Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`(Re: Docket No. 169)
`
`EMBLAZE LTD.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff Emblaze Ltd. (“Emblaze”) alleges that Defendant
`
`Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473. The parties submitted 16 claim
`
`construction disputes for resolution by the court. Two days after the hearing, the court issued a
`
`summary construction order and explained that a more complete order would follow providing the
`
`court’s reasoning.1 The court now provides that reasoning.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Parties and Disputed Technology
`
`Emblaze is an Israeli corporation dedicated to the “development and marketing of
`
`innovative high-tech technologies and products.”2 Apple is a California-based corporation that,
`
`
`1 See Docket No. 169.
`2 Docket No. 143 at ¶ 1.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0001
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`among other things, markets phones, tablets and computers that incorporate “HTTP Live Streaming
`
`technology” capable of “real-time” broadcasting.3 Emblaze owns the sole patent at issue in this
`
`case: U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 (“the ’473 patent”).4
`
`The ’473 patent claims methods and apparatuses that allow “transmission of live audio and
`
`video to multiple devices” without requiring “devoted streaming servers” and permitting
`
`adjustment to “different bandwidths” where necessary.5 As the abstract of the ’473 patent puts it,
`
`the invention disclosed is:
`
`A method for real-time broadcasting from a transmitting computer to one or more client
`computers over a network, including providing at the transmitting computer a data stream
`having a given data rate, and dividing the stream into a sequence of slices, each slice having
`a predetermined data size associated therewith. The slices are encoded in a corresponding
`sequence of files, each file having a respective index, and the sequence is uploaded to a
`server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate of the stream, such that the one or
`more client computers can download the sequence over the network from the server at a
`download rate generally equal to the data rate.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’473 patent is representative:
`
`A method for real-time broadcasting from a transmitting computer to one or more client
`computers over a network, comprising:
`providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data rate;
`dividing the stream into a sequence of slices, each slice having a predetermined data
`size associated therewith;
`encoding the slices in a corresponding sequence of files, each file having a respective
`index; and
`uploading the sequence to a server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate of
`the stream, such that the one or more client computers can download the sequence
`over the network from the server at a download rate generally equal to the data
`rate.6
`
`Emblaze claims that Apple’s HTTP Live Streaming, which Apple introduced into its products
`
`around 2009,7 infringes asserted ’473 patent claims 23, 28, 37, and 40.
`
`
`3 Id. at ¶ 11.
`4 See id. at ¶ 6; Docket No. 143-1, Ex. A.
`5 See Docket No. 143 at ¶ 9.
`6 See Docket No. 143-1, Ex. A at 14:18-32.
`7 See Docket No. 143 at ¶ 12.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0002
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Emblaze kicked off this case by filing a complaint for patent infringement in the Southern
`
`District of New York.8 Several months later, the case was transferred to this district.9 After the
`
`parties initially declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was assigned to
`
`United States District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.10 Emblaze thereafter sought leave to
`
`amend its complaint to:
`
`(1) amend the list of claims of the ’473 Patent that are asserted by Emblaze so as to conform
`the allegations to what Emblaze has asserted in its Infringement Contentions;
`(2) amend the products that Emblaze is accusing of infringement so as to conform the
`allegations of the complaint to what Emblaze has learned in its ongoing investigation and
`from discovery thus far;
`(3) remove certain allegations concerning Apple’s presence in the Southern District of
`New York (no longer relevant now that the action has been transferred to the Northern
`District of California);
`(4) update the firm affiliation of counsel for Emblaze and the change of venue from the
`Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; and
`(5) make minor editing changes to the text.11
`
`After Apple filed a statement of non-opposition, Judge Armstrong granted Emblaze’s motion for
`
`leave to amend the complaint. Apple then moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Judge Armstrong dismissed Emblaze’s indirect infringement claims with
`
`leave to amend, but denied Apple’s related request to dismiss Emblaze’s direct infringement or
`
`willfulness claims.12 Emblaze’s responded with a second amended complaint claiming direct,
`
`induced, contributory and willful infringement.13
`
`
`8 See Docket No. 1.
`9 See Docket No. 24.
`10 See Docket No. 31.
`11 See Docket No. 75 at 2-3 (verb tenses modified).
`12 See Docket No. 137.
