an electronic circuit used to selectively receive RF signals in a desired
`
`frequency channel and convert them into audio and video signals.” Should the Court determine
`
`that the term needs construction at all, it should be construed as “an electronic circuit used to
`
`selectively receive RF signals in a desired frequency channel and convert them into audio and
`
`video signals.”
`
`8.
`
`In proceeding at the International Trade Commission, in which I participated,
`
`Defendants proposed that the term “tuner,” as used in U.S. Patent No. 8,621,512 (“’512 patent”),
`
`be construed as “an electronic circuit used to selectively receive RF signals in a desired
`
`frequency channel and convert them into audio and video signals.”.
`
`9.
`
`Three of the four inventors of the ’595 patent are inventors of the ’512 patent,
`
`they all worked for the assignee, United Video Properties, Inc., and the two patents claim priority
`
`to filings in the late 1990’s. Because the inventors used the term in multiple patent applications
`
`drawn to closely-related technologies in the same manner, the term “tuner” should be construed
`
`identically across these patents.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants assert that the term “wherein a/said set-top box includes two tuners” is
`
`indefinite. Defendants themselves, however, have proposed constructions for both the terms
`
`“tuner” and “set-top box” in this litigation. Read in light of the specification, and because
`
`Defendants themselves are able to construe the terms “tuner” and “set-top box” unambiguously,
`
`the proposed term “wherein a/said set-top box includes two tuners” is not indefinite because it
`
`informs one of ordinary skill that there are two tuners inside a/said set-top box.
`
`11.
`
`As understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the ’666 Patent uses the term
`
`“content source” as another name for a “transmission link for a plurality of content providers.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 11
`
`The specification then provides several examples of data being “transmitted over…” the
`
`“transmission link.” See e.g., Dkt. 1-2 (’666 Patent) at 15:53-61 (“The program guide
`
`information may, for example, be encapsulated as component object model (COM) objects and
`
`persisted to files that are transmitted over remote access link 19. In another approach, access
`
`communications may include HTML formatted markup language documents (e.g., web pages),
`
`that are exchanged between remote program guide access device 24 and interactive television
`
`program guide equipment via Internet service system 61.” (emphasis added)); id. at 12:66-13:53
`
`(discussing the types of transmission links over which data can be sent). Thus, the ’666 Patent
`
`describes multiple transmission links over which content may be provided—the “content source”
`
`within the context of these claims is being used to describe the transmission link over which
`
`content is provided. Any other definition of the term renders the claims nonsensical. Id.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants assert that the term “formatted based on a characteristic of the display
`
`device” is indefinite. I cannot understand Defendants’ position. Different display devices
`
`require content to be formatted differently. For example, the screen of a cellphone is much
`
`smaller than that of a television set. The ’666 Patent teaches that, because not all display devices
`
`have the same display properties (e.g., screen size, potential resolution, etc.), the video frames
`
`may be formatted based on the characteristics of the display device. See e.g., Dkt. 1-2 (’666
`
`Patent) at 12;5-10: “Display device 45 may be a television, monitor, or other suitable display
`
`device. To access the features of the program guide, the user instructs the program guide
`
`implemented on interactive television program guide equipment 17 to generate a main menu or
`
`other desired program guide 10 display screen for display on display device 45.” One of skill in
`
`the art would understand that generating a display for a device necessarily would take into
`
`account one or more characteristics of that device. For example, the sizing of a transmission to
`
`properly fit a display is well understood within the art.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 11
`
`13.
`
`Turning to the “markup language” term, Defendants’ proposal improperly adds in
`
`the limitation that a “markup language” must be a “system.” There is no basis whatsoever for
`
`such a limitation in the ’987 Patent; a person of ordinary skill would understand a “markup
`
`language” to be computer language, not a “system.” For example, the English language is a
`
`language, not a system. In fact, no computer language is ever referred to as a “system,” which is
`
`an apparatus term, and Defendants have not cited any basis at all for their assertion that a
`
`language is a “system.” Defendants further assert that a “markup language document” must be
`
`“self-contained.” The phrase “self-contained” does not appear anywhere in the intrinsic
`
`evidence. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that Defendants had uncovered a definition of
`
`“markup language” that included the phrase “self-contained,” I performed a web search and
`
`found no such definition. In fact, the usual definition of “markup language,” from the 2002
`
`edition of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, is a set of codes in a text file that instructs a
`
`computer how to format the file on a printer or video display or how to index and link its
`
`contents.” There is no indication that such a file must be “self-contained.” In fact, many markup
`
`languages, such as XML, are not self-contained, and require reference to extrinsic files, such as
`
`document type definitions (DTDs). Thus Defendants’ construction is not only baseless but
`
`incorrect.
