Baron Services Inc v. Media Weather Innovations LLC

Filing 121

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 06/27/14. (SPT )

FILED
2014 Jun-27 AM 11:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
BARON SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEATHERCALL
LLC,
Defendant.

SERVICES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. CV-11-S-1606-NE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case involves United States Patent No. 6,490,525 (“the ‘525 patent”),
entitled “Systems and Methods for Distributing Real-Time Site-Specific Weather
Information.”1 The patent is owned by plaintiff, Baron Services, Inc. The patent
1

U.S. Patent No. 6,490,525, at [54] (filed Aug. 13, 2001) (hereinafter “‘525 Patent”); see
also, e.g., doc. no. 1-1 (Complaint, Ex. “1”), at ECF 2 (same). “ECF” is the acronym for “Electronic
Case Filing,” a system that allows parties to file and serve documents electronically. See Atterbury
v. Foulk, No. C-07-6256 MHP, 2009 WL 4723547, *6 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2009). Bluebook Rule
7.1.4 permits citations to the “page numbers generated by the ECF header.” Wilson v. Fullwood, 772
F. Supp. 2d 246, 257 n.5 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. B.
7.1.4, at 21 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al., 19th ed. 2010)). Even so, the Bluebook
recommends “against citation to ECF pagination in lieu of original pagination.” Wilson, 772 F.
Supp. 2d at 257 n.5. Thus, unless stated otherwise, this court will cite the original pagination in the
parties’ pleadings. When the court cites to pagination generated by the ECF header, it will, as here,
precede the page number with the letters “ECF.”
The ‘525 patent is attached as an exhibit in numerous documents in the record of this action.
See, e.g., doc. no. 1-1 (Complaint, Exhibit “1”); doc. no. 38-8 (Index of Evidence in Support of
Baron Services, Inc’s Motion to Compel, Exhibit “8”); doc. no. 98-1 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim
Construction and Prehearing Statement, Exhibit “A”); doc. no. 101 (Baron Services, Inc.’s Opening
Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit “A”), at ECF 44–57; doc. no. 104-1 (Defendant WeatherCall
LLC’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit “A”). For convenience, the court will cite to
the patent itself, rather than numerous places the patent appears in the record, throughout the
following memorandum opinion and order.

issued on December 3, 2002, and claims priority to a provisional patent application
filed on June 4, 1996.2 WeatherCall Services, LLC, the defendant in this action,
offers “WeatherCall” severe weather alerting products and services.3 Baron Services
claims that WeatherCall’s products and services infringe the ‘525 patent.4
The patent’s specification explains that the invention “generally relates to
systems and methods for weather reporting and forecasting, and, more particularly,
to computerized systems and methods for reporting and forecasting real-time weather
information.”5
The inventors of the ‘525 patent, all of whom were employees of Baron
Services, recognized that a need existed in the industry for an improvement in the
delivery of real-time weather information for a localized area to people in that area

2

‘525 Patent, at [60]. As stated in the Patent Applications Handbook:

A provisional application, as described in 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(c), is designed to be a
simple, inexpensive patent application that will not be examined except for
formalities. It does not require claims or a declaration, although the correct inventors
must be named. The provisional application will establish a priority date for any
subsequently filed regular (nonprovisional) U.S. application. The provisional
application will also establish a U.S. priority date for foreign applications.
Patent Applications Handbook § 5:33; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(c) (detailing the application filing
requirements for a provisional patent application).
3

See, e.g., doc. no. 101 (Baron Services, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief), at ECF

4

Id.; see also doc. no. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 10–14.

5

‘525 Patent, at col. 1, ll. 19–22.

4.

2

during times of severe weather.6 The invention disclosed in the ‘525 patent was
designed to meet that need, and provide relevant, site-specific, real-time weather
information.7
The systems and methods disclosed in a basic embodiment of the ‘525 patent
for distributing real-time, site-specific, weather information utilize a special purpose
computer receiving meteorological data, a distribution network, and a plurality of
remote units.8 The meteorological data can include the storm’s location and type, and
may be provided automatically from a data provider, or manually, or through a
combination of the two.9
Among other things, the computer utilizes an end-user database that associates
each end-user with a location.10 The end-user database may also identify the means
by which to contact the end-users, such as by a telephone call or pager message.11
Then, by determining the end-user-associated-locations impacted by the storm or
severe weather system, the specific end-users and remote units to be notified of the
weather event can be identified and alerted.12 The remote units to be alerted may be
6

Id. at col. 2, ll. 46–49.

7

Id. at col. 2, ll. 53–58.

8

Id. at col. 2, l. 59 to col. 3, l. 1.

9

Id. at col. 3, ll. 21–29.

10

Id. at col. 8, ll. 3–6.

11

See ‘525 Patent, at col. 8, ll. 18–21.

12

Id. at col. 8, ll. 6–11.

3

located in a private home, a public facility, a mobile vehicle,13 or integrated into
conventional communication devices, such as conventional, land-line telephones,
wireless (cellular) telephones, and pagers.14
The patent’s specification explains that the distribution network “can be
implemented by a variety of different communication mediums, such as, but not
limited to, wireless, cable television, pager, land-line telephone, satellite, etc.”15 One
configuration for the distribution network is a wireless network that initiates a call
based upon a number that is an address that the weather alert manager retrieved from
a subscriber database.16
In some contexts, the distribution network is determined by the type of remote
unit.17 For example, if the remote unit were a pager, then the distribution network
would be a pager network suitable for interfacing with the pager remote unit.18
Similarly, if the remote unit were a cellular telephone, then the distribution network
would be a wireless network able to interface with the wireless remote unit.19

13

Id. at col. 8, ll. 49–53.

14

Id. at col. 9, ll. 47–59.

15

Id. at col. 8, ll. 22–25.

16

Id. at col. 8, ll. 33–37.

