Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 9569
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-257 (DF)
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`TIVO, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC.,VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and
`VERIZON CORPORATE RESOURCES
`GROUP, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Tivo, Inc.’s (“Tivo’s”) Opening Claim Construction Brief. Dkt. No.
`
`139. Also before the Court are Verizon’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief and Tivo’s
`
`Reply Claim Construction Brief. Dkt. Nos. 145 and 151, respectively. The Court held a claim
`
`construction hearing on disputed terms in Tivo’s patents on June 1, 2011. See Dkt. No. 176.
`
`Before the Court is Verizon’s Opening Claim Construction Brief. Dkt. No. 138. Also
`
`before the Court are Tivo’s Response Claim Construction Brief and Verizon’s Reply Claim
`
`Construction Brief. Dkt. Nos. 143 and 152, respectively. The Court held a claim construction
`
`hearing on disputed terms in Verizon’s patents on June 2, 2011. See Dkt. No. 178.
`
`Having considered the briefing, oral arguments of counsel, and all relevant papers and
`
`pleadings, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as set forth herein.
`
`SAMSUNG 1013
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 9570
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. Background.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`
`II. Legal Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`1.
`“Object,” “sink object,” “control object,” and “source object” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`2.
`“Obtains data stream buffers”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`3.
`“Transform object,” automatically flow controlled,” “wherein said source object is
`automatically flow controlled by said transform object,” “wherein said transform
`object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device,” and “wherein said
`sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object”.. . . . . . . . . 7
`“Temporarily stores said video and audio data”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`“Wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data
`source” and “wherein said source object converts video data into data streams and
`fills said buffers with said streams”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`“Control the flow of the broadcast data through the system”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`“Wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source,
`transform, and sink objects”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`2.
`
`IV. U.S. Patent No. 7,493,015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`1.
`“Detecting current position in the program material where the termination
`occurred”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`“Calculating,” “calculating a new position in the program material,” “calculating
`step,” and “calculates the new position based on a user-selected speed of the fast
`forward or reverse progression”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`“User’s expected termination point”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`“Adding a positional offset to the current position when reverse mode has been
`terminated or subtracting a positional offset from the current position when fast
`forward mode has been terminated”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`
`3.
`4.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 9571
`
`5.
`
`“Module”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`V. U.S. Patent No. 7,529,465. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`1.
`“Digital video recorder”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`2.
`“Video segment”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`3.
`“To cause delivery of selected video segments to an output subsystem”. . . . . . . 27
`4.
`“Allows playback rate and direction of each multimedia program to be controlled
`individually and simultaneously to perform any of fast forward, rewind, frame
`step, pause, and play functions”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`“Module”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`5.
`
`VI. U.S. Patent No. 5,410,344. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`1.
`“Attribute Rating”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`2.
`“Receiving ratings from the viewer corresponding to the attributes for said
`predetermined audiovisual program, before said updating step”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`“Soliciting a ranking from the viewer for each of said preferred audiovisual
`programs in a list”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
`
`3.
`
`6.
`
`VII. U.S. Patent No. 5,635,979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
`1.
`“Digital entertainment terminal”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
`2.
`“Network interface module”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
`3.
`“The two-way control signaling channel”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
`4.
`“Application software”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`5.
`“Means for receiving inputs form a user and providing said corresponding
`selection signals to the control processor”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`“Means for combining the graphic display information with the decompressed
`video signal”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
`“Means for receiving inputs form a user and providing said corresponding
`selection signals to the control processor”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
`“Means for combining the graphic display information with the decompressed
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 9572
`
`video signal, to produce a signal for driving a video display driving device”.. . . 44
`
`VIII. U.S. Patent No. 5,973,684.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
`1.
`“Digital entertainment terminal”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`2.
`“A processing unit for selectively executing said first application and said second
`application, in response to said application-specific input received by a said user
`interface”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`“A first application enabling communication between the digital entertainment
`terminal and the digital broadband data network”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
`“A second application enabling reception of provider services” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IX. U.S. Patent No. 6,367,078. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`1.
`“Receiver”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
`2.
`“Said at least one channel”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`3.
`“Channel”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
`4.
`“First control signal”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
`5.
