Trans Video Electronics , Ltd. v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al

Filing 139

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 124 Sony's Motion for Summary Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TRANS VIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING SONY’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-09-3304 EMC

SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 124)
13
14
15

Plaintiff Trans Video Electronics, Ltd. has filed suit against various Sony entities

16

(collectively “Sony”), asserting a claim for infringement of one of its patents, more specifically,

17

Patent No. 5,991,801 (the “‘801 patent”). On May 18, 2011, Judge Patel issued a claim construction

18

order in which she construed various terms contained in the only claim at issue, i.e., claim 3. See

19

Docket No. 119 (order). Based on that construction, Sony has now moved for summary judgment,

20

asking that the invention claimed be deemed invalid for lack of a written description. Having

21

considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of

22

counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS Sony’s motion.

23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The ‘801 patent relates to an information distribution system for a digital network. As stated
in the patent:
This invention relates generally to an apparatus . . . for
transmitting digital information to locations throughout the world and
in particular to a global digital news distribution system for
transmitting digital news clips . . . simultaneously from one or more

1

locations anywhere in the world to one or more locations anywhere in
the world.

2
3
4
5

‘801 Patent, col. 1:11-17.
As Judge Patel noted in her claim construction order, the specification for the ‘801 patent
discloses two embodiments, represented by Figures 1B and 5, respectively.

6

Figure 1B shows a digital network having a digital information distribution system

7

according to one embodiment of the invention. In Figure 1B, digital information such as a

8

compressed video news clip is input to a master CSU/DSU (108). The master CSU/DSU (108)

9

receives a synchronous digital data stream and outputs the synchronous digital signal to a
distribution amplifier/equalizer (112). The distribution amplifier/equalizer (112) receives the signal,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

splits up the signal, and then outputs the split-up signals to a plurality of CSU/DSUs (116). These

12

CSU/DSUs are coupled to a land network (170), which in turn is coupled to receiving stations (184).

13

The distribution amplifier/equalizer (112) also has outputs to backup units (134, 136). See ‘801

14

Patent, col. 4:57-5:7; col. 5:39-57. Figure 1B reflects that one of the objects of the invention is “to

15

provide an information distribution system which can disseminate information from one point to a

16

plurality of receivers in a parallel fashion.” ‘801 Patent, col. 2:61-64.

17

In Figure 5, an on-demand video news distribution system is described. On one end, a video

18

menu unit (504) is coupled to a plurality of video clip storing units (525A-H), which are similar to

19

the backup units (134, 136) in Figure 1B. Each video clip storing unit (525A-H) corresponds to a

20

different news topic or subject matter. The video clip storing units are coupled to distribution

21

amplifiers/equalizers (531A-H) (which are identical to the distribution amplifier/equalizer (112) in

22

Figure 1B). The distribution amplifier/equalizers (531A-H) have multi-line outputs (533A-H) which

23

are respectively coupled to CSU/DSU units (535A-H). The CSU/DSU units (535A-H) (which

24

correspond to the plurality of CSU/DSUs (116) of Figure 1B) are all coupled to the network (520)

25

(which corresponds to the land network (170) in Figure 1B). The network (520) in turn is coupled to

26

computers (55A-C) used by users at television stations or at newspaper or magazine printing houses

27

(550A-C). See ‘801 Patent, col. 6:39-65, Fig. 5.

28

2

1

On the other end, the video menu unit (504) referenced above is coupled to a telephone line

2

unit (508) (which corresponds to the distribution amplifier/equalizer (112) of Figure 1B). The

3

telephone line unit (508) has a plurality of output lines (514) which in turn are coupled to a plurality

4

of menu CSU/DSU units (516). The menu CSU/DSU units (516) are in turn coupled to the network

5

(520). See ‘801 Patent, col. 6:31-40.

6

Video news distribution in the above system described in Figure 5 operates as follows.

computers (555A-C) to dial the telephone number of the video menu unit (504). The connected user

9

views a menu listing the various clips available on the video clip storing units (525A-H). If the user

10

wishes to obtain a particular clip, he or she enters a command to the video menu unit (504), which in

11
For the Northern District of California

Users at television stations or at newspaper or magazine printing houses (550A-C) use their

8

United States District Court

7

turn sends a “request-to-send” command to the appropriate video clip storing unit (525A-H). See

12

‘801 Patent, col. 6:66-7:4-10. The video clip storing unit then sends the video clip to the user

13

(550A-C) via its corresponding distribution amplifier/equalizer (531A-H), via one of the

14

corresponding CSU/DSU units, which in turn is coupled to the network (520). See ‘801 Patent, col.