`13 See Docket No. 143.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0003
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the case was reassigned to the undersigned.14 Following
`
`this latest reassignment and a tutorial and hearing, the court construed the disputed claim terms as
`
`follows:15
`
`
`14 See Docket No. 150.
`15 See Docket No. 169 at 1-3.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0004
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM
`“real-time broadcasting”
`
`“providing at the transmitting computer a data stream
`having a given data rate”
`“data stream having a given data rate”
`
`“slice”
`“each slice having a predetermined data size associated
`therewith”
`“encoding the slices in a corresponding sequence of files”
`
`“sequence of files, each file having a respective index”
`
`“uploading the sequence to a server at an upload rate
`generally equal to the data rate of the stream”
`
`“such that one or more client computers can download the
`sequence over the network from the server at a download
`rate generally equal to the data rate”
`
`“decode the sequence”
`“play back the data stream responsive to the indices of the
`files”
`“at a replay rate generally equal to the data rate”
`
`“uploading and updating an index file containing the
`index of the file in the sequence that was most recently
`uploaded”
`“encoding slices at a different plurality of different quality
`levels”
`“determining a data bandwidth of the network between
`the server and the client computer”
`“wherein dividing the stream into the sequence of slices
`comprises dividing the stream into a sequence of time
`slices, each having a predetermined duration associated
`therewith”
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`simultaneous transmission of data to one or more clients
`matching the human perception of time or proceeding at
`the same rate as a physical or external process
`the transmitting computer provides a data stream having a
`given amount of data per unit of time
`a data stream having a given amount of data per unit of
`time
`a discrete segment of the data stream
`each slice having a data size, which may be a time
`duration, assigned in advance of the stream being divided
`forming each slice as a file, wherein a file includes
`compressed data from the slice and a file descriptor, and
`wherein the sequence of files corresponds to the sequence
`of slices
`sequence of files, wherein each file has an indicator that
`represents a respective slice’s location in the sequence
`transmitting the files from the transmitting computer to
`the server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate
`of the stream
`such that one or more client computers are able to select
`individual files corresponding to the slices for download
`over the network at a download rate generally equal to the
`data rate
`decompressing any compressed data in the sequence
`playing back the data stream based on the indices of the
`files to be played back
`the rate at which the client plays back the data stream is
`generally equal to the data rate of the stream
`uploading to a server an index file, and updating the index
`file with the index of the most recently uploaded file
`
`forming slices at more than one quality level
`
`the client determines a data rate at which a client can
`download a file from the server
`the stream is divided into a sequence of slices, where the
`predetermined data size of the slices is established by
`setting the time duration of the slices
`
`A few months later, Apple moved the court to reconsider or clarify its prior construction
`
`that the term “each slice having a predetermined data size associated therewith” means “each slice
`
`having a data size, which may be a time duration, assigned in advance of the stream being
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0005
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`divided.”16 The court agreed that reconsideration was warranted but further construed the term as
`
`meaning “each slice having a data size, which may be established by setting a time duration of the
`
`slice, assigned in advance of the stream being divided.”17
`
`
`
`Apple next moved for leave to amend its invalidity contentions,18 which the court granted.19
`
`Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court also held that it would consider Emblaze’s
`
`revised patent disclosures to be its operative patent disclosures.20
`
`As the case turned toward dispositive motion practice, the court denied Apple’s motion to
`
`stay in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Akami v. Limelight Networks.21
`
`The court also held that although portions of Emblaze expert Vijay Madisetti’s report would not be
`
`struck, Emblaze was precluded from introducing later-model accused products in its report that
`
`were not disclosed in Emblaze’s original or revised infringement contentions.22
`
`Apple next filed four summary judgment motions. After a hearing, the court granted
`
`Apple’s motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement, granted-in-part Apple’s motion
`
`for summary judgment of non-infringement as to all accused streams, denied Apple’s motion for
`
`summary judgment of non-infringement of specific content providers, and denied Apple’s motion
`
`for summary judgment of invalidity.23 In granting-in-part Apple’s motion for summary judgment
`
`of non-infringement as to all accused streams, the court additionally construed the term “upload
`
`16 See Docket No. 207.
`17 Docket No. 214 at 1.
`18 See Docket No. 216.