`“Second control signal”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
`
`X. U.S. Patent No. 6,381,748.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
`
`XI. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 9573
`
`I. Background
`Tivo alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,233,389 (“the ’389 Patent”);
`
`7,493,015 (“the ’015 Patent”); and 7,529,465 (“the ’465 Patent”) (collectively, the “Tivo
`
`Patents”). The ’465 Patent is a continuation of a continuation of the ’389 Patent and both share a
`
`common specification. The ’389 Patent is titled “Multimedia Time Warping System.” The ’465
`
`Patent is titled “System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams.” The ’015 Patent is
`
`titled “System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams.” Certain claim terms in the TiVo
`
`Patents were previously construed by this Court in Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp.,
`
`Civ. Act. No. 2:04-cv-1, Dkt. No. 185 (hereinafter “Echostar CC Order”) and in Tivo Inc. v.
`
`AT&T Inc., Civ. Act. No. 2:09-cv-259, Dkt. No. 210 (hereinafter “AT&T CC Order”) .
`
`Verizon alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,410,334 (“the ’334 Patent”);
`
`5,635,979 (“the ’979 Patent”); 5,973,684 (“the ’684 Patent”); 6,367,078 (“the ’078 Patent); and
`
`6,381,748 (“the ’748 Patent”) (collectively, “the Verizon Patents”). Verizon previously asserted
`
`United States Patent No. 7,561,214 against Tivo, but that patent was dismissed from the case on
`
`May 19, 2011. Dkt. No. 171. The ’344 Patent is titled “Apparatus and Method of Selecting
`
`Video Programs Based on Viewers’ Preferences.” The ’979 Patent is titled “Dynamically
`
`Programmable Digital Entertainment Terminal Using Downloaded Software to Control
`
`Broadband Data Operations.” The ’684 Patent is titled “Digital Entertainment Terminal
`
`Providing Dynamic Execution in Video Dial Tone Networks.” The ’078 Patent is titled
`
`“Electronic Program-Guide System with Sideways-Surfing Capability.” The ’748 Patent is titled
`
`“Apparatus and Methods for Network Access Using a Set Top Box and Television.”
`
`1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 9574
`
`II. Legal Principles
`
`A determination of patent infringement involves two steps. First, the patent claims are
`
`construed, and, second, the claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device. Cybor Corp.
`
`v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The legal principles of
`
`claim construction were reexamined by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit in Phillips expressly reaffirmed the
`
`principles of claim construction as set forth in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim construction is a legal question for the courts. Markman,
`
`52 F.3d at 979.
`
`The Court, in accordance with the doctrines of claim construction that it has outlined in
`
`the past, will construe the claims of the ’632 Patent below. See Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SKI
`
`Co., LTD., No. 2:07-CV-170, 2008 WL 4831319 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2008) (claim-construction
`
`order). These constructions resolve the parties’ disputes over the literal scope of the claims.
`
`The Abstract of the ’389 Patent states:
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389
`
`A multimedia time warping system. The invention allows the user to store
`selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching
`or reviewing another program. A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts
`television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, National
`Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms
`such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or
`Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). The TV streams are
`converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for
`internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it [sic] into video
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 9575
`
`and audio components. The components are stored in temporary buffers. Events
`are recorded that indicate the type of component that has been found, where it is
`located, and when it occurred. The program logic is notified that an event has
`occurred and the data is extracted from the buffers. The parser and event buffer
`decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time
`nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and
`translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a
`storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio
`components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG
`stream which is sent to a decoder. The decoder converts the MPEG stream into
`TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver. User
`control commands are accepted and sent through the system. These commands
`affect the flow of said MPEG stream and allow the user to view stored programs
`with at least the following functions: reverse, fast forward, play, pause, index,
`fast/slow reverse play, and fast/slow play.
`
`The claims at issue for claim construction include Claims 31 and 61 of the ’389 Patent.
`
`Claim 31 of the ’389 Patent recites:
`
`31. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia
`data, comprising the steps of:
`providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts
`broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said
`broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;
`providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and
`audio data from said physical data source;
`providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and
`retrieves data streams onto a storage device;
`wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object,
`said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with
`said streams;
`wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said
`transform object;
`providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream
`buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio
`decoder;
`wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends
`said signals to a display;
`wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform
`
`object;
`
`providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 9576
`
`from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the
`system; and
`wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source,
`transform, and sink objects.
