Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al
Filing
266
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/14/15. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
APPLE INC., ET AL.,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CAUSE NO. 6:13-CV-419
(LEAD CASE)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent No.
6,006,227 (“the ‟227 Patent”). On November 13, 2014, the parties presented arguments on the
disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the
constructions set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The ‟227 Patent issued on December 21, 1999. It discloses a document stream operating
system and method where: (1) documents are stored in one or more chronologically ordered
streams; (2) the location and nature of file storage is transparent to the user; (3) information is
organized as needed instead of at the time the document is created; (4) sophisticated logic is
provided for summarizing a large group of related documents at the time a user wants a concise
overview; and (5) archiving is automatic. ‟227 Patent, at [57]. The documents can include text,
pictures, animations, software programs, or any other type of data. Id.
Plaintiff Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC (“Mirror Worlds”) alleges that Defendants
Apple Inc. (“Apple”); Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”); Best Buy Stores, LP and
Bestbuy.com, LLC (“Best Buy”); Dell Inc. (“Dell”); Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP”); Lenovo
(United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”); and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung”) infringe claims 13–18, 20, 22, 34, 39, 40, 42,
43, and 55 of the ‟227 Patent.1 Docket No. 246 at 3–5.
The Court has already construed some of the terms at issue here in a previous case. See
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:08-cv-88 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2008) (“Apple I”), Docket
No. 302. The Apple I case involved five patents, including the ‟227 Patent.
APPLICABLE LAW
“It is a „bedrock principle‟ of patent law that „the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.‟” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent‟s
intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention‟s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S.
Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes
the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed
meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the
context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term‟s context in the asserted claim
can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
1
Mirror Worlds asserts claims 40, 42, and 43 only against Defendant Apple. Docket No. 246 at 1 n.1.
2
claim‟s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term‟s meaning. Id. For
example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
“[C]laims „must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.‟” Id.
(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
“[T]he specification „is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.‟” Id. (quoting Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v.
Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may
define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise
possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations,
the inventor‟s lexicography governs. Id. Also, the specification may resolve ambiguous claim
terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325.
But, “„[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in
interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.‟” Comark Commc’ns,
Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced
Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics,
3
Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification,
a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”).
Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “„less significant than the intrinsic record
in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.‟” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert‟s conclusory, unsupported
assertions as to a term‟s definition is entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
claim terms.” Id.
AGREED CLAIM TERMS
In their Joint Claim Construction Chart (Docket No. 246) the parties agreed to the
construction of the following terms:
Claim Term
Agreed Construction
time-ordered sequence of data units that
functions as a diary of a person or an entity‟s
electronic life and that is designed to have
three main portions: past, present, and future
streams that are dynamically updated
copying or moving documents to a secondary
storage medium
stream
persistent streams
archiving
4
DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
data unit
Asserted claims of the ‟227 Patent contain the term “data unit.” Mirror Worlds proposes
“document containing any type of data of significance to the user (i.e., data for user perception).”
Defendants propose “a document containing any type of data.” In Apple I, the Court construed
“data unit” as “an item of information of significance to the user that the user considers as a
unit.” Apple I, Docket No. 302 at 20.
The parties‟ first dispute concerns the scope of the word “document” in their respective
constructions. Citing a number of technical dictionaries, Mirror Worlds also contends that the
ordinary meaning of document does not include files that are not perceived by a user. Docket
No. 234 at 2–4. Mirror Worlds argues that the prosecution history and specification clearly limit
a document to information of significance to a user. Id. at 5–10. In response, Defendants fault
Mirror Worlds for limiting an express definition given by the patent applicants. Docket No. 238
at 3. According to Defendants, a complete reading of the applicants‟ definition states that “[a]
„data unit‟ is a „document‟ because a „document can contain any type of data.‟” Id. at 4. Thus,
Defendants argue, Mirror Worlds‟ use of extrinsic evidence is improper. Id. at 6. Finally,
Defendants argue that Mirror Worlds is judicially estopped from advancing its construction and
that, in any event, the proposed construction renders the claim indefinite. Id. at 12–16.
Although the parties agree to include the word “document,” their dispute indicates that
that term is not ideal. In Apple I, the parties disputed whether a “data unit” must be a single item
or whether it can be a collection of items. Apple I, Docket No. 302 at 19–20. The Court relied
on the specification and the claims themselves to determine that a data unit is “an item of
information.” Id. at 20. The same remains true here: a data unit is an item of information.