`19 See Docket No. 248.
`20 See Docket No. 300.
`21 See Docket No. 361; Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 895 (2014).
`22 See Docket No. 394.
`23 See Docket No. 424.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`6
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0006
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`rate.”24 The court found that “‘upload rate’ in the context of the ’473 patent should be understood
`
`to include wait time between the transmission of files within a sequence.”25
`
`Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Akamai, the court permitted Apple to file a
`
`motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to Emblaze’s asserted method claims.26
`
`After considering Apple’s motion, the court granted it in-part.27
`
`The parties then filed their pre-trial motions, including three Daubert motions. Subsequent
`
`to the pre-trial conference, the court ruled on the pre-trial motions, including granting-in-part
`
`Apple’s two Daubert motions and denying Emblaze’s Daubert motion.28 The case proceeded to
`
`trial, and after eight days of testimony, statements, arguments and deliberations, the jury returned a
`
`verdict finding that none of Apple’s accused products infringed the ’473 patent.29 Now that trial is
`
`complete, the court provides the parties with the reasoning underlying the court’s claim
`
`construction rulings.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Nine years after the Federal Circuit’s seminal Phillips decision,30 the canons of claim
`
`
`
`construction are now well-known—if not perfectly understood—by parties and courts alike. “To
`
`construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the meaning of any disputed words from the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing.”31 This requires a
`
`
`24 See id. at 11-14.
`25 Id. at 14.
`26 See Docket No. 468.
`27 See Docket No. 520.
`28 See Docket Nos. 519, 544.
`29 See Docket No. 609.
`30 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`31 Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`7
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0007
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`careful review of the intrinsic record, comprised of the claim terms, written description, and
`
`prosecution history of the patent.32 While claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” the claims themselves and the context in which the terms appear “provide
`
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Indeed, a patent’s specification
`
`“is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”33 Claims “must be read in view of
`
`the specification, of which they are part.”34 Although the patent’s prosecution history “lacks the
`
`clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes,” it “can often
`
`inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
`
`invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the
`
`claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.”35 The court also has the discretion to consider
`
`extrinsic evidence, including dictionaries, learned treatises, and testimony from experts and
`
`inventors.36 Such evidence, however, is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining
`
`the legally operative meaning of claim language.”37
`
`
`32 See id. (“To construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the meaning of any disputed
`words from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing.
`Intrinsic evidence, that is the claims, written description, and the prosecution history of the patent,
`is a more reliable guide to the meaning of a claim term than are extrinsic sources like technical
`dictionaries, treatises, and expert testimony.”) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312).
`33 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-15.
`34 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Ultimax
`Cement Mfg. Corp v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F. 3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`35 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotations omitted).
`36 See id. (“Although we have emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim
`construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists
`of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’”) (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980).
`37 Id. (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
`(internal quotations and additional citations omitted).
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0008
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Dispute #1: “Real-Time Broadcasting”
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`CLAIM TERM 1
`
`“real-time broadcasting”
`
`Emblaze’s Preferred Construction
`
`Apple’s Preferred Construction
`
`“a broadcast data stream that is received at one
`or more clients without substantial delay after
`the broadcast”
`
`“communicating a data stream that is received at
`one or more clients simultaneously with
`minimal delay”
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“simultaneous transmission of data to one or more clients matching the human perception of time
`or proceeding at the same rate as a physical or external process”
`
`The parties’ dispute over the construction of “real-time broadcasting” has two components.
`
`First, Apple and Emblaze contest whether “real-time broadcasting” requires simultaneous receipt
`
`of the data stream by clients (Apple’s position), or only simultaneous transmission of the data
`
`stream (Emblaze’s position). In support of its narrower construction, Apple cites to the first
`
`sentence of the background section of the ’473 patent, which states: “In network broadcasting, data
`
`are transmitted over a network in real time from a single transmitting computer to a plurality of
`clients simultaneously.”38 Apple argues that “[i]t is illogical to read the above passage as
`emphasizing simultaneous transmission only, while the clients can receive the data in a staggered
`or otherwise unsystematic fashion as Emblaze contends.”39
`The court finds Apple’s position unpersuasive for two reasons.