`
`Claim 61 of the ’389 Patent recites:
`
`61. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data,
`comprising:
`a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data
`from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and
`temporarily stores said video and audio data;
`a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from
`said physical data source;
`a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams
`onto a storage device;
`wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source
`object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams;
`wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform
`
`object;
`
`a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said
`transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;
`wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said
`signals to a display;
`wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;
`a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said
`commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and
`wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform,
`and sink objects.
`
`The parties have submitted the following disputed terms for the ’389 Patent : (1) “object,”
`
`“sink object,” “control object,” and “source object”; (2) “obtains data stream buffers”; (3)
`
`“transform object,” “automatically flow controlled,” “wherein said source object . . . ,” “wherein
`
`said transform object . . . ,” and “wherein said sink object . . . ”; (4) “temporarily stores said
`
`video and audio data”; (5) “wherein said source object extracts . . . ,” and “wherein said source
`
`object converts. . . ”; (6) “control the flow of the broadcast data through the system”; and (7)
`
`“wherein said control object sends . . ..”
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 9577
`
`1.
`
`“Object,” “sink object,” “control object,” and “source object”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`TiVo proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe the
`
`term “object” to mean “a collection of data and operations” and to have this construction be
`
`applied to “control object,” and “source object.” Dkt. No. 139 at 8. TiVo points out that the
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s constructions in the EchoStar appeal. Id. TiVo argues that
`
`Verizon’s proposed construction seeks to further construe the terms in the Court’s construction
`
`and adds unnecessary and unsupported verbiage to the Court’s previous construction. Id.
`
`Verizon responds that its proposed constructions are based on the intrinsic record and
`
`argues that TiVo narrowed and clarified the meaning of “object” during reexamination. Dkt. No.
`
`145 at 6-7. Verizon submits that TiVo explained its claims “in more explicit terms” during
`
`reexaminiation and the jury should have the benefit of TiVo’s more explicit explanation. Id. at 5.
`
`TiVo replies that Verizon has failed to address the legal test for determining if TiVo
`
`limited the scope of the ’389 Patent during reexamination. Dkt. No. 151 at 1. TiVo states that
`
`Verizon has not explained how TiVo’s statements are clear and unambiguous surrender of
`
`subject matter or how TiVo’s comments during reexamination narrows the scope of “objects.”
`
`Id.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “object,” “sink object,” “control object” and “source
`
`object” during the Echostar litigation and construed “object” to mean “a collection of data and
`
`operations” and applied this construction to “control object,” and “source object.” Echostar CC
`
`Order at 24-26 and 28-29. The Court does not find that TiVo narrowed the scope of the term
`
`5
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 9578
`
`“object” during reexamination and is not persuaded that its previous construction should be
`
`changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “object” to mean “a collection of
`
`data and operations.” The Court further adopts its prior construction of “source object” to mean
`
`“ a collection of data and operations that (1) extracts video and audio data from a physical data
`
`source, (2) obtains a buffer from a transform object, (3) converts video data into data streams,
`
`and (4) fills the buffer with the streams.” The Court adopts its prior construction of “sink object”
`
`to mean “a collection of data and operations that (1) obtains data stream buffers from a transform
`
`object and (2) outputs the streams to a video and audio decoder.” The Court also adopts its
`
`previous construction of “control object” to mean “a collection of data and operations that
`
`receives commands form a user that control the flow of broadcast data.”
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“Obtains data stream buffers”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`TiVo argues that this term does not need further construction. Dkt. No. 139 at 10. TiVo
`
`submits that the Court properly decline to further construe the term during Echostar and the jury
`
`was able to ably apply the Court’s construction. Id. Verizon respond that their proposed
`
`construction would be helpful to the jury by clarifying that the buffers that are obtained contain
`
`data streams. Dkt. No. 145 at 15. Verizon point out that their proposed construction is how
`
`TiVo’s infringement expert explained it to the jury in the Echostar case Id. TiVo replies that
`
`Verizon’s reliance on the expert’s testimony is improper because the expert also testified that the
`
`data stream buffers do not need to be full of data. Dkt. No. 151 at 6.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “buffer” and “obtains data stream buffers” during the
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 9579
`
`Echostar litigation and construed “buffer” to mean “memory where data can be temporarily
`
`stored for transfer.” Echostar CC Order at 22-24. This Court applied this construction to
`
`“obtains data stream buffers.” The Court is not persuaded that its previous construction should
`
`be changed or that “obtains data stream buffers” requires additional clarification or construction.
