Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 51
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`BROADBAND iTV, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., and AT&T
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BROADBAND iTV, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTV, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`BROADBAND iTV, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. 1:20-cv-717-ADA
`
`No. 1:20-cv-717-ADA
`
`No. 6:19-cv-716-ADA
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`BBiTV EX2015
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV
`IPR2020-01268
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 51
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES ............................................................................ 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`
`L. 
`
`M. 
`
`N. 
`
`O. 
`
`“Web-based content management system” (’791, ’388, ’026, ’269 Patents) ......... 1 
`
`“wherein the respective video content was uploaded to a Web-based content
`management system by a respective content provider device associated with
`a respective video content provider . . .” (’388, ’026, ’269 Patents) ...................... 5 
`
`“wherein the respective video-on-demand application-readable metadata is
`generated according to the respective specified metadata” (’388 Patent) ............ 10 
`
`“predetermined video on demand application” (’791 Patent) ............................... 11 
`
`“ . . . the same category information in metadata associated with the video
`content” (’101 Patent) ........................................................................................... 13 
`
`“closed system” (’388 Patent) ............................................................................... 14 
`
`The Preambles (’026, ’101, and ’269 Patents) ...................................................... 18 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The Preamble of Claim 1 of the ’026 Patent............................................. 18 
`
`The Preamble of Claim 1 of the ’101 Patent............................................. 20 
`
`The Preamble of Claim 1 of the ’269 Patent............................................. 21 
`
`“A set top box . . . programmed to perform the steps of . . . in response to
`the TV service subscriber selecting . . . a first respective title associated with
`a first video content . . . transmitting the selection to the set-top box for
`display on the TV equipment” (’388 Patent) ........................................................ 22 
`
`“image” (’026, ’101, ’269 Patents) ....................................................................... 25 
`
`“the plurality of different display templates” (’269 Patent) .................................. 26 
`
`“the first video-on-demand program content” (’026 Patent, claim 7) .................. 29 
`
`“TV equipment” (’791, ’388 Patents) ................................................................... 30 
`
`“control unit” (’791, ’388 Patents) ........................................................................ 32 
`
`“A set top box . . . programmed to perform the step[] of . . . providing . . .”
`(’388 Patent).......................................................................................................... 34 
`
`“the Internet-connected digital device being configured to obtain and
`present . . .” (’026 Patent) ..................................................................................... 36 
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`P. 
`
`“the interactive mobile application being configured to obtain . . . and
`present . . .” (’269 Patent) ..................................................................................... 38 
`
`
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 51
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................15
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................18
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................17
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................24
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10 Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................21, 22
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................18, 19
`
`Cellular Commc'ns Equip. LLC, v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 6:14-CV-759, 2016 WL 1237429 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016) ..........................................32
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................25
`
`Dayco Prods. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................29
`
`Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B, LP,
`No. 6-19-cv-00167, 2020 WL 376664 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) ..........................................22
`
`Forest Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................31
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................11
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................5, 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................1
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd.,
`617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................1
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................15
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-134, 2015 WL 4937464 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) ..........................................33
`
`MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................6
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................27
`
`Nevro Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................................33
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................27, 28
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................19
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corp.,
`2018 WL 5603631 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2018) ............................................................................6
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................6, 8, 9
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................5
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................33
`
`Synovis Life Techs., Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 07-1396, 2009 WL 169241 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2009).......................................................15
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................4
`
`Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................20
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 51
`
`
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................32, 33, 34, 36, 39
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2 ...........................................................................................10, 11, 13, 22, 26, 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 7 of 51
`
`SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Parties’ Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,388
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,788,791
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,349,101
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,506,269
`
`Expert Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger on behalf of AT&T
`
`Excerpts from The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition (2001)
`
`Excerpts from The Chambers Dictionary (2003)
`
`Excerpts from Oxford English Reference Dictionary, 2nd Edition (2003)
`
`Excerpts from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 3rd Edition (2002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,635,395
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,578,376
`
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,349,101 (6/29/2018
`Patent Application)
`
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,590,997 (9/3/2008
`Response to Final Office Action & Amendment)
`
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,590,997 (3/9/2009
`Response to Office Action & Amendment)
`
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,590,997 (3/9/2009
`Affidavit of Milton Diaz Perez Under 37 C.F.R. 132)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.207 and 42.300(a),
`CBM2014-00189, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan 2, 2015)
`
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Extrinsic Evidence in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. DISH Network,
`L.L.C., Case No. 6:19-cv-00716 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 8 of 51
`
`Expert Declaration of David Wachob on behalf of BI in Broadband iTV, Inc. v.
`Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00169 (D. Haw.), Dkt. No. 210-2
`
`Claim Construction Order in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 1:14-cv-00169 (D. Haw.), Dkt. No. 290
`
`Excerpts from IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,
`Seventh Edition (2000)
`
`Computer Hope, Definition of “Image,” available at
`https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/i/image.htm).
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc. (“BI”) is asserting five patents against the AT&T Defendants
`
`(“AT&T”) and four patents against DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”). The asserted patents are
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,648,388 (Ex. 2); 9,788,791 (Ex. 3); 10,028,026 (Ex. 4); 10,349,101 (Ex. 5);
`
`10,506,269 (Ex. 6). The first two (’388 and ’791) claim priority to an application filed in 2004.
`
`The latter three (’026, ’101, and ’269) claim priority to both the 2004 application and to an
`
`intervening continuation-in-part filed in 2007. Each patent includes only one independent claim.
`
`Except where indicated, the disputed claim language is in claim 1 of each patent. Attached Exhibit
`
`1 tracks the proposed constructions in the order briefed below.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
`A.
`
`“Web-based content management system” (’791, ’388, ’026, ’269 Patents)
`
`AT&T’s Proposal
`“a system that includes a
`website that allows content
`providers to manage content
`over the Internet”
`
`DISH’s Proposal
`“a system accessible over the
`Internet, including the Web, for
`managing content. The system
`allows the content provider to
`manage content.”
`
`BI’s Proposal
`“A system accessible over the
`Internet, including the Web, for
`managing content”
`
`
`
`AT&T’s Position. The term Web-based Content Management System (WBCMS) is a
`
`coined term with no accepted plain and ordinary meaning. It is well settled that a term coined by
`
`the inventor “cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in the specification.” Indacon, Inc.
`
`v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016). When construing a coined term, the court
`
`turns to the specification because “terms coined by the inventor are best understood by reference
`
`to the specification.” Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the
`
`specification states that (a) a WBCMS is, in part, a website, and (b) a WBCMS allows content
`
`providers to manage content.
`
`First, the specification states with clarity that a WBCMS includes a website. The Summary
`
`of the ’388 patent states that an “objective of the invention” is a VOD content delivery system that
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`“comprises” a “Content Management Website” for enabling users to upload content. Ex. 2 (’388
`
`Pat.) at 4:27-33 (emphasis added). Figure 2B is captioned “Figure 2B: Web-based Content
`
`Management System” on Figure Sheet 5 of 7 and includes an “end-user web browser” on the right-
`
`hand side of the figure. It is well known by all that web browsers are used for accessing websites.
`
`And, to erase any doubt as to whether a WBCMS includes a website, the specification states that
`
`“FIG. 2B illustrates a Content Management Website . . .” Id. at 5:43-44 (emphasis added). In sum,
`
`the applicant called Figure 2B a WBCMS, included a web browser in Figure 2B, and said that
`
`Figure 2B itself illustrates a website. From the specification, any reader will necessarily
`
`understand that a WBCMS must include a website.
`
`Second, the specification provides that the purpose of a WBCMS was to permit end-users
`
`(i.e., content providers) to manage content over the Internet. The “M” is in WBCMS stands for
`
`“management.” As discussed above, the Summary states that providing a website is an objective
`
`of the invention. Id. at 4:27-33. Moreover, the specification describes a WBCMS as permitting
`
`end-users to create and manage their own content:
`
`Referring to FIG. 2B, the Web-based Content Management System
`40 includes a plurality of functional components to allow
`consumers to create and manage their own classified ads as
`interactive television content, as well as pay for the distribution of
`their content within the digital cable television system.