15

6:51-65, 7:10-13, Fig. 5.

16
17

While the ‘801 patent contains multiple claims, the only claim at issue in the instant case is
claim 3.1 The specific invention claimed in claim 3 is as follows:

18

3.

19

a plurality of video clip storage units that each store data
related to a particular subject matter;

An information distribution system for a network, comprising:

20
a master communications unit coupled to the digital network
that establishes communications with the network in order to receive a
synchronous digital signal corresponding to the data related to said
particular subject matter stored in a respective one of said plurality of
video clip storage units;

21
22
23

a plurality of distribution amplifier units coupled to said master
communications unit, wherein each of the plurality of distribution
amplifier units has an input that receives said synchronous digital
signal corresponding to the data from a respective one of said plurality
of video clip storage units and at least one output that divides said
synchronous digital signal corresponding to the data from said

24
25
26
27
1

28

On September 30, 2011, Trans Video filed a motion to amend to add a new claim (claim 4)
to the lawsuit. See Docket No. 136 (motion).

3

1

respective one of said plurality of video clip units into a plurality of
synchronous signals;

2
a plurality of communications units, each of said
communications units being coupled to one of said plurality of
distribution amplifier units to respectively establish communications
between respective ones of said plurality of distribution amplifier units
and a plurality of receiving stations in the digital network to receive
and output corresponding ones of said plurality of synchronous signals
to the plurality of receiving stations;

3
4
5
6

a master controller unit coupled to said plurality of
communications units to control said plurality of communications
units from a central location; and

7
8

a menu storing unit accessible from the digital network that
stores information indicating the subject matter associated with each
of said plurality of video clip storage units and information as to how
to access each of said video clip storage units.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

‘801 patent, col. 8:19-55 (emphasis added).

12

As indicated by the language bolded above, claim 3 requires that the master communications

13

unit receive a synchronous digital signal and then relay that same signal to the digital amplifier

14

units. In turn, each digital amplifier unit splits up that same signal into a plurality of synchronous

15

signals. At the hearing on the instant motion, both parties agreed that the term “said” as used to

16

describe the synchronous digital signal means the “same.”

17

In her claim construction order, Judge Patel indicated that, in Figure 1B, the master

18

communications unit is the CSU/DSU (108). See Docket No. 119 (Order at 8) (discussing the

19

embodiment disclosed in Figure 1B). As for Figure 5, she concluded that the master

20

communications unit is a menu CSU/DSU unit (516).2 See Docket No. 119 (Order at 8) (discussing

21

the embodiment disclosed in Figure 5).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
2

26
27
28

In an endnote, Judge Patel acknowledged that the parties had a dispute over whether Figure
5 discloses a master communications unit. However, she deemed the menu CSU/DSU units to be
master communications units because “the description of the menu CSU/DSUs (516) in Figure 5
hews closely to the ‘master communications unit’ claim language in Claim 3; namely, both units
receive a signal from the network corresponding to video clips stored in the video clip storage
units.” Docket No. 119 (Order at 25 n.1).

4

1
2
3

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard
Sony has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c),

4

arguing that, based on Judge Patel’s claim construction order, there is no genuine dispute of material

5

fact that the ‘801 patent is invalid because it fails to provide a written description for the invention

6

claimed in claim 3.

7

Under Rule 56, summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers

8

to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

9

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

12

248-49 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be

13

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmoving party].” Id. at 252. At the

14

summary judgment stage, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

15

party and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the nonmovant’s favor. See id. at 255.

16

In the instant case, Sony’s claim of invalidity based on lack of a written description is an

17

affirmative defense for which it has the burden of proof – in fact, a heightened burden of proof of

18

clear and convincing evidence. See Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372,

19

1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that, because “an issued patent comes with a statutory presumption of

20

validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 . . . , an alleged infringer who raises invalidity as an affirmative

21

defense has the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove invalidity by clear and convincing

22

evidence”). Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense for

23

which it has the burden of proof, the defendant “must establish beyond peradventure all of the

24

essential elements of the . . . defense to warrant judgment in [its] favor.” Martin v. Alamo Cmty.

