Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 169

ORDER re 111 Brief filed by Emblaze Ltd.. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on April 19, 2013. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 EMBLAZE LTD., 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 APPLE INC., Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 11-1079 PSG CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER 16 In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff Emblaze Ltd. (“Emblaze”) claims Defendant 17 Apple Inc. (“Apple”) infringes its patent. Consistent with Pat. L.R. 4-3(c), the parties seek 18 construction of terms and phrases in claims in the patents-in-suit. 1 To avoid unnecessary delay, the 19 court at this time will simply issue its constructions without its full reasoning and analysis: 20 21 CLAIM TERM CONSTRUCTION 22 “real-time broadcasting” simultaneous transmission of data to one or more clients matching the human perception of time or proceeding at the same rate as a physical or external process “providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data rate” the transmitting computer provides a data stream having a given amount of data per unit of time 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See Docket No. 111. 1 Case No.: 11-1079 ORDER “data stream having a given data rate” a data stream having a given amount of data per unit of time “slice” a discrete segment of the data stream “each slice having a predetermined data size associated therewith” each slice having a data size, which may be a time duration, assigned in advance of the stream being divided “encoding the slices in a corresponding sequence of files” forming each slice as a file, wherein a file includes compressed data from the slice and a file descriptor, and wherein the sequence of files corresponds to the sequence of slices “sequence of files, each file having a respective index” sequence of files, wherein each file has an indicator that represents a respective slice’s location in the sequence “uploading the sequence to a server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate of the stream” transmitting the files from the transmitting computer to the server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate of the stream “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” such that one or more client computers are able to select individual files corresponding to the slices for download over the network at a download rate generally equal to the data rate “decode the sequence” decompressing any compressed data in the sequence “play back the data stream responsive to the indices of the files” playing back the data stream based on the indices of the files to be played back “at a replay rate generally equal to the data rate” the rate at which the client plays back the data stream is generally equal to the data rate of the stream “uploading and updating an index file containing the index of the file in the sequence that was most recently uploaded” uploading to a server an index file, and updating the index file with the index of the most recently uploaded file “encoding slices at a different plurality of different quality levels” forming slices at more than one quality level 27 “determining a data bandwidth of the network between the server and the client computer” the client determines a data rate at which a client can download a file from the server 28 “wherein dividing the stream into the sequence the stream is divided into a sequence of slices, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Case No.: 11-1079 ORDER 1 2 of slices comprises dividing the stream into a sequence of time slices, each having a predetermined duration associated therewith” where the predetermined data size of the slices is established by setting the time duration of the slices 3 The parties should rest assured that the court arrived at these constructions with a full 4 5 appreciation of not only the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, but also the Federal Circuit’s 6 teaching in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 2 and its progeny. So that the parties may pursue whatever 7 recourse they believe is necessary, a complete opinion will issue before entry of any judgment. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dated: April 19, 2013 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 3 Case No.: 11-1079 ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?