17

See ‘525 Patent, at col. 9, ll. 51–52.

18

Id. at col. 9, ll. 52–55.

19

Id. at col. 9, ll. 55–58.

4

I. GOVERNING LAW
Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Claim construction is designed to resolve
“disputed meanings and technical scope . . . for use in the determination of
infringement,” and is intended to aid the finder of fact. United States Surgical Corp.
v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning,” measured at the time of the invention by a “person of ordinary skill in the
art.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). There
is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their ordinary and customary
meaning. Epistar Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
Although it is generally unnecessary to construe terms that have a plain and
ordinary meaning, the court still must resolve the parties’ dispute over the scope of
a claim term, even if that term consists of words having well-recognized, commonly
understood meanings.

O2 Micro International, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation

Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That requirement may
be satisfied by declining to adopt a party’s proposed construction, and giving the
5

terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Active Video Networks, Inc. v.
Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
To determine scope and meaning, courts look to “the words of the claims
themselves, the written description, the prosecution history, and, lastly, any relevant
extrinsic evidence.” Eon-Net L.P. v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–19). The most important claim
construction tool is the claim language itself, and the “actual words of the claim are
the controlling focus” throughout the construction process. Digital Biometrics, Inc.
v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Courts “cannot rewrite claim language.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom
Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Courts also “will not read
unstated limitations into claim language.” Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The claims “must be read in view of the specification of which they are a part,”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315, but the court must “avoid impermissibly importing
limitations from the specification.” Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Commission,
342 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Courts also “normally do not interpret claim
terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.” Oatey Co.
v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
6

The court also may consider the prosecution history, but statements made by
the patentee during prosecution cannot limit the scope of a claim unless it is “clear
and unmistakable that the patentee intended that limitation.” Aria Diagnostics, Inc.
v. Sequenom, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Extrinsic evidence can be useful, but cannot contradict the intrinsic evidence.
Extrinsic evidence “cannot alter any claim meaning discernable from intrinsic
evidence.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Dictionaries may be used for guidance in determining the plain meaning of
claim terms when the intrinsic evidence is silent as to that meaning. Helmsderfer,
527 F.3d at 1382. Some words or phrases may have a meaning that is so obvious,
however, that there is no need to even reach for a dictionary. W.E. Hall Co., Inc. v.
Atlanta Corrugating, LLC, 370 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
II. THE CLAIM TERMS IN DISPUTE
A.

“contact identifiers/identify”
The phrase “contact identifiers” appears in claims 1, 10, 15, 16, 24, and 29.

Claim 1 reads as follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
memory for storing contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units; and

7

logic configured to make a determination as to whether one of
said contact identifiers identifies at least one of said remote units that is
located within a geographic region of an impending weather event, said
logic further configured to transmit, if said logic determines in said
determination that said one contact identifier identifies a remote unit
located within said geographic region, a signal to the at least one remote
unit based on said one contact identifier thereby enabling the at least
one remote unit to notify a user within said geographic region of said
impending weather event.20
Claim 10 reads as follows:
The system of claim 7, wherein said weather event manager is
configured to associate said remote units with said different locations by
storing contact identifiers identifying said remote units and by
correlating different ones of said contact identifiers with different ones
of said locations, said weather event manager further configured to
transmit said signal based on a determination by said weather event
manager that a contact identifier identifying said one remote unit is
correlated with said expected location.21
Claim 15 reads as follows:
The system of claim 12, wherein said memory includes data
correlating a contact identifier with one of said regions, said contact
identifier identifying the one or more remote units, said processor
instructed to retrieve said contact identifier in response to a
determination that said one region is affected by said weather event and
to transmit said activation signal to the one or more remote units based
on said retrieved contact identifier.22
Claim 16 reads as follows:

20

Id. at col. 10, ll. 33–47 (emphasis supplied).

21

Id. at col. 11, ll. 19–27 (emphasis supplied).

22

Id. at col. 11, ll. 55–62 (emphasis supplied).

8

A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
storing a plurality of contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units;
determining that a weather event is expected to occur within a
particular geographic region;
automatically selecting, in response to said determining step, at
least one of said contact identifiers that identifies at least one of said
remote units located within said particular geographic region;
establishing communication with the at least one remote unit
based on the at least one contact identifier selected in said selecting
step; and
causing the at least one remote unit to automatically notification
[sic] a user of said expected weather event.23
Claim 24 reads as follows:
The method of claim 21, wherein said associating step includes
the steps of:
storing contact identifiers identifying said remote units; and
correlating different ones of said contact identifiers with different
ones of said locations,
wherein said method further comprises the step determining
whether one of said contact identifiers identifying said one remote unit
is correlated with said expected location indicated by said
meteorological data, and wherein said transmitting step is based on said

23

‘525 Patent, at col. 11, l. 64 to col. 12, l. 11 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

9

determining step.24
Claim 29 reads as follows:
The method of claim 26, further comprising the steps of:
storing at least one contact identifier identifying the at least one
remote unit;
correlating the at least one contact identifier with said grid cell
affected by said weather event; and
retrieving the at least one contact identifier based on said
correlating step and in response to a determination that said grid cell is
affected by said weather event data.
wherein said transmitting step is based on the at least one contact
identifier retrieved in said retrieving step.25
The parties agree that a “contact identifier” is an “address” that is “associated
with” one or more remote units. The disagreement between the parties is over the
examples or descriptions provided by each party.
Baron’s proposed construction for “contact identifier” is a “communication
address, e.g., telephone number, pager number, etc.”26 Baron’s examples of a
telephone number or pager number are taken directly from the patent: specifically,
claims 4–5,27 8–9,28 13–14,29 19–20,30 22–23,31 and 27–28.32
24

Id. at col. 12, ll. 48–59 (emphasis supplied).

25

Id. at col. 14, ll. 1–12 (emphasis supplied).

26

E.g., doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 3.