`
`14.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art, after reviewing the specifications of the ’595
`
`patent and the ’666 patent, would agree with Rovi’s proposed constructions as follows:
`
`• “interactive television program guide” as “guide that allows user navigation
`through and interaction with television program listings and causes display of
`program information on user television equipment based on user commands;”
`• “user equipment having an interactive television program guide implemented
`thereon” as no construction necessary, plain and ordinary meaning;
`• “local interactive program guide equipment” as “equipment on which a [guide
`that allows user navigation through and interaction with television program
`listings and causes display of program information on user television
`equipment based on user commands] is implemented;” and
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 11
`
`• “local interactive program guide” as “guide that allows user navigation
`through and interaction with television program listings and causes display of
`program information on user television equipment based on user commands.”
`
`15.
`
`The specifications of these patents make it clear that the interactive television
`
`program guide and/or the local interactive program guide can be distributed applications that run
`
`on, or are implemented on, different items of equipment that can be geographically distant. This
`
`equipment includes, but is not limited to, equipment within a user’s home. This is discussed
`
`extensively within the ’666 patent specification at, for example, Dkt. 1-2 (’666 patent) at Fig. 2a-
`
`2d, 12-23, 2:65-67, 7:47-51, 9:51-54, 15:11-17, 15:25-30, 16:65-17:5, 18:31-35, 19:55-60,
`
`20:32-38, 21:36-39, 21:44-49, 21:58-63, 22:32-36, 23:15-18, 23:58-65, 24:10-15, 24:51-57,
`
`25:36-40, 27:29-35. This is also discussed extensively within the ’595 patent specification at, for
`
`example, Dkt. 1-1 (’595 Patent) at 2:16-22, 2:58-62, 2:63-67, 3:1-6, 3:7-13, 3:14-3:18, 3:38-42,
`
`4:10-4:15, 4:30-34, 6:7-11, 6:37-39, 7:4-8, 7:15-17, 7:47-50, 7:52-8:3, 8:4-5, 18:52-62.
`
`16.
`
`The parties briefed and argued this same issue before the ITC with regard to the
`
`term “local interactive television program guide” in relation to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,006,263 and
`
`8,578,413. These two patents are family members of the ’666 patent and all three share large
`
`amounts of their specifications. I testified at length that no intrinsic evidence limits the “local”
`
`interactive program guide to an “application” that “executes” entirely within a user’s home, as
`
`Defendants’ construction proposes. My testimony regarding the ’263 and ’413 patents applies
`
`with equal force to the asserted patents in this case.
`
`17.
`
`As shown in the embodiment of Fig. 2(d), the “interactive television program
`
`guide equipment 17” on which the “local interactive television program guide” “is implemented”
`
`includes (i.e., is not limited to) not only the user television equipment 22, but also the television
`
`distribution facility 16 and program guide distribution equipment 21, which are demonstrably
`
`located outside of the user’s home. See e.g., id. at Figs. 2d, 6c; 7:47-51 (“As shown in FIGS. 2a-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 8 of 11
`
`2d interactive television program guide equipment may include program guide distribution
`
`equipment 21 located at television distribution facility 16 and user television equipment 22”).
`
`18.
`
`As the specification states, “[t]he local interactive television program guide may
`
`be wholly implemented on user television 22 as in system 10 of FIG. 2a, or may be partially
`
`implemented on user television equipment 22 as, for example, an interactive program guide
`
`client, as in system 10 of FIG. 2c.” Id. at 24:10-15; see also id. at 24:51-57; 27:29-35.
`
`19.
`
`Thus, the’666 patent’s “local interactive program guide” and the ’595 patent’s
`
`“interactive television program guide” can be distributed systems that are implemented on both
`
`user equipment within a user’s home and other equipment outside a user’s home. Id.
`
`20.
`
`The interactive program guide is not limited to a single application running solely
`
`on television program guide equipment solely in a user’s home as Defendants’ proposals require.
`
`Defendants’ construction improperly excludes embodiments where and should therefore be
`
`rejected.
`
`21.
`
`The specifications of the respective patents show that the patentee described the
`
`interactive program guide in a specific way to include not only implementation on user television
`
`equipment, but also implementation at the headend, the communications device, and the program
`
`guide distribution equipment, et cetera.
`
`22.