25

College Dist., 353 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in

26

original); see also Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006)

27

(noting that a defendant bears the burden of proof at summary judgment with respect to an

28

affirmative defense).

5

1
2

B.

Written Description
As noted above, Sony’s invalidity argument is based on a lack of written description. The

3

written description requirement is found in the first paragraph of § 112 of the Patent Act. It provides

4

in relevant part as follows:

5
6
7
8
9

35 U.S.C. § 112.
The Federal Circuit has:
interpreted that section as requiring a written description of an
invention separate from enablement.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention,
and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full,
clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and use the same . . . .

12
13
14

In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the
disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba
support for the claimed subject matter at issue. Nonetheless, the
disclosure of the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity
to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the
inventor] was in possession of the invention.

15

Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co. v. ITC, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

16

(internal quotation mars omitted). That is,

17
18
19
20

[t]he written description requirement requires the inventor to disclose
the claimed invention so as to allow persons of ordinary skill in the art
to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed. Requiring a
written description of the invention limits patent protection to those
who actually perform the difficult work of invention – that is, conceive
of and complete the final invention. The written description
requirement exists to ensure that inventors do not attempt to preempt
the future before it has arrived.

21
22

Billups-Rothenberg, Inc. v. Associated Reg’l & Univ. Pathologists, Inc., 642 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed.

23

Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent

24

Litig. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 639 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he purpose of the

25

written description requirement ‘is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the

26

claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in

27

the patent specification’”).

28

6

1

Importantly, for purposes of the written description requirement, “[o]ne shows that one is ‘in

2

possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that

3

which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

4

The Federal Circuit has emphasized that

5

[t]he question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant
of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior
application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient
detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor
invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.

6
7
8
9

Id.
Because the written description requirement takes into account the perspective of a person of
ordinary skill in the art, the Federal Circuit has noted that “[the] inquiry [regarding written

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

description] is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” Yingbin-Nature

12

(Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co., 535 F.3d at 1335; see also Katz Interactive, 639 F.3d at 1318-19

13

(noting that “[w]ritten description is a factual inquiry” and that “‘[t]he test requires an objective

14

inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in

15

the art’”).

16

However, a written description decision can turn simply on a claim construction. See id. at

17

1319-20 (in upholding summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of written description,

18

rejecting the patent holder’s “contention that the district court’s claim constructions denied it the

19

opportunity to demonstrate specification support or proffer expert testimony [as] [i]t should have

20

been clear to Katz that the construction of the claims was important to the written description

21

analysis”); University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting

22

that, “although compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact, [the patent

23

holder’s] argument that a patent may not be held invalid on its face is contrary to our case law”;

24

citing a prior holding that “a patent can be held invalid for failure to meet the written description

25

requirement, based solely on the language of the patent specification” because, “[a]fter all, it is in

26

the patent specification where the written description requirement must be met”); cf. Harari, 2011

27

U.S. App. LEXIS 18210, at *30 (stating that “[t]his written description decision turned almost

28

entirely on the claim construction”).

7

1
2

C.

Figure 5
In its motion, Sony argued that there is a lack of written description for the invention claimed

3

in claim 3 because, based on the specification, the only possible description for the invention is

4

Figure 5 and it does not include a description of the synchronous digital signal – a command signal,

5

and not video – being split up into a plurality of synchronous signals. See, e.g., Mot. at 12. At the

6

hearing on the motion, Sony expanded on this argument, noting that Figure 5 cannot describe the

7

invention claimed in claim 3 because claim 3 requires that the same synchronous digital signal be

8

received by the master communications unit and passed on to the distribution amplifier units but

9

Figure 5 describes a command signal (i.e., not video) being received by the master communications
unit (516) and a video clip being sent on to the distribution amplifier units (531A-H).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The Court finds both arguments persuasive. As a preliminary matter, it agrees with Sony

12

that Figure 5, and not Figure 1B, contains the critical description in the specification. Figure 1B

13

cannot provide the written description because, e.g., it does not contain anything that would

14

constitute a menu storing unit or a video clip storing unit, both of which are elements of claim 3.

