Realtime Data LLC v. Synacor Inc.
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court adopts the constructions as set forth in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 04/25/18. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
REALTIME DATA LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SYNACOR INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-00126-RWSJDL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This claim construction opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
9,054,728 (the ’728 Patent); 7,415,530 (the ’530 Patent) and 9,116,908 (the ’908 Patent).
Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime” or “Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Synacor Inc.
(“Synacor” or “Defendant”) infringes the ’728 Patent, the ’530 Patent, and the ’908 Patent.
Plaintiff filed an opening claim construction brief (Doc. No. 46), to which Defendant filed a
responsive brief (Doc. No. 48), and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. No. 52).1
The parties
additionally submitted their Updated Joint Claim Construction Chart pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d).
(Doc. No. 55.)
On April 5, 2018, the Court held a claim construction hearing.
Upon
consideration of the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the
constructions set forth below.
OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
1
Defendant incorporates the arguments briefed by Defendants EchoStar and Hughes in the Realtime v. EchoStar
listed case, including Defendant’s Response (“Doc. No. 93”) and Plaintiff’s Reply (“Doc. No. 96”). Realtime v.
Echostar Corp., Case No. 6:17-cv-84.
1
Plaintiff alleges Defendant infringes certain asserted claims of the ’728 Patent, the ’530
Patent, and the ’908 Patent. Plaintiff states that the ’728 Patent involves “content compression.”
(Doc. No. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that the “patent[] [is] directed to systems and methods of
digital-data compression utilizing different techniques based on the specific content of the data.”
Id. Plaintiff maintains that the patent utilizes data within a data block and identifies one or more
parameters of the content of that data. Id.
The ’728 Patent is entitled “Data Compression Systems and Methods.” The ’728 Patent
claim 1 is representative of the claims set forth:
1. A system for compressing data comprising;
a processor;
one or more content dependent data compression encoders;
and
a single data compression encoder;
wherein the processor is configured:
to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more
parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify the one or
more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of
the one or more parameters or attributes of the data
within the data block;
to perform content dependent data compression with the
one or more content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data
are identified; and
to perform data compression with the single data compression
encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes
of the data are not identified.
The ’530 and ’908 Patents are related and share substantially similar specifications. The
patents are entitled “System and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage and Retrieval” and are
described by Plaintiff as a “data acceleration” family. (Doc. No. 46 at 3.) These claims address
problems with modern disk storage limited by physical media restrictions by “utiliz[ing] a
plurality of different compression techniques and, optionally, a post-compression descriptor,
2
which would indicate the compression algorithm that was used on a particular data block.” Id.
at 4 (citing ’530 Patent at 12:38–40). Claim 1 of the ’908 Patent is representative of the claims
set forth:
1. A system comprising:
a memory device; and
a data accelerator configured to compress: (i) a first data
block with a first compression technique to provide a
first compressed data block; and (ii) a second data block
with a second compression technique, different from the
first compression technique, to provide a second compressed data block;
wherein the compressed first and second data blocks are
stored on the memory device, and the compression and
storage occurs faster than the first and second data
blocks are able to be stored on the memory device in
uncompressed form.
The ’530 Patent claim 1 indicates:
1. A system comprising:
a memory device; and
a data accelerator, wherein said data accelerator is coupled
to said memory device, a data stream is received by said
data accelerator in received form, said data stream
includes a first data block and a second data block, said
data stream is compressed by said data accelerator to
provide a compressed data stream by compressing said
first data block with a first compression technique and
said second data block with a second compression technique,
said first and second compression techniques are
different, said compressed data stream is stored on said
memory device, said compression and storage occurs
faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said
memory device in said received form, a first data
descriptor is stored on said memory device indicative of
said first compression technique, and said first descriptor
is utilized to decompress the portion of said compressed
data stream associated with said first data block.
LEGAL STANDARD
3
“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) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
the patented invention’s scope.
Id. at 1313–14; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes
the claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1312–13; Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their
ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be
highly instructive.” Id.
Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional
instruction because “terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.”
Id.
Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide
further guidance. Id.
“[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)).
“[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)); Teleflex. Inc. v.
Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may
define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than it would otherwise
4
possess, or disclaim or disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the
Court generally presumes terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be
overcome by statements of clear disclaimer.
See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced
Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does
not arise when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer.
See Irdeto Access, Inc. v.
EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The specification may also 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. For
example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group Inc., 362
F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be
read into the claims.” 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 patentee may define a term during prosecution of the patent. Home
Diagnostics 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.”).
The well-
established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through
claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.” Omega Eng’g Inc. v.
Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The prosecution history must show that the
5
patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during
prosecution to obtain claim allowance. Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir.
2002); see also Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (“The disclaimer . . . must be effected with ‘reasonable clarity and deliberateness.’”)
(citations omitted)). “Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an
applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.” Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d
1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).