27

See ‘525 Patent, at col. 10, ll. 56–59 (“[Claim] 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the at

10

In contrast, WeatherCall’s proposed construction for “contact identifier” is
“any address (i.e., designation, number[,] or code) that is associated with one or more
remote units.”33 WeatherCall’s proposed descriptions — “i.e., designation, number[,]
or code” — are not taken from the patent. The patent nowhere refers to a contact
identifier, or an address, as either a “designation” or “code.”
The patent specification does state that weather information may be distributed
by a wireless network or a land-line telephone network.34 Even so, as indicated by
least one remote unit is a pager. [Claim] 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one remote
unit is a telephone.” (alterations supplied)).
28

Id. at col. 11, ll. 14–17 (“[Claim] 8. The system of claim 7, wherein said one remote unit
is a pager. [Claim] 9. The system of claim 7, wherein said one remote unit is a telephone.”
(alterations supplied)).
29

Id. at col. 11, ll. 51–54 (“[Claim] 13. The system of claim 12, wherein one of the one or
more remote units is a pager. [Claim] 14. The system of claim 12, wherein one of the one or more
remote units is a telephone.” (alterations supplied)).
30

Id. at col. 12, ll. 24–27 (“[Claim] 19. The method of claim 16, wherein the at least one
remote unit is a pager. [Claim] 20. The method of claim 16, wherein the at least one remote unit
is a telephone.” (alterations supplied)).
31

Id. at col. 12, ll. 44–47 (“[Claim] 22. The method of claim 21, wherein said one remote
unit is a pager. [Claim] 23. The method of claim 21, wherein said one remote unit is a telephone.”
(alterations supplied)).
32

Id. at col. 13, ll. 11–14 (“[Claim] 27. The method of claim 26, wherein the at least one
remote unit is a pager. [Claim] 28. The method of claim 26, wherein the at least one remote unit
is a telephone.” (alterations supplied)).
33

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 3 (alteration
supplied).
34

See, e.g., ‘525 Patent, at col. 4, ll. 38–41 (“The real-time site specific weather information
may be distributed by any number of communication mediums such as a wireless network, a landline telephone network, or a television cable network.”); see also id., at col. 8 ll. 33–37 (“An
example of one configuration for the distribution network is a wireless network that initiates a call
based upon a number (i.e., address) that the weather alert manager retrieved from a subscriber
database.”).

11

the use of the abbreviation “e.g.,” the examples provided by Baron are merely
illustrative, and not exclusive.

They are intended to assist the reader in

understanding, by way of examples taken directly from the patent, the meaning of
“contact identifier.” Thus, rather than expand the list of examples beyond those
specified in the patent, Baron’s examples are helpful and appropriate, because they
are taken directly from the patent claims themselves and, importantly, are specified
to be non-exclusive.
In summary, WeatherCall’s proposed construction is rejected.
B.

“remote unit”
The phrase “remote unit” appears in claims 1, 7, 12, 16, 21, and 26. Claim 1

reads as follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
memory for storing contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units; and
logic configured to make a determination as to whether one of
said contact identifiers identifies at least one of said remote units that is
located within a geographic region of an impending weather event, said
logic further configured to transmit, if said logic determines in said
determination that said one contact identifier identifies a remote unit
located within said geographic region, a signal to the at least one remote
unit based on said one contact identifier thereby enabling the at least one
remote unit to notify a user within said geographic region of said
impending weather event.35
35

Id. at col. 10, ll. 33–47 (emphasis supplied).

12

Claim 7 reads as follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
a plurality of remote units; and
a weather event manager configured to respectively associate said
remote units with different locations and to receive meteorological data
indicative of an occurrence of a weather event, said meteorological data
indicating an expected location of said occurrence, said weather event
manager further configured to analyze said meteorological data and to
automatically transmit, based on an analysis of said meteorological data
by said weather event manager, a signal to one of said remote units that
is associated with said expected location by said weather event manager,
wherein said one remote unit is configured to communicate a
weather notification in response to said signal.36
Claim 12 reads as follows:
A system for distributing weather event notifications to at least
one or more remote units, comprising:
memory for storing geographic data representative of a
geographic area, said geographic are[a] being partitioned into a plurality
of regions; and
a computer configured to receive weather event data from a data
source, the weather event data indicative of the geographic boundary of
a weather event to be warned for, said computer including a processor
instructed to compare said weather event data to said geographic data to
determine which region or regions of said plurality of said regions is
affected by said weather event and to transmit an activation signal to the
one or more remote units located within said region or regions affected

36

Id. at col. 10, l. 65 to col. 11, l. 13 (emphasis supplied).

13

by said weather event.37
Claim 16 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
storing a plurality of contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units;
determining that a weather event is expected to occur within a
particular geographic region;
automatically selecting, in response to said determining step, at
least one of said contact identifiers that identifies at least one of said
remote units located within said particular geographic region;
establishing communication with the at least one remote unit
based on the at least one contact identifier selected in said selecting step;
and
causing the at least one remote unit to automatically notification
[sic] a user of said expected weather event.38
Claim 21 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
respectively associating a plurality of remote units with a plurality
of locations;
receiving meteorological data that indicates an occurrence of a
weather event, said meteorological data including data that indicates an
37

Id. at col. 11, ll. 35–50 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

38

Id. at col. 11, l. 64 to col. 12, l. 11 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

14

expected location of said occurrence;
analyzing said meteorological data;
automatically transmitting, based on said analyzing step, a signal
to one of said remote units that is associated, via said associating step,
with said expected location indicated by said meteorological data; and
communicating a notification of said weather event, via said one
remote unit, in response to said signal.39
Claim 26 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
receiving weather event data indicative of a boundary of a
weather event to be warned for;
comparing said weather event data to a geographic grid including
a plurality of grid cells to determine which grid cell is affected by said
event weather event [sic] data; and
transmitting an activation signal to at least one remote unit
geographically located within a grid cell affected by said weather event
data to automatically activate the at least one remote unit.40
WeatherCall proposes to construe the term “remote unit” as meaning “any type
of device capable of receiving and processing a signal or other communication, and
providing audio and/or visual indicators to convey information to a user.”41 That

39

Id. at col. 12, ll. 28–42 (emphasis supplied).