`
`Id. at 10:7-12 (emphasis added). The specification repeatedly confirms that a WBCMS receives
`
`user-generated content. Id. at 9:41-44 (“The VOD content delivery system is provided with a
`
`Content Management frontend to receive consumer input and convert it to video display ads
`
`maintained in the system database.”); id. at 46-50 (describing that the “VOD content delivery
`
`system has a Web-based Content Management System for enabling an individual user to upload
`
`content from their computer via a web browser to display a consumer-generated ad on TV.”). The
`
`specification goes on to state that users can manage their content through the WBCMS. See, e.g.,
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`id. at 10:60-11:54. The user-management tools include the “ability to modify and resubmit
`
`previously created classified content for display on the interactive television system.” (11:19-21),
`
`the “ability for users to select an interactive television design (template) from a catalog of available
`
`templates” (11:4-5), the “ability to view on a web browser the interactive template containing the
`
`consumer-provided content” (11:6-7), and “[the ability that] allows the user to view the content
`
`they have composed using the templates” (11:28-29). The WBCMS also provides users with
`
`“content creation and content management tools for the creation and maintenance of consumer-
`
`generated content.” Id. at 11:40-44. Because an elemental feature of a WBCMS is the ability of
`
`a content provider to manage their content, the construction of this coined term should reflect this
`
`critical feature of a WBCMS.
`
`There is a meaningful difference between the Internet and the Web, which the district court
`
`in BBiTV v. Hawaiian Telcom recognized. While the “Internet” connotates a platform over which
`
`files can be transferred “without the use of the Web, such as by email and File Transfer Protocol
`
`(‘FTP’),” the term “Web” denotes “a collection of millions of Web sites and Web pages that
`
`together form the internet that is most often seen by users.” Ex. 21 at 63 (emphasis added). There
`
`is little doubt that the applicant was aware of the “Internet,” but chose to use the narrower “web-
`
`based” term throughout the claims. Omitting the term “website” would permit BI to attempt to
`
`subtly expand the term “Web-based” to have the same meaning as “Internet-based.” The inclusion
`of “website” in the construction is therefore appropriate.
`DISH’s Position. This term should be construed to make clear that the claimed
`
`“management” must at least include management by the content providers.
`
`This is not the first time a variant of this term has been construed. In BBiTV v. Hawaiian
`
`Telcom, BI proposed a construction for the term “web-based content management server” that did
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`not refer to the Web but instead was simply “a server accessible over an online network for
`
`managing content.” The Hawaiian Telcom court rejected this position and concluded that the web-
`
`based content management server must facilitate uploading “over the Internet, including the Web.”
`
`Ex. 21 at 67 (emphasis in original).1 The Hawaiian Telcom court distinguished between the
`
`Internet and the Web and found — as BI now accepts — that the WBCMS must be accessible over
`
`the Web. See id. at 63-67. However, because the issue was not raised by either party, the Hawaiian
`
`Telcom court did not address (or resolve) the question of who manages the content. 2
`
`The Court should hold that the WBCMS must allow the content provider to manage
`
`content. As an initial matter, the claims only call out the content providers as interacting with the
`
`WBCMS — no one else is ever identified as interacting with that system. The patents’
`
`specifications also identify the content providers as the entities that use the WBCMS to manage
`
`content. For example, each of the patents explains that it is an “aspect of the present invention”
`
`that it may “offer consumer-generated classified ads” using “a VOD content delivery system” with
`
`“a Content Management frontend to receive consumer input…” Ex. 2 (’388 Pat.) at 9:41-43
`
`(emphasis added);3 see Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that a patent’s characterization of the “‘present invention’ as a whole”
`
`serves to “limit[] the scope of the invention”). The patents add that “Web-based Content
`
`
`1 This distinction mattered, the court explained, because “the Web [] is part of the Internet but not
`synonymous with it.” Id. at 63. In particular the court explained that the Web “is a collection of
`millions of Web sites and Web pages that together form the internet that is most often seen by
`users.” Id. (citations omitted). To illustrate the distinction between the web and the internet, the
`court explained that files can “be transferred over the Internet without the use of the Web, such as
`by email and File Transfer Protocol (‘FTP’).” Id. (citations omitted).
`2 DISH has no objection to the Court adopting AT&T’s requested clarification — i.e., that the
`WBCMS includes a website.
`3 The specifications of the ’388 patent and ’791 patent are identical, and the specifications of the
`’026 and ’269 patents are identical. Citations to these common specifications will be to the ’388
`patent and ’026 patent only.
