VStream Technologies, LLC v. PLR IP Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 192

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 175 Report and Recommendations, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Indefiniteness. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 10/22/16. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
VSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Plaintiff,

V.
PLR HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-974-JRG-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc. No. 130), to
which Defendants1 filed a Response (Doc. No. 136), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. No. 141).
Defendants also filed a Supplemental Claim Construction Brief. (Doc. No. 146.) The parties
additionally submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d). (Doc. No. 144.)
On August 4, 2016, the Court held a claim construction hearing. (See Doc. No. 149, August 4,
2016 Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”).)

Magistrate Judge John D. Love filed a Report and

Recommendation that contains his proposed findings and recommendations for the disputed
claim terms that Defendants have challenged as indefinite. (Doc. No. 175.) Given that no
objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed during the prescribed objection period,
the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion for Indefiniteness of the claim terms “sufficiently correct”/“not sufficiently
correct,” “means for determining whether the first decoding operation was sufficiently correct,”
1

Defendants who have joined the claim construction briefing and hearing include: BlackBerry Corp., BlackBerry
Limited, and Motorola Mobility LLC.

and “a pipe analyzer coupled between the processor module and the central processing unit for
analyzing the components of the compressed video data and directing the components of the
compressed video data into one of the pipelines of the central processing unit based on the
analysis.”
The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Indefiniteness of the claim terms “if it is
determined that the recommendation should be accepted”/“if it is determined that the
recommendation should not be accepted” and “based upon which pipeline is more suitable for
processing the component” and ADOPTS the constructions for those terms set forth in the
Report and Recommendation.

So Ordered this
Oct 22, 2016