40

‘525 Patent, at col. 12, l. 66 to col. 13, l. 10 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

41

E.g., doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 4.

15

definition is overbroad. By construing “remote unit” to include any “device capable
of receiving and processing” any signal or other communication, and using audio or
visual indicators to convey “information” to a user, WeatherCall’s proposed
definition would include a wide array of electronic devices that play no role in the
systems and methods described in the ‘525 patent.
In contrast, Baron’s proposed construction for “remote unit” is a “device that
receives remotely generated signals from a distribution network and provides weather
event notifications to a user, e.g., telephone, pager, etc.”42 Baron’s construction is a
patent-specific subset of WeatherCall’s construction. Consistent with the patent
language, this narrower construction clarifies that the receiving unit is remote from
where the signals are generated, and that the signals are sent via a “distribution
network.”43 Further, the signals do not convey all types of generic “information,” but,
instead, exclusively provide “weather event notifications.”44
Finally, as in its proposed definition of “contact identifiers,” Baron’s examples
of a telephone and pager are taken from the patent’s specification, as well as from the
claims of the patent itself. The claims state that a “remote unit” may be a pager or a
42

E.g., id.

43

See, e.g., ‘525 Patent, at fig. 4, item 64 (“Distribute the storm profiles to the respective
remote units via the distribution network.”).
44

See, e.g., notes 36–41, supra (referring to “weather event notifications” in Claims 1, 7, 12,
16, 21, and 26).

16

telephone,45 which obviously will have corresponding, specific pager numbers and
telephone numbers.

Those examples are indented to assist the reader in

understanding the types of devices contemplated by the patentee and, as in the
proposed definition of “contact identifiers,” are specified to be non-exclusive by the
use of “e.g.” and “etc.”
“The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally
aligns with the patent’s description will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor, 711 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2013). In this case, Baron’s narrower definition of “remote unit” more closely
comports with the claim language and patent description; and WeatherCall’s
proposed construction is rejected.
C.

“determination/determine/determining”
The terms “determination,” “determine,” and “determining” appear in claims

1, 12, 16, and 26. Claim 1 reads as follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
memory for storing contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units; and
logic configured to make a determination as to whether one of
45

See ‘525 Patent, at col. 10, ll. 56–59 (“[Claim] 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the at
least one remote unit is a pager. [Claim] 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one remote
unit is a telephone.” (alterations supplied)).

17

said contact identifiers identifies at least one of said remote units that is
located within a geographic region of an impending weather event, said
logic further configured to transmit, if said logic determines in said
determination that said one contact identifier identifies a remote unit
located within said geographic region, a signal to the at least one remote
unit based on said one contact identifier thereby enabling the at least one
remote unit to notify a user within said geographic region of said
impending weather event.46
Claim 12 reads as follows:
A system for distributing weather event notifications to at least
one or more remote units, comprising:
memory for storing geographic data representative of a
geographic area, said geographic are[a] being partitioned into a plurality
of regions; and
a computer configured to receive weather event data from a data
source, the weather event data indicative of the geographic boundary of
a weather event to be warned for, said computer including a processor
instructed to compare said weather event data to said geographic data to
determine which region or regions of said plurality of said regions is
affected by said weather event and to transmit an activation signal to the
one or more remote units located within said region or regions affected
by said weather event.47
Claim 16 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
storing a plurality of contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units;
46

Id. col. 10, ll. 33–47 (emphasis supplied).

47

Id. at col. 11, ll. 35–50 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

18

determining that a weather event is expected to occur within a
particular geographic region;
automatically selecting, in response to said determining step, at
least one of said contact identifiers that identifies at least one of said
remote units located within said particular geographic region;
establishing communication with the at least one remote unit
based on the at least one contact identifier selected in said selecting step;
and
causing the at least one remote unit to automatically notification
[sic] a user of said expected weather event.48
Claim 26 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
receiving weather event data indicative of a boundary of a
weather event to be warned for;
comparing said weather event data to a geographic grid including
a plurality of grid cells to determine which grid cell is affected by said
event weather event [sic] data; and
transmitting an activation signal to at least one remote unit
geographically located within a grid cell affected by said weather event
data to automatically activate the at least one remote unit.49
In the context of those claims, WeatherCall proposes that “the terms
‘determination,’ ‘determine,’ and/or ‘determining’ require predicting the future path
48

Id. col. 11, l. 64 to col. 12, l. 11 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

49

Id. at col. 12, l. 66 to col. 13, l. 10 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

19

of a weather event and not simply retrieving the geographic region or boundary of a
weather event from an existing warning or forecast.”50
In contrast, Baron submits that the words “determination,” “determine,” and
“determining” have a plain and ordinary meaning, and what is “determined” in the
context of a particular claim is evident from the claim language itself.51
Upon reviewing the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution
history, the court can find no support for WeatherCall’s proposed insertion of
negative limitations to the scope of the terms “determination,” “determine,” and
“determining.”
1.

Claim language

The “determination” in claim 1 is “whether one of said contact identifiers
identifies at least one of said remote units that is located within a geographic region
of an impending weather event.”52 That requires identifying which remote units are
located within the geographic region of an impending weather event.

The

determination is not, as argued by WeatherCall, a determination of the geographic
region of the impending weather event itself. To adopt WeatherCall’s definition of
50

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 5.