5
The parties‟ next dispute involves the phrase “of significance to the user.” The Apple I
parties agreed to this language, and therefore did not raise a dispute regarding its support in the
specification or the possibility of indefiniteness. Id. at 19–20. Here, Defendants object to
including this phrase. The requirement that documents be “of significance to the user” arose
during prosecution in an examiner interview and is thus expressly supported. See Docket No.
234-17, Ex. 17 (Interview Summary dated Jan. 19, 1999) (“It was agreed that Applicants would
refine the claim language in the direction of addressing that stream of documents (in the broadest
sense) that are of significance to the user and which thus determine the events of direct user
interest in the timeline of a computing system . . . .”).
However, simply including the phrase “of significance to the user,” as Mirror Worlds
requests, stretches the limitation beyond its original scope. The specification makes clear that
the invention concerns managing information that is user-selected and thus “personal” to a
particular user, rather than to all users in general. See ‟227 Patent, col.3 l.62–65 (“This invention
is a new model and system for managing personal electronic information which uses a timeordered stream as a storage model and stream filters to organize, locate, summarize and monitor
incoming information.”); Id. at col.4 l.6–15 (explaining that a stream is a sequence of documents
that functions as a “diary of a person or an entity‟s electronic life”). The “of significance to the
user” limitation requires that any particular user be able to generate a main stream of items of
information that are of interest to that particular user‟s timeline.
The Apple I parties recognized that data items must be “of significance to the user.”
However, as explained above, the inherent meaning of this requirement within the intrinsic
record is rooted in the personalized nature of the main stream of data items. A data item is “of
significance” because it is selected by and of personal interest to a particular user. Based on the
6
prosecution history, which describes significance as “events of direct user interest in the
timeline,” Docket No. 234-17, Ex. 17 (Interview Summary dated Jan. 19, 1999), the Court
construes “data unit” as “an item of information that is of direct user interest in the user‟s
timeline.”
Because this construction eliminates the disputed elements of the parties‟ proposed
constructions, the Court need not determine whether judicial estoppel applies to Mirror Worlds‟
or Apple‟s arguments or whether Mirror Worlds‟ proposed construction is indefinite.
computer system
Claim 13 of the ‟227 Patent contains the term “computer system.”
Mirror Worlds
proposes “working computer, including hardware and operating system software.” Defendants
argue that no construction is necessary, but alternatively propose “a computer, including its
hardware and all of the data stored on it.”
Mirror Worlds‟ primary argument is that a computer system must include an operating
system. Docket No. 234 at 14. Mirror Worlds cites a variety of technical dictionaries in support
of its construction. Id. at 14–15. It further contends that the claims, the specification, and expert
testimony in this case support its contention that the ordinary meaning of a computer system as
including an operating system. Id. at 16–17. Defendants respond that Mirror Worlds‟ proposed
construction invites disputes and would confuse a jury. Docket No. 238 at 17–18.
The parties agree that a computer system is not limited to hardware. Docket No. 234 at
14; Docket No. 238 at 17 n.10. At the hearing, the Court asked the parties whether the neutral
construction “a processing device programmed to carry out a set of logical operations” would
alleviate any concerns. Tr. Nov. 13, 2014, Docket No. 264 at 57:18–20. Defendants assented to
that construction, whereas Mirror Worlds continued to argue that the construction must explicitly
7
refer to the operating system. Id. at 57:24–58:11. In effect, Mirror Worlds contends that the
claim requires “a computer system having an operating system.” However, none of the extrinsic
evidence on which Mirror Worlds relies, nor Mirror Worlds‟ interpretation of the specification,
justifies that limitation. Such a construction fails to account for different platform architectures,
such as a generic microprocessor, which may or may not include an operating system.
Contrary to Mirror Worlds‟ argument and consistent with the parties‟ agreement that a
computer system includes hardware and software elements, the Court construes “computer
system” as “a processing device programmed to carry out a set of logical operations.”
main stream
Asserted claims of the ‟227 Patent contain the term “main stream.” Mirror Worlds
proposes “stream that is inclusive of every data unit received by or generated by the computer
system.” Defendants propose “a time-ordered stream that is inclusive of every data unit received
by or generated by the computer system.” In Apple I, the Court construed “main stream” as “a
stream that is inclusive of every data unit, or document, received by or generated by the
computer system.” Apple I, Docket No. 302 at 11.