`
`First, Apple’s quoted excerpt from the specification refers to simultaneous transmission, not
`
`simultaneous receipt. The adverb “simultaneously” in the passage modifies the verb “transmitted”
`
`rather than receipt by clients. Second, the background section of the ’473 patent describes the prior
`
`art, not the invention. Without some indication in the background section that this statement also
`
`describes the patented invention, the court will not assume statements about the prior art apply to
`
`
`38 ’473 patent, at 1:16-18.
`39 Docket No. 118, at 7.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0009
`
`

`

`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`the claimed invention. Moreover, the fact that Apple fails to identify any other portions of the
`
`specification that imply that the invention as claimed requires simultaneous receipt of the data
`
`stream by clients strongly counsels against importing this limitation into the “real-time
`
`broadcasting” term. Accordingly, the court’s construction requires simultaneous transmission of
`
`the data stream, but not simultaneous receipt.
`
`Second, Apple and Emblaze essentially dispute the immediacy with which the invention
`
`must deliver the event stream to the user. This disagreement centers on the degree of delay
`
`allowable in “real-time” transmission. Apple requests that the court construe “real-time” to require
`
`“minimal delay,” whereas Emblaze contends that “real-time” means “without substantial delay.”
`
`There is not much difference between these two constructions, but the court must nevertheless
`
`resolve the conflict. The parties cite four passages of the specification as informing the
`
`construction of “real-time.” The ’473 patent explains that “[t]he division of the data stream into
`
`slices . . . allows the broadcast to go on substantially in real time without the use of special-purpose
`hardware.”40 The specification repeats this “substantially in real time” language later: “Clients 30
`connect to server 36 and receive the multimedia sequence, substantially in real time.”41 The third
`and fourth passages are similar, but they add that any delay is preferably minimal: “When one of
`
`computers 30 connects to server 36 and begins to download the data stream, it first reads the index
`
`file in order to identify at what point in stream 40 to begin and to start receiving the data stream
`
`substantially in real time, preferably with only a minimal lag, as it is transmitted from computer
`34.”42
`
`Unfortunately, these specification excerpts do not especially inform the court as to the
`
`meaning of “real-time.” Instead, they describe two characteristics of the invention: (1) the
`invention transmits the data stream to the client “substantially in real time,”43 and (2) a preferred
`
`40 ’473 patent, at 2:17-21.
`41 Id. at 7:4-5.
`42 Id. at 8:1-7; see also id. at 10:49-54 (“Time stamps in the data stream are used to synchronize the
`data, so that the multimedia sequence is played back just as it was input at computer 34, preferably
`with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.”).
`43 See id. at 2:17-21, 7:4-5, 8:1-7.
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`embodiment of the invention transmits the data stream to the client “with minimal lag.”44 The first
`characteristic is unhelpful in defining “real-time” because it uses the term itself. The second
`
`characteristic is also unhelpful because Federal Circuit law is clear that courts typically should not
`import limitations from a preferred embodiment into a claim.45
`Without further citations to the intrinsic evidence from the parties, the court turns to the
`
`specification for other clues as to the meaning of “real-time.” One passage overlooked by the
`
`parties is especially helpful. The ’473 patent states that “[f]urther preferably, the client compares
`
`the times stamped in the data stream to a local real-time clock and, if it determines that there is a
`
`significant lag in the time codes relative to the real-time clock, opens additional links with server
`36 in order to increase the overall data rate.”46 While the steps of recording and comparing time
`stamps are part of a preferred embodiment and should not be imported into a basic claim term like
`
`“real-time,” inherent in this excerpt is the idea that the delivery of the data stream to the client
`
`should generally match the procession of the event being broadcast. The specification also
`
`mentions that applications of the invention include “an interview program or an entertainment or
`sports event”47 and “video teleconferencing.”48 Applications such as these require a transmission
`system rapid enough to proceed in “real-time” with the live event. The Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary’s definition of “real-time” expresses this requirement well: “Real-time operations are
`
`those in which the machine’s activities match the human perception of time or those in which
`computer operations proceed at the same rate as a physical or external process.”49
`
`
`44 See id. at 8:1-7, 10:49-54.
`45 See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific
`embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
`embodiments.”); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The
`patentee is entitled to the full scope of his claims, and we will not limit him to his preferred
`embodiment or import a limitation from the specification into the claims.”).