51

Id.; see also doc. no. 101 (Baron Services, Inc’s Opening Claim Construction Brief), at 16
(“Precisely what is decided in the context of a particular claim is evident from the claim language
itself.” (emphasis in original)).
52

‘525 Patent, at col. 10, ll. 37–40.

20

the term would require both a “determination” of the geographic region of the
weather event, followed by an additional “determination” of the remote units located
in the affected area — a construction that would impermissibly require a rewriting of
the claims. See, e.g., Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d
1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 12 includes both memory for storing “geographic data representative of
a geographic area, said geographic area being partitioned into a plurality of regions,”
and the receipt of “weather event data indicative of the geographic boundary of a
weather event to be warned for.”53 In the context of claim 12, “determine” means “to
compare weather event data received from a data source with stored geographic data,
and decide what regions are affected by the weather event.”54 The “determination”
made in this context is not, as argued by WeatherCall, a determination of the
“boundary of the weather event” itself. Rather, that “determination” is made by the
“data source” referenced in the claim, the inner workings of which are not claimed
as part of the patent at issue. As in claim 1, the practical effect of WeatherCall’s
proposed construction of “determine” would be to impermissibly rewrite claim 12.
Likewise, the dispute over the words “determine” and “determining” in claims

53

Id. at col. 11, ll. 37–39, 41–43.

54

Doc. no. 101 (Baron Services, Inc’s Opening Claim Construction Brief), at 18.

21

16 and 26 involves the same issue of inserting negative limitations into the claims.
Like claims 1 and 12, there is no language in claims 16 or 26 that precludes the use
of a forecast or warning from a third party. Rather, the “determination” in claim 16
is “whether a weather event is expected to occur within a particular geographic
region,”55 and the “determination” in claim 26 is “which grid cell is affected by the
weather event,” “based on a comparison of weather event data and a geographic grid
including a plurality of grid cells.”56
2.

Specification language

Although WeatherCall primarily relies on the language contained in the ‘525
patent’s specification to support its proposed limitation on the scope of the terms
“determination,” “determine,” and “determining,” the specification does not
adequately support WeatherCall’s construction.
WeatherCall focuses on a particular embodiment in the specification that
discusses how a user might predict a path of a storm, and seeks to import that
particular embodiment into the claims. That violates the well-established rule against
impermissibly importing claim limitations from the specification. See, e.g., Alloc,
Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 342 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

55

Id.

56

Id. at 19.

22

For instance, WeatherCall points out that the patent specification teaches that
“the step of combining said meteorological data with a geographical grid covering a
predefined geographic area includes predicting a path of the storm based upon the
meteorological data.”57 That section of the specification, however, is merely one
possible embodiment of the invention, as disclosed in the preceding paragraph, which
reads as follows: “The weather alert manager may include means for predicting a
path of the storm based upon the meteorological data. For example, the means for
predicting a path of the storm may comprise a NexTrac computer program from
Baron Services, Huntsville, Ala., USA.”58 While the specification explains that the
weather alert manager “may” predict a path of the storm, the use of that word also
indicates that the weather alert manager may not do so. In those embodiments where
the weather alert manager does not include the means for predicting a path of the
storm, that prediction must come from somewhere else, like the National Weather
Service or another data provider. In other words, while it is clear that some storm
forecasting or prediction occurs within the field of the invention, this particular patent
concerns the “determination” of who should receive the predictive weather alerts, and
the manner of the transmission of those alerts, and not necessarily the “prediction”
57

‘525 Patent, at col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 2; see also doc. no. 104 (Defendant WeatherCall
Services LLC’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief), at 25.
58

‘525 Patent, at col. 3, ll. 39–43 (emphasis supplied).

23

itself.
3.

Prosecution history

Finally, the prosecution history does not support WeatherCall’s construction.
WeatherCall relies on a statement by the patentee in a “summary” section of the office
action that the system described in the patent “determines which remote units are
located in a geographic area determined by the system to be affected by the weather
event . . . .”59 There is no indication that determining the geographic area affected by
the weather event cannot be done by simply using an existing warning. There is not
even a specific discussion of the scope of the terms “determination,” “determine,” and
“determining,” and certainly no “clear and explicit statement” by Baron that could
amount to a “clear disavowal” of claim scope, as required by Thorner v. Sony
Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See
also Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“Absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition in the specification or the
prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”).
Instead, the document cited by WeatherCall actually states that the meteorological
data itself indicates the expected location of the weather event.60
59

Doc. no. 104 (Defendant WeatherCall Services LLC’s Responsive Claim Construction
Brief), at 26 (quoting doc. no. 98-4 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
Exhibit “C” (Response to Office Action)), at ECF 3).
60

Doc. no. 98-4 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Exhibit “C”

24

Upon consideration, the terms “determination,” “determine,” and “determining”
shall be accorded their full scope, and given their plain and ordinary meaning. See,
e.g., Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312,
1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (declining to adopt one party’s proposed construction, and
instead granting a term its plain and ordinary meaning).
In summary, the construction proposed by WeatherCall is rejected.
D.

“geographic region of an impending weather event”
The phrase “geographic region of an impending weather event” appears in

claim 1, which reads as follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
memory for storing contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units; and
logic configured to make a determination as to whether one of
said contact identifiers identifies at least one of said remote units that is
located within a geographic region of an impending weather event, said
logic further configured to transmit, if said logic determines in said
determination that said one contact identifier identifies a remote unit
located within said geographic region, a signal to the at least one remote
unit based on said one contact identifier thereby enabling the at least one
(Response to Office Action)), at ECF 13 (stating that the weather event manager receives
“meteorological data indicating an expected location of an occurrence of a weather event”); id. at
ECF 16 (indicating that the system includes the step of “receiving meteorological data that indicates
an expected location of an occurrence of a weather event”); id. at ECF 18 (asserting that the system
includes the step of “receiving weather event data indicative of a boundary of a weather event to be
warned for”); see also doc. no. 104 (Defendant WeatherCall Services LLC’s Responsive Claim
Construction Brief), at 30 (citing doc. no. 98-4 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
Statement, Exhibit “C” (Response to Office Action))).