The dispute here is a narrow one. The parties agree that the term “stream” should be
construed as “time-ordered sequence of data units that functions as a diary of a person or an
entity‟s electronic life and that is designed to have three main portions: past, present, and future.”
Docket No. 246. However, the term “stream” does not appear independently in the asserted
claim. Therefore, despite the parties‟ agreement that any “stream” must be “time-ordered,”
Defendants ask the Court to include the “time-ordered” requirement in the construction of “main
stream” as well. Docket No. 238 at 19–20.
8
Given the parties‟ agreement, a jury will readily understand the applicability of the “timeordered” requirement to the “main stream” element.
Defendants‟ construction is therefore
redundant. The Court construes “main stream” as “stream that is inclusive of every data unit
received by or generated by the computer system.”
substream
Asserted claims of the ‟227 Patent contain the term “substream.”
Mirror Worlds
proposes “stream that is a subset of data units yielded by a filter on a stream, the filter identifying
certain documents within the stream.” Defendants propose “a time-ordered stream that is a
subset of data units yielded by a filter on a stream, the filter identifying certain documents within
the stream.” In Apple I, the Court construed “substream” as “a stream that is a subset of data
units, or documents, yielded by a filter on a stream, the filter identifying certain documents
within the stream.” Apple I, Docket No. 302 at 13.
The issue and arguments regarding this term are identical to those raised for the previous
term (“main stream”). Therefore, for the same reasons set forth above, the Court construes
“substream” as “stream that is a subset of data units yielded by a filter on a stream, the filter
identifying certain documents within the stream.”
timestamp to identify
Claim 13 of the ‟227 Patent contains the term “timestamp to identify.” Mirror Worlds
proposes “date and time value used to uniquely identify each data unit.” Defendants propose “a
date and time value that uniquely identifies each data unit.” In Apple I, the Court construed
“timestamp to identify” as “a date and time value that uniquely identifies each document.” Apple
I, Docket No. 302 at 15.
9
Mirror Worlds argues that its proposed construction tracks an express definition given in
the prosecution history. Docket No. 234 at 21. There, Mirror Worlds contends, the applicants
defined a “timestamp” as “a date/time used to uniquely identify each data unit.” Id. Mirror
Worlds argues that by changing “used to uniquely identify” to “that uniquely identifies,”
Defendants alter the meaning intended by the applicants. Id. at 22. In response, Defendants
emphasize that the timestamp itself must be unique. Docket No. 238 at 20–21.
Defendants
point to a statement following the applicants‟ “definition” of timestamp: “Note: a counter which
overflows periodically can not be a timestamp, since the timestamp would then not uniquely
identify a data unit.”
Id. at 21; Docket No. 238-2, Ex. 2 (5/99 Amendment), at 11–12.
Therefore, Defendants argue, although the timestamp may be “used along with additional
information to identify a data unit,” the timestamp itself must uniquely identify that data unit.
Docket No. 238 at 22.
Notwithstanding Mirror Worlds‟ arguments here, the Court‟s analysis and construction in
Apple I were correct. The parties both acknowledge that the timestamp may be combined with
additional information in identifying a data unit. However, the prosecution history also makes
clear that the timestamp itself must be unique. See Docket No. 238-2, Ex. 2 (5/99 Amendment),
at 11–12; ‟227 Patent, col.4 l.44–47 (“Internally, the document is identified by a time indication
so no name is required from the user for the document. Nevertheless, a user can optionally name
a document [if] desired.”). The Court construes “timestamp to identify” as “a date and time
value that uniquely identifies each data unit.”
chronological indicator
Asserted claims of the ‟227 Patent contain the term “chronological indicator.” Mirror
Worlds proposes “data structure that contains at least a timestamp.” Defendants propose “a data
10
structure containing a timestamp, wherein the timestamp is used to link and store data units into
time-ordered streams.”
Mirror Worlds advances an agreed construction from Apple I. Apple I, Docket No. 302 at
38. It first argues that Defendants seek to add limitations that were deleted from the claim during
prosecution. Docket No. 234 at 23. Mirror Worlds also contends that Defendants rely on
prosecution history statements directed toward those deleted limitations.
