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)
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?