25

remote unit to notify a user within said geographic region of said
impending weather event.61
Baron argues that the words of the phrase should be given their plain meaning,
and the phrase need not be defined.62 In contrast, WeatherCall proposes to rewrite the
claim by inserting language requiring a prediction of the future path of a storm: i.e.,
“a geographic region that encompasses the predicted future path of the weather
event.”63
As addressed above, claim 1 contains no language requiring such a prediction.
WeatherCall’s proposed rewrite is based entirely on portions of the specification
indicating that potential embodiments may include means for predicting the path of
a storm. WeatherCall is again asking the court to import limitations from the
specification, rather than give effect to the plain language used in the claim. For the
reasons already discussed, WeatherCall’s proposed definition is rejected, and the
phrase “geographic region of an impending weather event” will be given its plain and
ordinary meaning.
E.

“boundary of a weather event to be warned for”
The phrase “boundary of a weather event to be warned for” appears in claims

61

‘525 Patent, at col. 10, ll. 33–47 (emphasis supplied).

62

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 6.

63

Id. at 6–7 (emphasis supplied).

26

12 and 26. Claim 12 reads as follows:
A system for distributing weather event notifications to at least
one or more remote units, comprising:
memory for storing geographic data representative of a
geographic area, said geographic are[a] being partitioned into a plurality
of regions; and
a computer configured to receive weather event data from a data
source, the weather event data indicative of the geographic boundary of
a weather event to be warned for, said computer including a processor
instructed to compare said weather event data to said geographic data to
determine which region or regions of said plurality of said regions is
affected by said weather event and to transmit an activation signal to the
one or more remote units located within said region or regions affected
by said weather event.64
Claim 26 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
receiving weather event data indicative of a boundary of a
weather event to be warned for;
comparing said weather event data to a geographic grid including
a plurality of grid cells to determine which grid cell is affected by said
event weather event [sic] data; and
transmitting an activation signal to at least one remote unit
geographically located within a grid cell affected by said weather event
data to automatically activate the at least one remote unit.65

64

‘525 Patent, at col. 11, ll. 35–50 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

65

Id. at col. 12, l. 66 to col. 13, l. 10 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

27

Baron believes the phrase should be given its plain and ordinary meaning,
while WeatherCall contends that the phrase means “a geographic boundary or
perimeter that encompasses the predicted future path of the weather event.”66
WeatherCall’s contention that the phrase should be interpreted as requiring that
a “predicted future path” of the weather event be “determined” is based on the same
portions of the specification as those cited in support of WeatherCall’s proposed
definitions of the terms “determination,” “determine,” and “determining,” as well as
the phrase “geographic region of an impending weather event.”67 In fact, claims 12
and 26 actually state that the weather event data itself is indicative of the location of
the weather event to be warned for.68 Accordingly, the phrase “boundary of a weather
event to be warned for” is to be given its plan and ordinary meaning, and
WeatherCall’s proposed construction is rejected.
66

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 8 (emphasis
supplied).
67

Compare id. (citing the ‘525 patent, at col. 3, ll. 39–51, col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 2, col. 4,
ll. 54–65, col. 6, l. 24 to col. 7, l. 23, and col. 10, ll. 5–24, as intrinsic evidence in support of
WeatherCall’s definition of “boundary of a weather event to be warned for”), with id. at 5 (citing the
‘525 patent, at col. 2, ll. 9–18, col. 3, ll. 39–51, col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 2, col. 4., ll. 54–65, col. 6,
l. 24 to col. 7, l. 23, and col. 10, ll. 5–24, as intrinsic evidence in support of WeatherCall’s definition
of “determination/determine/determining”), and id. at 7 (citing the ‘525 patent, at col. 3, ll. 39–51,
col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 2, col. 4, ll. 54–65, col. 6, l. 24 to col. 7, l. 23, and col. 10, ll. 5–24, as
intrinsic evidence in support of WeatherCall’s definition of “geographic region of an impending
weather event”).
68

See ‘525 Patent, at col. 11, ll. 41–42 (referencing in Claim 12 “the weather event data
indicative of the geographic boundary of a weather event to be warned for” (emphasis supplied));
id. at col. 13, ll. 1–2 (stating the first step of Claim 26 to be “receiving weather event data indicative
of a boundary of a weather event to be warned for” (emphasis supplied)).

28

F.

“particular geographic region”
The phrase “particular geographic region” appears in claim 16, which reads as

follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
storing a plurality of contact identifiers that identify a plurality of
remote units;
determining that a weather event is expected to occur within a
particular geographic region;
automatically selecting, in response to said determining step, at
least one of said contact identifiers that identifies at least one of said
remote units located within said particular geographic region;
establishing communication with the at least one remote unit
based on the at least one contact identifier selected in said selecting step;
and
causing the at least one remote unit to automatically notification
[sic] a user of said expected weather event.69
Claim 16 includes the step of “determining that a weather event is expected to
occur within a particular geographic region.”70 The dispute over the meaning of the
phrase “particular geographic region” presents the same issues as the parties’
constructions of “geographic region of an impending weather event” and “boundary

69

Id. at col. 11, l. 64, to col. 12, l. 11 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

70

Id. at col. 12, ll. 1–2.

29

of a weather event to be warned for”: i.e., Baron proposes that the phrase should be
given its plain and ordinary meaning; while WeatherCall proposes that it means “the
specific geographic region that encompasses the predicted future path of the weather
event.”71 For the same reasons as previously stated, the phrase should be given its
plain meaning, without impermissibly importing limitations from the specification
and rewriting the claim, and WeatherCall’s proposed construction is rejected.
G.