15

Figure 1B does have backup units (134, 136), but the specification does not deem them the same or

16

identical to the video clip storing units. See ‘801 Patent, col. 6:41-43 (noting that “[v]ideo news

17

distribution system 500 includes a plurality of units 525A-525H similar to backup units 134 or 136

18

of FIG. 1B”) (emphasis added). Compare ‘801 Patent, col. 54-56 (stating that “[d]istribution

19

amplifer/equalizers 531A-531H are identical to distribution amplifier/equalizer 112 previously

20

discussed”) (emphasis added).

21

With respect to claim 3, the Court also agrees with Sony that the language of the claim

22

makes clear that a master communications unit must receive a synchronous digital signal and then

23

passes that same signal (“said . . . signal”) to the distribution amplifier units, each of which in turn

24

divides the same signal (“said . . . signal”) into a plurality of synchronous signals. See Rexnord

25

Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating that “a claim term should be

26

construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the

27

same patent”).

28

8

1

The Court further agrees with Sony that Figure 5 does not describe the invention claimed in

video) from a user (550A-C). Because Judge Patel concluded that the menu CSU/DSU units (516)

4

are the master communications units, and because the menu CSU/DSU units (516) connect the video

5

menu unit (504) and the user (550A-C) (through the network (520)), the menu CSU/DSUs (516)

6

must also receive that same command (i.e., not video) from the user (which it then passes on to the

7

video menu unit (504)). Therefore, as described, in Figure 5, the synchronous digital signal that is

8

received by the master communications unit (516) is a command (and not video). The problem for

9

Trans Video is that there is nothing in the specification in Figure 5 that describes that command then

10

being split into a plurality of signals, as claim 3 specifies. Furthermore, the specification talks about

11
For the Northern District of California

claim 3. Per the specification, in Figure 5, a video menu unit (504) receives a command (i.e., not

3

United States District Court

2

the distribution amplifier/equalizers (531A-H) receiving and sending out a video clip (and not a

12

command). See ‘801 Patent, col. 7:10-13 (stating that “[t]he video storing unit with that video clip

13

or photograph then sends the video clip (photograph) via its corresponding distribution

14

amplifier/equalizers 531A-531H via one of its corresponding CSU/DSU units 535A-535H”). But

15

claim 3 requires that the same synchronous digital signal be received by the master communications

16

unit and then passed on to the distribution amplifier units. In Figure 5, a command is received by the

17

master communications unit (516) but then the distribution amplifier/equalizers (531A-H) receive a

18

video clip.3

19

Indeed, at the hearing, Trans Video admitted that neither Figure 1B nor Figure 5 alone

20

describes the invention claimed in claim 3. Although during the claim construction hearing before

21

Judge Patel, Trans Video had argued that “FIG. 5 contains all the elements recited in claim 3,”

22

Docket No. 114 (Reply at 6), Trans Video now takes the position that a person of ordinary skill in

23

the art would have combined elements from Figure 1B and elements from Figure 5 to arrive at the

24

invention claimed in claim 3. Trans Video pointed out, for example, that, in Figure 1B, the master

25
3

26
27
28

To the extent Trans Video points out that the telephone line unit (508) also corresponds to
a distribution amplifier/equalizer, see ‘801 Patent, col. 6:34-35 (stating that the telephone line unit
(508) corresponds to the distribution amplifier/equalizer (112) in Figure 1B), then the synchronous
digital signal received by the master communications unit (516) and passed on to the telephone line
unit (508) would be the same – i.e., a command, and not a video. However, there is still never any
splitting of that signal (the command) into a plurality of signals.

9

1

communications unit (108) does receive video (instead of a command signal). See ‘801 Patent, col.

2

4:59-60 (stating that “[t]he compressed video news clip is input to master CSU/DSU 108”). Thus,

3

according to Trans Video, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have taken the master

4

communications unit (108) from Figure 1B with the remaining elements in Figure 5 to arrive at the

5

invention claimed in claim 3. As another example, Trans Video argued that a person of ordinary

6

skill in the art would have incorporated the video clip storing units (and implicitly the video menu

7

unit) from Figure 5 into the embodiment in Figure 1B to come up with the invention claimed in

8

claim 3.

whether the written description requirement has been satisfied, a court does not simply look to see

11
For the Northern District of California

Trans Video’s argument, however, runs counter to Federal Circuit case law. In evaluating

10

United States District Court

9

whether the specification contains descriptions of the individual elements of the claim. Rather, a

12

court must look to see whether there is a written description for the entirety of the claimed invention

13

– i.e., the combination of elements. See Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479

14

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a]n applicant complies with the written description requirement ‘by

15

describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations’”) (emphasis added); Hyatt v. Dudas, 492

16

F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (upholding the patent examiner’s initial rejection in which the

17

examiner found failure to satisfy the written description requirement because “the written

18

description did not support the particular claimed combination of elements – i.e., “while each

19

element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate

20

description of their combination”) (emphasis in original).