`
`Specifically, the specification states: “the remote access interactive television
`
`program guide may communicate with the interactive television program guide that is
`
`implemented on interactive television program guide equipment 17, herein referred to as a ‘local’
`
`interactive television program guide.” Dkt. 1-2 (’666 Patent) at 15:10-17. That is, the
`
`specification specifically defines the way in which the word “local” is being used. The
`
`specification also provides that: “Program guide server 25 may be any 60 suitable software,
`
`hardware, or combination thereof for providing a client-server based program guide.” Id. at 8:59-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 9 of 11
`
`61. Defendants’ proposed constructions of these terms on the other hand, improperly exclude all
`
`of these disclosed embodiments of the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction not only reads out the disclosed embodiments
`
`of the invention, it is also inconsistent with the language of the claims themselves. For example,
`
`’666 patent claim 2 recites: “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the local interactive television
`
`program guide records the first sequence of video frames at a television distribution facility.”
`
`Dkt. 1-2 (’666 Patent) at claim 2 (emphasis added). Because the claimed television distribution
`
`facility is not inside “a user’s home,” Defendants’ proposed construction is improperly limiting.
`
`PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING TERMS
`
`24.
`
`I believe the following terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning:
`
`• “receiv[ing] . . . program schedule information” (’595 Patent Claims 1, 9, 17);
`• “video recorder” (’595 Patent Claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22);
`• “set-top box” (’595 Patent Claims 1, 9, 17);
`• “user equipment having an interactive television program guide implemented
`thereon” (’595 Patent Claims 9);
`• “information corresponding to a first plurality of sequences of video frames”
`(’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`• “sequences of video frames” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 8, 10, 16, 18);
`• “content of the first plurality of sequences of video frames” (’666 Patent Claims
`1, 10, 18);
`• “first plurality of identifiers of content” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`• “each of the first plurality of identifiers of content corresponding to respective
`ones of a second plurality of sequences of video frames of the first plurality of
`sequences of video frames” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`• “the mobile device being capable of displaying the first plurality of identifiers of
`content concurrently with a local interactive program guide equipment displaying
`a second plurality of identifiers of content” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`• “second plurality of identifiers of content” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 3, 10, 18);
`• “information corresponding to a third plurality of sequences of video frames”
`(’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`• “content of the third plurality of sequences of video frames” (’666 Patent Claims
`1, 10, 18);
`• “each of the second plurality of identifiers of content corresponding to respective
`ones of a fourth plurality of sequences of video frames of the third plurality of
`sequences of video frames” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`• “while the second plurality of identifiers of content is being presented using the
`second graphical user interface” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18);
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 10 of 11
`
`• “first sequence of video frames of the second plurality of sequences of video
`frames corresponding to the identifier of content selected by the user based on the
`input” (’666 Patent Claims 1, 10, 18); and
`• “set-top box” (’987 Patent Claims 1, 2, 9, 10).
`
`25.
`
`Based on my review of the specifications of the ’595 patent, ’666 patent, and ’987
`
`patent, I do not believe that any of these terms need to be construed as they are all readily
`
`understood to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants have not put forth a reason that any of these terms need to be
`
`construed. Further, Defendants have not provided any evidence or citation as to why any of
`
`these terms should have a construction other than their plain and ordinary meaning. Therefore, if
`
`Defendants do provide any support that these terms need a construction other than the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning and/or support for any of Defendants’ proposed constructions, I will address it
`
`at that time.
`
`27.
`
`ALLEGEDLY INDEFINITE TERMS
`
`28.
`
`Defendants’ additionally assert that the following claim terms are indefinite:
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“all asserted claims of the ’666 Patent in their entirety” (’666 Patent);
`“user equipment having an
`interactive
`television program guide
`implemented thereon, . . . said interactive television program guide
`configured to: receive . . . ; store . . . ; cause . . . ; receive . . . ; receive . . . ;
`direct . . .” (’595 Patent Claim 9);
`“non-transitory machine-readable medium . . . having machine program
`logic recorded thereon for: receiving . . .; storing . . .; causing . . .;
`receiving . . .; receiving . . .; directing . . . .” (’595 Patent Claim 17); and
`“set-top box with control circuitry configured to” (’987 Patent Claims 9).
`
`29.
`
`Based on my review of the specifications of the ’595 patent, ’666 patent, and ’987
`
`patent, I do not believe that any of these terms are indefinite because they are all readily
`
`understood to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants have not put forth any reason or evidence that any of these terms are
`
`indefinite. Therefore, if Defendants do provide any support for their argument that these terms
`
`are indefinite, I will address it at that time.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-09278-JPO Document 283-7 Filed 05/05/17 Page 11 of 11
`
`I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
`
`Dated: May 5, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`__________________________________
`Dr. Michael Shamos
`
`
`
`
`