“meteorological data indicative/indicating/indicates”
The phrases “meteorological data indicative,” “meteorological data indicating,”

and “meteorological data that indicates” appear in claims 7 and 21. Claim 7 reads as
follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
a plurality of remote units; and
a weather event manager configured to respectively associate said
remote units with different locations and to receive meteorological data
indicative of an occurrence of a weather event, said meteorological data
indicating an expected location of said occurrence, said weather event
manager further configured to analyze said meteorological data and to
automatically transmit, based on an analysis of said meteorological data
by said weather event manager, a signal to one of said remote units that
is associated with said expected location by said weather event manager,
wherein said one remote unit is configured to communicate a
71

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 9 (emphasis
supplied).

30

weather notification in response to said signal.72
Claim 21 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
respectively associating a plurality of remote units with a plurality
of locations;
receiving meteorological data that indicates an occurrence of a
weather event, said meteorological data including data that indicates an
expected location of said occurrence;
analyzing said meteorological data;
automatically transmitting, based on said analyzing step, a signal
to one of said remote units that is associated, via said associating step,
with said expected location indicated by said meteorological data; and
communicating a notification of said weather event, via said one
remote unit, in response to said signal.73
There appears to be no dispute that the term “meteorological data” is equivalent
to “weather information.” Rather, the dispute between the parties concerns the type
of weather information contemplated by the claims, and the meaning of the words
“indicative,” “indicating,” and “indicates.” As with the other terms in dispute, Baron
believes the phrase is made up of common English words and should be given its
plain meaning based on the language of the claims themselves, while WeatherCall’s
72

‘525 Patent, at col. 10, l. 65 to col. 11, l. 13 (emphasis supplied).

73

Id. at col. 12, ll. 28–42 (emphasis supplied).

31

construction adds limitations taken from the specification.
To “indicate” something is “to point out or point to or toward with more or less
exactness.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002), at 1150.74 Claims
7 and 21 both state that the meteorological data indicates two things: the “occurrence
of a weather event,” and, “the expected location of said occurrence.”75 In the context
of the claims, “meteorological data” is the type of weather information that indicates
those two things.
WeatherCall contends that the meteorological data in claims 7 and 21 must be
data “regarding the current location and attributes of a weather event (i.e., storm)
from which the future location of the weather event can be derived or calculated,” and
it “does not encompass data defining the future location itself.”76 WeatherCall’s
attempt to further limit the scope of “meteorological data,” and to insert additional
requirements for what the data must and must not contain, is contrary to the claim
language and, again, improperly imports limitations from the specification.
WeatherCall’s proposed construction is based on parts of the specification
explaining that the meteorological data may include information about the attributes

74

See also doc. no. 98-2 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
Exhibit “B”), at ECF 14 (same).
75

‘525 Patent, at col. 11, ll. 3–5, col. 12, ll. 32–35.

76

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 10.

32

of a storm, and that embodiments of the invention may include using the data to
predict the storm’s path.77 The specification does not state that the meteorological
data must include information about specific storm attributes that would allow its
future location to be derived or calculated, nor does it state that the data cannot define
the future location itself.
The specification, instead, states that, in one embodiment, “the weather alert
manager initially receives meteorological data including weather information
defining storms within a relevant geographical area.”78 That is consistent with the
actual claim language, which provides that the meteorological data need only be of
a type indicating the occurrence and expected location of a weather event.
Weathercall’s proposed limitations on the scope of the term “meteorological data” are
contrary to the claim language and the rules for construing the claims. See Thorner
v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“It is the claims that define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s invention. The
patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain
and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows
its full scope.” (citation omitted)); see also Electro Medical Systems, S.A. v. Cooper
77

See, e.g., ‘525 Patent, at col. 3, ll. 39–41 (“The weather alert manager may include means
for predicting a path of the storm based upon the meteorological data.” (emphasis supplied)).
78

Id. at col. 9, ll. 60–64 (emphasis supplied).

33

Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[A]lthough the
specifications may well indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
embodiments appearing in a specification will not be read into the claims when the
claim language is broader than such embodiments.”) (alteration supplied).
Accordingly, the phrases are due to be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and
WeatherCall’s proposed construction is rejected.
H.

“analyze/analyzing”
The terms “analyze” and “analyzing” appear in claims 7 and 21. Claim 7 reads

as follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
a plurality of remote units; and
a weather event manager configured to respectively associate said
remote units with different locations and to receive meteorological data
indicative of an occurrence of a weather event, said meteorological data
indicating an expected location of said occurrence, said weather event
manager further configured to analyze said meteorological data and to
automatically transmit, based on an analysis of said meteorological data
by said weather event manager, a signal to one of said remote units that
is associated with said expected location by said weather event manager,
wherein said one remote unit is configured to communicate a
weather notification in response to said signal.79
Claim 21 reads as follows:
79

Id. at col. 10, l. 65 to col. 11, l. 13 (emphasis supplied).

34

A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
respectively associating a plurality of remote units with a plurality
of locations;
receiving meteorological data that indicates an occurrence of a
weather event, said meteorological data including data that indicates an
expected location of said occurrence;
analyzing said meteorological data;
automatically transmitting, based on said analyzing step, a signal
to one of said remote units that is associated, via said associating step,
with said expected location indicated by said meteorological data; and
communicating a notification of said weather event, via said one
remote unit, in response to said signal.80
As with the other terms in dispute, Baron believes that the terms should be
given their plain and ordinary meanings, while WeatherCall argues that the terms
require “predicting the future location of a weather event from the meteorological
data and not simply retrieving that location from an existing warning or forecast.”81
In claim 7, the word “analyze” is used to explain that meteorological data
indicating the expected location of a weather event is communicated to those remote
units associated with that location. The “analysis” that occurs is the association of
specific remote units to the future location of a weather event, not the determination
80

Id. at col. 12, ll. 28–42 (emphasis supplied).

81

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 12.