21

Trans Video’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that

22

elements of Figures 1B and 5 could be combined is essentially an argument of obviousness. But as

23

noted above, the Federal Circuit has specifically stated that, for purposes of the written description

24

requirement,

25
26
27

[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing
the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it
obvious. One does that by such descriptive means as words,
structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the
claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec
verba, the specification must contain an equivalent description of the

28

10

1

claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the
invention . . . is not sufficient.

2
3

Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572 (emphasis added and omitted). The written description requirement

4

thus differs from the question of obviousness. Cf. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d

5

982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding invention claimed invalid based on prior art; holding that a

6

person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine two figures/embodiments

7

in a prior patent to arrive at the invention claimed, thus rendering the invention obvious).

8

The authorities cited by Trans Video is not to the contrary. These cases merely note that “a

9

claim need not be limited to a preferred embodiment,” Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., 228 F.3d
1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) embodiment”); see also Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (noting that “an

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future

12

embodiment of his invention”; adding that, “‘[i]f structural claims were to be limited to devices

13

operated precisely as a specification-described embodiment is operated, there would be no need for

14

claims”); Sri Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating that, “if

15

structural claims were to be limited to devices operated precisely as a specification-described

16

embodiment is operated, there would be no need for claims”), and that “a patent claim is not

17

necessarily invalid for lack of written description just because it is broader than the specific

18

examples disclosed.” Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir.

19

2009). The Court does not take issue with these general principles. But these cases fail to address

20

the specific issue here – i.e., whether the written description requirement may be met where the

21

combination of elements comprising the invention is not described at all and instead requires a

22

person of ordinary skill in the art to synthesize elements from different embodiments to come up

23

with the claimed invention. Trans Video has failed to point to any authority to support its position.

24

In the absence of any such authority, the Court concludes that Lockwood is controlling – i.e., the

25

written description requirement is not satisfied here because, in the end, Trans Video’s position is

26

the “claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification.”

27

Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.

28

11

1

Finally, the Katz declaration that Trans Video has submitted in support of its opposition does

2

not alter the Court’s conclusion. According to Trans Video, at the very least, summary judgment is

3

inappropriate because written description is a factual inquiry and it has raised a genuine dispute of

4

material fact by submitting a declaration from an expert (Randy H. Katz). But, as discussed above, a

5

written description decision can turn simply on a claim construction. Here, Dr. Katz’s opinion

6

essentially contradicts Judge Patel’s claim construction. Most notably, in paragraph 16 of his

7

declaration, he states:

8

13

I am aware that CSU/DSU 516 in FIG. 5 is described to receive [a]
“command signal.” However, claim 3 recites that the “synchronous
digital signal” received by the “master communications unit” is a
signal corresponding to data stored in the video clip storage units.
“Video clip storage units,” as I understand that term to exist within the
art as of the time of the ‘801 patent’s invention, typically did not store
user’s requests for video. Rather, they stored videos themselves.
Therefore, it is my opinion that within the context of claim 3, the
“master communications unit” does not receive a “synchronous digital
signal” that encompasses non-video data, such as a request for a video
“command signal.”

14

Katz Decl. ¶ 16. The problem is that, under Dr. Katz’s opinion, menu CSU/DSU units (516) are not

15

master communications units as the term is used in claim 3, but Judge Patel expressly found in her

16

claim construction order that menu CSU/DSU units (516) are master communications units. Trans

17

Video did not move for reconsideration of Judge Patel’s claim construction. This Court affirms

18

Judge Patel’s claim construction order.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

12

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Sony’s motion for summary judgment.

3

Although this motion resolves the only claim at issue in the case, the Court shall defer entry

4

of judgment in accordance with this opinion because Trans Video has now filed a motion to amend,

5

seeking to add a new claim of patent infringement to the case.

6

This order disposes of Docket No. 124.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: October 14, 2011

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13