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`Management System 40 includes a plurality of functional components to allow consumers to create
`
`and manage their own classified ads as interactive television content…” Id. at 10:7-10 (emphasis
`
`added). And the patents describe several management functions for the WBCMS, all of which are
`
`carried out by the content provider. See, e.g., id. at 10:48-11:39. Conversely, the patents never
`
`suggest that the WBCMS permits the cable provider (or some other party) to manage content. See
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (ruling that the claim
`
`term “body” required a one-piece body because every embodiment in the specification described
`
`a one-piece body and there was no disclosure of anything else). This is not to say that cable
`
`providers cannot use the WBCMS to manage content, but rather that the claims and the
`
`specification both envision the WBCMS as a system that is used by content providers to manage
`
`content. The Court should therefore clarify that the “management” must at least include
`
`management by the content providers.
`
`B.
`
`“wherein the respective video content was uploaded to a Web-based content
`management system by a respective content provider device associated with a
`respective video content provider . . .” (’388, ’026, ’269 Patents)
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Indefinite as a mixed method-and-apparatus claim pursuant to IPXL
`Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`BI’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Each apparatus claim of the ’388, ’026, and ’269 patents is indefinite under IPXL because
`
`each claim includes a complex and detailed method step in what is otherwise an apparatus claim.
`
`A single claim that is directed to an apparatus and that also includes a method step is invalid for
`
`mixing apparatus and method classes of claims. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although functional language in an apparatus claim does
`
`not automatically render the claim indefinite, an apparatus claim is indefinite under IPXL if the
`
`claim recites a step performed by a user. See id.; In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As explained in Katz, apparatus claim language that
`
`“is directed to user actions” will “create confusion as to when direct infringement occurs because
`
`they are directed both to systems and to actions performed by” individuals, and thus “fall squarely
`
`within the rationale of IPXL and are indefinite.” Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318.
`
`An apparatus claim is also indefinite under IPXL if the claim includes functional language
`
`not specifically tied to the claimed structure. See Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641
`
`F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307,
`
`1313-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (summarizing IPXL and Rembrandt). The case Power Integrations, Inc.
`
`v. ON Semiconductor Corp. is instructive. 2018 WL 5603631, at *17-18 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2018).
`
`There, the court addressed apparatus claims requiring that a control signal “be provided under
`
`certain conditions,” but the signal was not provided by the claimed apparatus. Id. The court
`
`explained that the step requiring providing the signal “without reciting an attendant structure” in
`
`the claimed apparatus, made clear that the claim improperly recited “a method element among
`
`apparatus elements.” Id.
`
`Apparatus claim 1 of the ’388, ’026, and ’269 patents includes a method step that (a) must
`
`have been performed in the past; (b) was performed by a third party; (c) involves the interaction
`
`of a “system” and a “device” that are different and remote from the claimed apparatus; and (d)
`
`includes several functional requirements in the details of the method step that are unrelated to the
`
`claimed apparatus. Claim 1 in each of the ’388, ’026, and ’269 patents is similar for the sake of
`
`this analysis. Each claim is drawn to an apparatus (’388 patent: set-top box; ’026 patent: Internet-
`
`connected digital device; and ’269 patent: interactive mobile application) and each includes a stray
`
`method step. Below is the method step from apparatus claim 1 of the ’388 patent:
`
`wherein the respective video content was uploaded to a Web-based content
`management system by a respective content provider device associated with
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`a respective video content provider via the Internet in a digital video format
`along with respective specified metadata including respective title
`information, category information, and subcategory information designated
`by the respective video content provider to specify a respective hierarchical
`location of a respective title of the respective video content within the video-
`on-demand content menu displayed on the TV equipment
`
`Ex. 2 at 15:46-54. The method step in claim 1 of the ’388 patent is a remarkable 80-words in
`
`length. The method step in the ’026 and ’269 patents differs only slightly from the language above
`
`and those differences do not bear on the IPXL analysis.4
`
`First, these method steps violate IPXL because they require action by a third party, namely
`
`the “video content provider” that performs the method step. Just like the claims found invalid in
`
`Katz, the claims here require that the “video content” must have been “uploaded” by a “content
`
`provider device associated with a . . . video content provider” and certain metadata must have been
`
`“designated by the . . . video content provider.” Id. As in Katz, this errant method step “create[s]
`
`confusion as to when direct infringement occurs” because the determination of whether claim 1 is
`
`infringed depends on whether a third-party “content provider” performed these actions in the past,
`
`before the time that the claimed set-top box was made or sold. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318.