`46 ’473 patent, at 10:59-63.
`47 Id. at 6:58-59.
`48 Id. at 13:49.
`49 Docket No. 119-6, Handy Decl. Ex. F, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 441 (5th ed. 2002).
`11
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`This language best captures the meaning of “real-time” as it is used by the ’473 patent. The
`
`Federal Circuit “ha[s] especially noted the help that technical dictionaries may provide to a court
`
`‘to better understand the underlying technology’ and the way in which one of skill in the art might
`use the claim terms.”50 As such, the court construes “real-time broadcasting” to mean
`“simultaneous transmission of data to one or more clients matching the human perception of time
`
`or proceeding at the same rate as a physical or external process.”
`Dispute #2: “Providing at the Transmitting Computer a Data Stream Having a Given
`B.
`Data Rate”
`
`CLAIM TERM #2
`
`“providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data rate”
`
`Emblaze’s Preferred Construction
`
`Apple’s Preferred Construction
`
`“providing from the transmitting computer a
`data stream [having an assigned data rate, where
`a data rate is an amount of data per unit of
`time]”
`
`“inputting a data stream to the transmitting
`computer from a source of broadcast data”
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“the transmitting computer provides a data stream [having a given amount of data per unit of
`time]”
`
`
`
`The limitation, “providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data
`
`rate,” appears in claim 1, upon which asserted claim 23 depends. Apple and Emblaze contest
`
`whether “providing at the transmitting computer a data stream” requires a data stream to be input to
`
`the transmitting computer from a source of broadcast data (Apple’s position), or whether the data
`
`stream can be generated by the transmitting computer itself (Emblaze’s position).
`
`
`
`The specification is clear that some embodiments of the invention broadcast data that is
`
`generated by the transmitting computer. For example, the summary of the invention section states
`
`that “[i]n some preferred embodiments of the present invention, the data stream comprises
`multimedia data captured or generated by the transmitting computer.”51 Later, the specification
`
`50 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`51 ’473 patent, at 2:29-31 (emphasis added).
`
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`12
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1108
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01413
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:11-cv-01079-PSG Document 653 Filed 10/09/14 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`takes care to say that although the transmitting computer “preferably receives audiovisual input
`
`from input devices,” “data inputs of other types may be generated at or by computer 34 using any
`suitable means known in the art.”52 The specification thus considers a data stream generated by the
`transmitting computer to be within the scope of the invention. The disputed term also appears in
`
`claim 1, rather than a dependent claim more likely to claim a narrower embodiment of the
`
`invention. Nothing in the plain claim language—“providing at the transmitting computer a data
`
`stream” —indicates that the data stream must come from an external source. Accordingly, as
`
`Emblaze argues, the claim should not be so limited.
`
`
`
`Rather than argue that the claim excludes the more minor embodiments of the invention
`
`that allow for the transmitting computer to generate the data stream, Apple simply points to other
`
`embodiments in which a data stream is input to the transmitting computer from an external source.
`
`For example, describing Figure 5, the specification states that “[t]o begin the broadcast, computer
`
`34 connects to server 36, optionally opening the plurality of links shown in Fig. 4. Broadcast data
`
`are then input to the computer, for example, from input devices 22, or from a video, audio or
`animation sequence stored on disk or tape.”53 Apple’s two other citations to the specification are
`similarly unpersuasive.54 Considering the specification as a whole, the court finds that the
`invention is principally directed toward improving streaming of external events.55 However, the
`specification is unequivocal that the claims are not limited to only data streams input to the
`
`transmitting computer. The court therefore construes “providing at the transmitting computer a
`
`
`52 Id. at 6:32-35.
`53 Id. at 9:62-66.
`54 See id. at 1:23-28 (“Fig. 1 is a schematic illustration showing a real-time broadcasting system 20,
`as is known in the art. One or more input devices 22 (for example, a video camera and/or
`microphone) are used to generate a multimedia data stream representing an entertainment or
`informational program to be transmitted to a plurality of clients 30 via a network 28.”), 7:36-42
`(“Computer 34 monitors the time codes as file 40 is transmitted, and clients 30 similarly monitor
`the time codes as the file is received, in order to ensure that the transmission or reception is
`‘keeping up’ with the input of the da