`
`3.
`
`“Transform object,” “automatically flow controlled,” “wherein said source
`object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object,” “wherein said
`transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device,” and
`“wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform
`object”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`TiVo proposes that the Court adopt its existing construction and continue to construe the
`
`term “transform object” to mean “a collection of data and operations that transforms the form of
`
`data upon which it operates.” Dkt. No. 139 at 11. TiVo also proposes that “automatically flow
`
`controlled” continue to be construed as “self-regulated.” Id. TiVo argues that Verizon’s
`
`proposed construction and supporting arguments “are based on significant and unsupported
`
`revisions to TiVo’s actual statements during the reexamination.” Id. TiVo submits that
`
`Verizon’s proposed construction does not clarify claim scope or aid the jury in better
`
`understanding the claimed invention. Id. at 13.
`
`Verizon responds that TiVo’s arguments to the USPTO during reexamination of the ’389
`
`Patent narrowed the scope of “transform object” and “automatic flow control.” Dkt. No. 145 at
`
`10. Verizon submits that TiVo described “transform object” during reexamination as something
`
`that “intelligently manages buffers or the manipulation of the video and audio data so as to
`
`facilitate the system’s ability to handle asymmetric memory demands of the source and sink
`
`objects.” Id. Thus, argues Verizon, the Court’s construction of “transform object” and
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 9580
`
`“automatic flow control” should be revisited. Id. at 11. Verizon argues that the jury should be
`
`allowed to consider the same explanation that TiVo gave the USPTO during reexamination. Id.
`
`at 11.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court previously considered “transform object” during the Echostar litigation and is
`
`not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. Echostar CC Order at 26-27.
`
`The Court also previously considered “automatically flow controlled” and construed
`
`“automatically flow controlled” to mean “self-regulated.” Echostar CC Order at 24. The Court
`
`does not find that TiVo redefined “transform object” and “automatic flow control” during
`
`reexamination and is not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. The Court
`
`therefore adopts its prior construction of “transform object” to mean “a collection of data and
`
`operations that transforms the form of data upon which it operates” and “automatically flow
`
`controlled” to mean “self-regulated.” Because of the Court’s prior construction of “source
`
`object” and “sink object,” the Court finds that the phrases “wherein said source object is
`
`automatically flow controlled by said transform object,” “wherein said transform object stores
`
`and retrieves data streams onto a storage device” and “wherein said sink object is automatically
`
`flow controlled by said transform object” need no further construction.
`
`4.
`
`“Temporarily stores said video and audio data”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`TiVo contends that no construction is necessary for this term. Dkt. No. 139 at 14.
`
`Alternatively, TiVo argues that if the Court finds that construction is necessary, the term should
`
`be construed to mean “temporarily places or holds the video and audio data.” Id. TiVo believes
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 9581
`
`the phrase is straightforward and requires no construction.
`
`Verizon proposes that the term be construed to mean “the physical data source places the
`
`video and audio data into memory temporarily.” Dkt. No. 145 at 15. Verizon states that its
`
`proposed construction clarifies that the process of temporarily storing video and audio data is
`
`performed by the physical data source, as stated in the claims. Verizon submits that TiVo
`
`ignores the patent by arguing that some other component may be responsible for placing data into
`
`memory. Id.
`
`TiVo replies that Verizon’s contention that the physical data source places data into
`
`memory is unfounded. Dkt. No. 151 at 6.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`Verizon argues that the process of “temporarily storing” is performed by the physical data
`
`source as described by the specification and therefore this term should be construed to mean that
`
`“the physical data source places the video and audio data into memory temporarily.” However,
`
`Verizon does not point to any portion of the specification that discusses the physical data source
`
`placing data into memory temporarily. Likewise, the Court does not find such a disclosure by
`
`TiVo in the file history. As Verizon admits in its briefing, the claim language is clear that “the
`
`physical data source must temporarily store the video and audio data.” Accordingly, the Court
`
`finds that “temporarily stores said video and audio data” does not require further construction.