`
`Infringement does not turn only on the set-top box and how the set-top box is programmed, and so
`
`one cannot simply analyze an accused set-top box to determine if it infringes. Rather, the
`
`infringement analysis must also include an evaluation of what actions a content provider took, and
`
`what devices that content provider used to take those actions, all occurring in the past. Indeed, the
`
`language of the claims in this case is even more problematic than the language found indefinite in
`
`
`4 This Court has recognized the importance of analyzing each claim on its own and separately.
`Here, however, the “was uploaded” step in claim 1 of each of the ’026 and ’269 patents is so
`similar in wording and format to the “was uploaded” step in claim 1 of the ’388 patent that claim
`1 of each of the ’026 and ’269 patents need not be analyzed separately in detail. The arguments
`made above in Section 1.B with regard to claim 1 of the ’388 patent apply equal force to claim 1
`of the ’026 and ’269 patents, despite minor word differences in the “was uploaded” step between
`the claims of the three patents.
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 51
`
`
`
`IPXL and Katz. In those cases, the claim language specified certain actions by the user of the
`
`claimed device. Here, the “was uploaded” step is not performed by a user of the set-top box.
`
`Instead, a third-party “content provider,” who is entirely divorced from the claimed apparatus and
`
`the user of that apparatus, must have performed the method step.
`
`Second, with regard to the IPXL analysis of Rembrandt and Power Integrations, the method
`
`steps here also violate IPXL because the steps include numerous limitations that are not tied to the
`
`claimed set-top box. Specifically, exemplary claim 1 of the ’388 patent requires that (a) the content
`
`on the set-top box must have been uploaded to a “Web-based content management system”
`
`(WBCMS) from a “content provider device” (b) “via the Internet” (c) in a “digital video format”
`
`(d) “along with” certain metadata. Ex. 2 at 15:46-54. Like the claim in Power Integrations, these
`
`limitations recite a method step that introduces two devices that are not the claimed set-top box —
`
`a “WBCMS” and a “content provider device.” In fact, the claimed set-top box is far removed from
`
`these two unclaimed devices. Figure 2A of the ’388 patent shows each of these three items.
`
`In this figure, the claimed method step occurs between two boxes highlighted in blue, but the
`
`claimed set-top box is a separate element highlighted in red. The WBCMS is actually five devices
`
`away from the set-top box, and the uploading step is performed by a content provider, which is a
`
`third party, both to the subscriber using the set-top box and to the television service provider. Like
`
`
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 17 of 51
`
`
`
`Power Integrations, this step is unrelated to the claimed apparatus and thus renders the claim
`
`indefinite.
`
`The method step makes it impossible to analyze the claimed apparatus in isolation to
`
`determine if it infringes. For example, a structurally and functionally identical set-top box as the
`
`one claimed would not infringe if the required upload of video content was to a device other than
`
`a Web-based content management system. That same set-top box would also not infringe if the
`
`upload of the video content did not occur through the Internet or the format was not digital or the
`
`metadata was not transferred “along with” the video content. The claimed set-top box would
`
`operate in exactly the same way if the video-on-demand content was delivered to the cable
`
`television provider via a bicycle messenger as opposed to being uploaded in the manner set out in
`
`the “was uploaded” step. The evaluation of whether any particular set-top box infringes claim 1
`
`of the ’388 patent thus depends on whether method steps were performed by a third party in the
`
`past; whether the method step performed in the past using certain devices for the upload; and
`
`whether that upload occurred as specified (i.e., via the Internet in a digital format and along with
`
`metadata). BI’s apparatus claims introduce confusion and uncertainty that is far worse than that
`
`associated with the claims found indefinite in IPXL, Katz, Rembrandt, and Power Integrations.
`
`Moreover, the placement of a method step in the claim introduces questions concerning
`
`when and where that method step was performed. As to when, if the claimed upload step occurred
`
`before the patent issued (i.e., before December 10, 2019 for the ’269 patent), there would be no
`
`infringement, even if the accused set-top box was made and sold on the day after the patent issued.
`
`As to where, if the claimed upload step occurred extraterritorially, such as could be the case with
`
`foreign language video-on-demand content for example, there would be no infringement, even if
`
`the accused set-top box was made or sold in the United States. BI’s apparatus claims introduce
`
`
` 4129-8266-9350
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00716-ADA Document 56 Filed 09/10/20 Page 18 of 51
`
`
`
`irresolvable issues of claim scope that go to the roo