Id. at 25–26.
Defendants respond that Mirror Worlds‟ proposed construction improperly seeks to recapture
disclaimed subject matter. Docket No. 238 at 22. According to Defendants, the applicants
disclaimed methods that do not link and store data units based on the timestamp in the
chronological indicator. Id. Defendants further argue that the applicants‟ removal of linking and
storing limitations did not implicitly rescind their prosecution history disclaimer. Id. at 25–27.
The prosecution history statements on which Defendants rely are not a disclaimer that
narrows the scope of the term “chronological indicator.” Instead, Defendants seek to impose a
“use” requirement that does not define what a chronological indicator is, but rather how it is
used. It would be improper to read the linking and storing limitations into the claim where those
requirements were previously deleted during prosecution. See Laryngeal Mask Co. v. Ambu, 618
F.3d 1367, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83
(Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the Court construes “chronological indicator” as “data structure
that contains at least a timestamp.”
perspective
Asserted claims of the ‟227 Patent contain the term “perspective.” Mirror Worlds argues
that no construction is necessary, but alternatively proposes “a technique for representing threedimensional space in two-dimensions by depicting surfaces that are farther away as smaller.”
11
Apple proposes “a visual effect where document representations get smaller toward the bottom
of the stack.”2
Apple argues that the applicants disclaimed a construction of “perspective” that does not
require documents to get smaller toward the bottom
of a stack. Docket No. 238 at 27–28. Apple bases
this alleged disclaimer on the applicants‟ discussion
of a Cowart reference. Id. at 28 (see figure at right).
There, Apple argues, the applicants distinguished
Cowart because it “does not display a perspective
view” because the displayed document representations “do not get smaller toward the bottom of
the stack.” Id.
Mirror Worlds faults Apple for broadly applying the applicants‟ statement regarding
Cowart to the meaning of the word “perspective.” Docket No. 243 at 12. Mirror Worlds argues
that Apple‟s construction does not account for a perspective effect which depends on the position
of the viewer with respect to the stack. Docket No. 234 at 28. According to Mirror Worlds, the
position of the viewer with respect to the stack determines size of the windows. Id.
The applicants‟ remarks during prosecution were specific to the particular depiction in
Cowart cited by the examiner. There, the applicants applied the plain and ordinary meaning of
the word “perspective” to distinguish the Cowart figure. That figure is oriented such that the top
of the stack is closer to the viewer than the bottom of the stack. Thus, the applicants explained
that “perspective” was not shown because the windows at the bottom of the stack (those farther
from the viewer) were not smaller than the windows at the top of the stack (those closer to the
2
The term “perspective” does not appear in any claim asserted against Microsoft, Dell, Samsung, Lenovo, or HP.
Docket No. 246 at 2 n.2. Thus, those Defendants do not take a position regarding construction of this term. Id.
12
viewer). Apple identifies no evidence to suggest that the claim scope is limited to the specific
stack orientation and viewer position described in Cowart.
Although the parties appear to agree on the plain meaning of the term “perspective,” the
Court construes the term for clarity. The Court construes “perspective” as “a technique for
representing three-dimensional space in two dimensions by depicting surfaces that are farther
away as smaller.”
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the
manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court‟s claim interpretations are set forth in a
table in Appendix A and the parties‟ agreed constructions are set forth in a table in Appendix B.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of January, 2015.
__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
APPENDIX A
Claim Term
data unit
computer system
main stream
substream
timestamp to identify
chronological indicator
perspective
Court’s Construction
an item of information that is of direct user
interest in the user‟s timeline
a processing device programmed to carry out a
set of logical operations
stream that is inclusive of every data unit
received by or generated by the computer
system
stream that is a subset of data units yielded by
a filter on a stream, the filter identifying
certain documents within the stream
a date and time value that uniquely identifies
each data unit
data structure that contains at least a timestamp
a technique for representing three-dimensional
space in two dimensions by depicting surfaces
that are farther away as smaller
14
APPENDIX B
Claim Term
stream
persistent streams
archiving
Agreed Construction
time-ordered sequence of data units that
functions as a diary of a person or an entity‟s
electronic life and that is designed to have
three main portions: past, present, and future
streams that are dynamically updated
copying or moving documents to a secondary
storage medium
15
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?