The Court, having considered the parties' briefing on claim construction (D.I.

Patent"), 6, 732, 14 7 (the"' 147 Patent"), and 6,920,497 (the "'497 Patent") set forth below are construed as follows: "means for identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest" '344/13 Function: "Identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest" "means for identifying a game of interest includes accessing a web server that maps games to corresponding broadcast channel" "means for identifying a broadcast channel for a topic of interest" '966/13 Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in steps described in the '344 Patent at 16:57-17:1, which involves connecting to a web server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for the game of interest.

'344/14 Function: Identifying a game of interest includes accessing a web server that maps games to corresponding broadcast channel Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in steps described in '344 Patent at 16:57-17:1, which involves connecting to a web server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for the game of interest Function: Identifying a broadcast channel for a topic of interest Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in steps described in '966 Patent at 16:41-51, which involves connecting to a web server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for a topic of interest

' "means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel" '344/13 '966113 Function: "Connecting to the identified broadcast channel" '344 Structure: A processor programmed to perform at least one of the algorithms disclosed in steps 801 to 809 in Figure 8 and described in the '344 Patent at 17:67- 19:34, 19:66-20:44, 21 :4-53, 22:61-24:6, andFigures9, 11, 13, 14, 17and 18,or Figures 3A and 3B and described in the '344 Patent at 5:33-55, which involves invoking the connecting routine with the identified broadcast channel's type and instance, connecting to the broadcast.

Function: "Selecting the call-in port of the identified portal computer using a port ordering algorithm" Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm described in the '497 Patent at 11:60-12:12, which involves performing the steps of using a port ordering algorithm for selecting the call in port of the identified portal computer by using an algorithm that provides a se uence of ort numbers.

As to RFP Nos. 150 & 165, I do not think Defendants need the documents to contest Plaintiffs assertion in the Complaint that it is an operating company, as, if it does not produce the requested documents, I will bar it at trial (and at the injunction stage, if we get there) from offering evidence that it is an operating (including incubating, whatever that means) company (which in any event, it does not appear in any substantial sense to be).

I would expect the testimony to be, from Ward, I'm the President and CEO of this one-person company (or two persons, if it also employs a patent valuation expert)).

I do not think the unredacted agreement, or any other documents, are likely relevant to the determining the purchase price, which appears to be $250,000 with the possibility of substantial additional payments of up to $22,000,000.

Thus, as stated above, I adopt the Special Master's Order as to RFP No. 167, and as to the balance, Plaintiff need not produce any of the requested documents, as they are not relevant to the issues that will remain in the case.

If, however, Plaintiff wants to be able to argue that it should be allowed to present evidence at trial that it is an "operating company," then it must comply with the Special Master's Order as to the other three RFPs.

By agreement among the parties, Defendants' Motion Regarding Expert Report Framework (“'Expert Motion”) was expedited because opening expert reports are due within a month under the Court's current Scheduling Order.

Plaintiff responds that its infringement contentions are several hundred pages per game at issue and it would be prejudiced if any limitations were imposed on its reports.

As I am tasked by the Court to manage discovery in these cases, I am seeking to balance the needs of the parties.

I will set a page limitation on the expert reports that is more than the Defendants requested but less than Plaintiff suggested.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS TO THE EXPERT MOTION: expert reports in each case shall be limited to 2,500 pages per case, exclusive of CVs and inclusive of substantive attachments.

Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."'

"In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words."

Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.

This citation provides that in one embodiment, seeking computers may reorder the first few port numbers created by a hashing algorithm.

For the reasons given above in connection with the previous term, I am changing "seeks" to "is configured" and striking "at all times" from Defendants' proposed construction.

The Broadcast Claims meet the need for "a reliable communications network that is suitable for the simultaneous sharing of information among a large number of the processes that are widely distributed."

A. Motion to Dismiss Rule 8 requires a complainant to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .... " Fed. R. Civ.

"A claim has facial plausibility when the [complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged."

It provides: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

I t I t Defendants' argument, belatedly raised in their reply brief, that the Broadcast Claims are not physical or tangible structures and thus are not patent-eligible subject matter, is waived.