Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 97

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT, filed by Emblaze Ltd., Apple Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Pavane, Martin) (Filed on 4/2/2012) Modified on 4/3/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MARTIN B. PAVANE (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
LISA A. FERRARI (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
COZEN O’CONNOR
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10172
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Emblaze Ltd.
KENNETH L. STEINTHAL (SBN 268655)
SARAH BARROWS (SBN 253278)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

12
13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE
PAGE

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

OAKLAND DIVISION

19
EMBLAZE LTD.,

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA

20
Plaintiff,
21

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
AND PREHEARING STATEMENT

v.
22
APPLE INC., a California Corporation,
23

Date: September 26, 2012
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 1

Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
STATEMENT

-1-

Emblaze v. Apple: Case No. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA

Pursuant to Patent L. R. 4-3, Plaintiff Emblaze Ltd. (“Emblaze”) and Defendant Apple

1
2

Inc. (“Apple”) by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully submit the

3

following Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (“Joint Statement”) concerning

4

U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 (the “’473 patent” or “patent-in-suit”).

5

I.

Construction Of Claim Terms On Which The Parties Agree (Patent L. R. 4-3(a))
The parties met and conferred, but were unable to reach agreement on the construction

6
7

of any disputed terms.

8

II.

Construction of Claim Terms On Which The Parties Disagree (Patent L. R. 4-3(b))
The chart attached as Exhibit A to this Joint Statement lists the disputed claim

9
10

terms/phrases of the ’473 patent, and each party’s proposed constructions with supporting

11

intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. A copy of the ’473 patent is attached as Exhibit B. Apple’s

12

supporting extrinsic evidence is attached as Exhibit C and Emblaze’s supporting extrinsic

13

evidence is attached as Exhibits D and E. The Israeli priority application is attached as Exhibit

14

F.
The parties reserve the right to rely upon any evidence cited by the other party to

15
16

support its proposed constructions.
Apple submits that by proposing constructions for the disputed terms Apple does not

17
18

waive or concede any of its invalidity contentions under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

19

III.

20

Identification of the Most Significant and Dispositive Terms (Patent L. R. 4-3(c))
A.

Identification of Terms That the Parties Agree are the Most Significant

21

Term1 Claim Language

22

#2

providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given
data rate [Claim 1]2

#5

each slice having a predetermined data size associated therewith
[Claims 1, 25]

#6

encoding the slices in a corresponding sequence of files [Claim 1]

23
24
25

encodes the slices in a corresponding sequence of files [Claim 25]

26
27
28

1

The numbers shown in the “Term” column correspond to the numbering of the claim Terms in attached
Exhibit A.
2
The parties dispute the precise language of Term #2 to be construed, as set forth in Emblaze’s Proposed
Construction of Term #2 and Apple’s Proposed Construction of Terms #2 and #3 in attached Exhibit A.
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
-2Emblaze v. Apple: Case No. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA
STATEMENT

1

#8

uploading the sequence to a server at an upload rate generally equal
to the data rate of the stream [Claim 1]

2
which uploads the sequence to a server at an upload rate generally
equal to the data rate [Claim 25]

3
4

#9

such that one or more client computers can download the sequence
over the network from the server at a download rate generally equal
to the data rate [Claims 1, 25]

#13

uploading and updating an index file containing the index of the file
in the sequence that was most recently uploaded [Claim 9]

#14

encoding slices at a plurality of different quality levels [Claim 11]

5
6
7
8

slices are encoded at a plurality of different quality levels [Claim 40]
9

#16

10

wherein dividing the stream into the sequence of slices comprises
dividing the stream into a sequence of time slices, each having a
predetermined duration associated therewith [Claim 23]

11
wherein the predetermined data size of each of the slices corresponds
to a time duration of the slice [Claim 37]

12
13

Emblaze contends that none of the agreed-to terms are potentially case or claim
14
15
16
17
18

dispositive. Apple contends that each term is potentially case or claim dispositive.
B.

Emblaze’s Identification of Additional Term as Most Significant

Emblaze contends that the following additional term is among the ten most significant,
and that the term is not potentially case or claim dispositive:

19
20

Term Claim Language
#10

decode the sequence [Claims 8, 26]

21
22

C.

Apple’s Identification of Additional Term as Most Significant

Apple contends that the following additional term is among the ten most significant, and
23
24

that the term is potentially case or claim dispositive:

25
26
27
28
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
STATEMENT

-3-

Emblaze v. Apple: Case No. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA

1

Term Claim Language

2

#3

3

a data stream having a given data rate [Claims 1, 25]
the data rate of the stream [Claim 1]

4
the data rate [Claims 1, 8, 25, 26]
5
6

IV.

The claim construction hearing is presently scheduled for September 26, 2012, at

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

9:00AM, although Emblaze will be making a motion requesting that the Court adjourn this date
because it falls on Yom Kippur. Apple has advised Emblaze that it will not oppose such a
motion. The parties believe the four (4) hours presently allotted should be sufficient for the
claim construction hearing, but to the extent the Court requires a tutorial on the same day as the
claim construction hearing, the parties request six (6) total hours to accommodate an hour for
each party’s tutorial.
V.

17

intend to have persons who will present a summary and explanation of the technology at issue
if the Court requests a tutorial on the day of the hearing).
Because Emblaze’s principals reside and work in Israel, Emblaze requests that the

18
19
20
21

Witnesses To Be Called At Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L. R. 4-3(e))
The parties do not intend to call any witnesses at the claim construction hearing (but do

15
16

Length of Time For Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L. R. 4-3(d))

tutorial be scheduled to take place immediately prior to the claim construction hearing so that
Emblaze’s principals only have to make one trip to northern California for this phase of the
case.
Respectfully submitted,

22
23

DATED: April 2, 2012

COZEN O’CONNOR

24
By: /s/
Martin B. Pavane
Lisa A. Ferrari
277 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10172
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]

25
26
27
28
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
STATEMENT

-4-

Emblaze v. Apple: Case No. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA

1

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

2

Martin L. Fineman
[e-mail]
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Emblaze Ltd.

3
4
5
6
7

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

8
9
By: /s/____________
James J. DeCarlo
[e-mail]
MetLife Building
200 Park Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, New York 10166
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14

Michael A. Nicodema
[e-mail]
200 Park Avenue
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

15
16
17

Kenneth L. Steinthal
[e-mail]
Sarah E. Barrows
[e-mail]
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94111
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
STATEMENT

-5-

Emblaze v. Apple: Case No. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA

DECLARATION OF CONSENT

1
2

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under

3

penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from James

4

J. DeCarlo, counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.

5
6
7

DATED: April 2, 2012

8

COZEN O’CONNOR

By: /s/
_
Martin B. Pavane
Lisa A. Ferrari
277 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10172

9
10
11

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

12

Martin L. Fineman
[e-mail]
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiff Emblaze Ltd.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
STATEMENT

-6-

Emblaze v. Apple: Case No. 4:11-CV-01079 SBA