35

of the future path of the weather event itself. Similarly, in claim 21, the word
“analyzing” is used to describe the “step” of associating specific remote units with
the expected location of the weather event.
WeatherCall argues, however, that the claims instead require predicting the
future location of a weather event, and that the claims exclude simply using the
location already indicated by the meteorological data. WeatherCall’s proposed
construction of the terms “analyze” and “analyzing” is substantively identical to its
proposed construction of the terms “determination,” “determine,” and “determining.”
The reasons why such a construction is incorrect have already been addressed.82
Accordingly, the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and
WeatherCall’s proposed constructions are rejected.
I.

“expected location”
The phrase “expected location” appears in claims 7 and 21. Claim 7 reads as

follows:
A system for providing weather event notifications, comprising:
a plurality of remote units; and
a weather event manager configured to respectively associate said
remote units with different locations and to receive meteorological data
indicative of an occurrence of a weather event, said meteorological data
indicating an expected location of said occurrence, said weather event
82

See supra Part II.C.

36

manager further configured to analyze said meteorological data and to
automatically transmit, based on an analysis of said meteorological data
by said weather event manager, a signal to one of said remote units that
is associated with said expected location by said weather event manager,
wherein said one remote unit is configured to communicate a
weather notification in response to said signal.83
Claim 21 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
respectively associating a plurality of remote units with a plurality
of locations;
receiving meteorological data that indicates an occurrence of a
weather event, said meteorological data including data that indicates an
expected location of said occurrence;
analyzing said meteorological data;
automatically transmitting, based on said analyzing step, a signal
to one of said remote units that is associated, via said associating step,
with said expected location indicated by said meteorological data; and
communicating a notification of said weather event, via said one
remote unit, in response to said signal.84
Baron believes the phrase should be given its ordinary meaning, while
WeatherCall contends that the phrase means “a location within the predicted future

83

‘525 Patent, at col. 10, l. 65 to col. 11, l. 13 (emphasis supplied).

84

Id. at col. 12, ll. 28–42 (emphasis supplied).

37

path of the weather event.”85
The dispute over the phrase “expected location” is the same as the dispute
surrounding the phrases “geographic region of an impending weather event,”
“boundary of a weather region to be warned for,” and “particular geographic region.”
Again, the phrase has a meaning so plain that no finder of fact could be assisted by
an attempt to further construe it. Grafting onto the claims a requirement that there be
a “predicted future path” of the weather event is contrary to the claim language,
which permits reliance on an expected location already indicated by the
meteorological data. Accordingly, the phrase will be given its plain and ordinary
meaning, and WeatherCall’s proposed construction is rejected.
J.

“weather event data indicative”
Finally, the phrase “weather event data indicative” appears in claims 12 and 26.

Claim 12 reads as follows:
A system for distributing weather event notifications to at least
one or more remote units, comprising:
memory for storing geographic data representative of a
geographic area, said geographic are[a] being partitioned into a plurality
of regions; and
a computer configured to receive weather event data from a data
source, the weather event data indicative of the geographic boundary of
a weather event to be warned for, said computer including a processor
85

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 13.

38

instructed to compare said weather event data to said geographic data to
determine which region or regions of said plurality of said regions is
affected by said weather event and to transmit an activation signal to the
one or more remote units located within said region or regions affected
by said weather event.86
Claim 26 reads as follows:
A method for providing weather event notifications, comprising
the steps of:
receiving weather event data indicative of a boundary of a
weather event to be warned for;
comparing said weather event data to a geographic grid including
a plurality of grid cells to determine which grid cell is affected by said
event weather event [sic] data; and
transmitting an activation signal to at least one remote unit
geographically located within a grid cell affected by said weather event
data to automatically activate the at least one remote unit.87
Like most of the other disputed phrases, “weather event data indicative”
consists of common English words that should be given their plain and commonly
understood meanings. WeatherCall proposes the same construction for that phrase
as it does for “meteorological data”: i.e., “data regarding the current location and
attributes of a weather event (i.e., storm) from which the future boundary of the
weather event can be derived or calculated, and does not encompass data defining the

86

‘525 Patent at col. 11, ll. 35–50 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

87

Id. at col. 12, l. 66 to col. 13, l. 10 (alteration and emphasis supplied).

39

future boundary itself.”88 WeatherCall’s proposed construction is not correct for the
same reasons as those set forth in the discussion of “meteorological data” above,89
and it is rejected.
In summary, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the contested
claim terms be, and the same hereby are, construed as follows:
III. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS FOR THE ‘525 PATENT
A.

The phrase “contact identifiers/identify” as used in claims 1, 10, 15, 16, 24,
and 29 is construed as meaning “a communication address, e.g., telephone
number, pager number, etc.”

B.

The phrase “remote unit” as used in claims 1, 7, 12, 16, 21, and 26 is
construed as meaning “a device that receives remotely generated signals
from a distribution network and provides weather event notifications to
a user, e.g., telephone, pager, etc.”

C.

The term “determination/determine/determining” as used in claims 1, 12,
16, and 26 is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

D.

The phrase “geographic region of an impending weather event” as used in
claim 1 is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

88

Doc. no. 98 (P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement), at 15.

89

See supra Part II.G.

40

E.

The phrase “boundary of a weather event to be warned for” as used in
claims 12 and 26 is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

F.

The phrase “particular geographic region” as used in claim 16 is to be given
its plain and ordinary meaning.

G.

The phrase “meteorological data indicative/indicating/indicates” as used in
claims 7 and 21 is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

H.

The term “analyze/analyzing” as used in claims 7 and 21 is to be given its
plain and ordinary meaning.

I.

The phrase “expected location” as used in claims 7 and 21 is to be given its
plain and ordinary meaning

J.

The phrase “weather event data indicative” as used in claims 12 and 26 is to
be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2014

______________________________
United States District Judge

41