`
`5.
`
`“Wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical
`data source” and “wherein said source object converts video data into data
`streams and fills said buffers with said streams”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`TiVo submits that these phrases do not need additional construction given the Court’s
`
`9
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 9582
`
`previous construction of “source object” and “buffer.” TiVo states that Verizon’s proposed
`
`construction rephrases the claim so that the source objection takes data out of the physical data
`
`source. However, TiVo argues, the claim does not require this proposed limitation.
`
`Verizon proposes that the Court construe “wherein said source object extracts video and
`
`audio data from said physical data source” to mean “the source object takes video and audio data
`
`out of the physical data source” and “said source object converts video data into data streams and
`
`fills said buffer with said streams” to mean “said source object converts the video data it has
`
`taken from the physical data source into video data streams and fills said buffer with said
`
`streams.” Dkt. No. 145 at 16. Verizon explains that its proposed construction is consistent with
`
`the specification which states that the “source object 901 takes data out of the physical data
`
`source . . . and places it into a PES buffer.” Id. at 17. Verizon also argues that the plain language
`
`of the claim requires the source objection to extract video and audio data from the physical data
`
`source. Id. TiVo replies that nothing prevents the source object from simply obtaining or
`
`deriving a copy of the data from the physical data source rather than taking the data out of the
`
`physical data source. Dkt. No. 151 at 7.
`
`b. Discussion
`
`The Court addressed the construction of “source object” and “buffer” above. The parties’
`
`main dispute regarding this term is the meaning of “extract.” Verizon’s proposed construction
`
`would have the source object remove data from the physical data source. However, nowhere
`
`does the specification or claim state that the physical data source no longer contains the data that
`
`was just extracted. Accordingly, the Court hereby construes for “wherein said source object
`
`extracts video and audio data from said physical data source” to mean “wherein the source object
`
`10
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 9583
`
`obtains video and audio data from said physical data source.” In light of the Court’s previous
`
`construction of the terms “source object” and “buffer,” no further construction is required for
`
`“said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams.”
`
`6.
`
`“Control the flow of the broadcast data through the system”
`
`a. Parties’ Proposed Constructions
`
`TiVo submits that this term does not require construction. Alternatively, TiVo proposes
`
`that the term be construed to mean “control the flow of the broadcast data within the system.”
`
`Dkt. No. 139 at 16. TiVo argues that Verizon’s proposed construction is “overly narrow” and
`
`inconsistent with the specification. TiVo submits that Verizon’s proposal appears to require that
`
`every user command control the entire data flow through the pipeline, which is contrary to the
`
`description of control objection in the specification and would exclude embodiments of the
`
`invention. Id. at 17.
`
`Verizon responds that this term should be construed to mean “control the transmission of
`
`the broadcast data from the physical data source to the display.” Verizon argues that its
`
`construction makes clear that “through the system” means “from the physical data source to the
`
`display.” Dkt. No. 145 at 18.
`
`TiVo replies that Verizon’s proposed construction would limit the term to require that
`
`every command issued by a user control the flow of broadcast data through the entire system.
`
`Dkt. No. 151 at 8. TiVo argues that the embodiment Verizon relies on for its construction is not
`
`made of one pipeline, as Verizon suggests, but of three pipelines that are controlled
`
`asynchronously. TiVo states that the specification discloses an embodiment in which a user
`
`pause command only pauses only a portion of the flow associated with the sink. Id.
`
`11
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 268 Filed 03/12/12 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 9584
`
`b. Discussion
`
`This term appears in both asserted claims 31 and 61. The parties dispute whether user
`
`commands have to control the transmission of the broadcast data form the physical data source to
`
`the display or if user commands control the flow of broadcast between any two points in the
`
`system. The specification discusses an embodiment in which a user “pause” command pauses
`
`only the flow portion associated with the sink. ’389, 9:22-32. Thus, the specification
`
`contemplated the possibility that a user command could only control the flow between two points
`
`within the system. Accordingly, the Court hereby construes “control the flow of data through the
`
`system” to mean “control the flow of the broadcast data within