“As a basic principle of claim
interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic
evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”
Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.
Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
In patent construction, “subsidiary fact finding is sometimes necessary” and the court
“may have to make ‘credibility judgments’ about witnesses.” Teva v. Sandoz, 135 S.Ct. 831, 838
(2015). In some cases, “the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence
6
and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or
the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Id. at 841. “If a
district court resolves a dispute between experts and makes a factual finding that, in general, a
certain term of art had a particular meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention, the district court must then conduct a legal analysis: whether a skilled artisan
would ascribe that same meaning to that term in the context of the specific patent claim under
review.” Id. (emphasis in original). When the court makes subsidiary factual findings about the
extrinsic evidence in consideration of the “evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction,
those findings are reviewed for clear error on appeal. Id.
DISCUSSION
The parties dispute the meaning of the following claim terms, which are set forth herein:
I.
DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
A.
“content dependent data compression encoders” / “content dependent data
compression” (the ’728 Patent, Claims 1, 5, 9, and 25)
Plaintiff’s Proposal
Defendant’s Proposal
“content dependent data compression”
means compression using one or more
encoders selected based on the encoder’s
(or encoders’) ability to effectively encode
the data type or content of the data block
[encoder(s) / compression] that is applied to input
data that is not compressed with [a single data
compression encoder / the single data compression
encoder], the compression using one or more
encoders selected based on the encoder’s (or
encoders’) ability to effectively encode the data
type or content of the data block
Plaintiff states that the preferred embodiment of this claim term does not prohibit data
compressed with “content dependent” compression from being also compressed with “single
data compression” or vice versa. (Doc. No. 46 at 7.) Plaintiff argues that the additional
language in Defendant’s proposed construction “is inconsistent with the plain meaning and the
intrinsic evidence.” Id. Defendant argues that “[p]roper construction of this term requires that
7
an uncompressed input data be compressed with either one of two possible sets of encoders
defined in the claim language—but never both,” and Defendant cites prior cases involving
Plaintiff where similar constructions were accepted. (Doc. No. 93 at 5–6.) Defendant also cites
claim language as well as disclosures in the specification that support its position that there is a
“single data compression encoder.” Id. at 7–13. Plaintiff replies that Defendant “seeks to import
a limitation that is not directed to the compression or encoder, but is instead an extraneous
restriction on the input data to which it is applied.” (Doc. No. 96 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that
“[t]he claims plainly do not exclude a situation where that input data was already compressed
with another encoder . . . before or after the content dependent compression is applied to that
input data.” Id. at 1–2 (emphasis in original).
Upon review, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s proposal is correct. The ’728 Patent
shows that it performs data compression “with one or more content data compression encoders if
the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified[.]” ’728 Patent at 26:29–32. It
does not limit the claim to only non-compressed data, and there is no evidence Plaintiff intended
to limit the type of data.
The specification allows for receiving data that has been encoded before it is received.
The disclosure regarding Figures 15A and 15B, which the parties have cited and discussed, refers
back to Figures 13A and 13B. See ’728 Patent at 20:51–56. The written description regarding
Figures 13A and 13B states that “[t]he data compression system comprises a counter module 10
that receives as input an uncompressed or compressed data stream.” ’728 Patent at 16:3–5
(emphasis added). Figures 15A and 15B, like Figures 13A and 13B, illustrate a “Data Stream”
as an input to a data block counter. The specification thus contemplates that the disclosed
compression operations may be performed upon data that has already been compressed.
8
Defendant argues that Figures 16A and 16B, which relate to Figures 15A and 15B, are
evidence that the input data is not encoded because it states in the detailed description that “[i]f
there are no encoded data blocks having a compression ratio that exceeds the compression ratio
threshold limit (negative determination in step 1620), then the original unencoded input data
block is routed to the content independent encoder[.]” (Doc. No. 93 at 9 (emphasis in original))
(citing ’728 Patent at 22:38–47). Although this disclosure describes a scenario where the data
block is unencoded, Figures 16A and 16B are disclosed as being an illustration of “a” mode of
operation of the system. ’728 Patent at 20:61–66. Moreover, the ’728 Patent claims are all
“comprising” claims, which can encompass additional features so long as the recited limitations
are satisfied. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir.
2005). As noted above, the accompanying disclosure regarding Figures 13A and 13B notes that
the input may be a “compressed data stream.” ’728 Patent at 16:3–5.
At the April 5, 2018 hearing, Defendant attempted to distinguish this disclosure regarding
a “compressed data stream” by arguing that the parties’ dispute does not concern the input to the
counter 10 in Figure 15A but rather concerns the line between the threshold test and the content
independent encoders in Figure 15B. Defendant thus attempted to reemphasize the disclosure
that “the original unencoded input data block is routed to the content independent encoder.”
’728 Patent at 22:41–47. Yet, Defendant did not adequately address this argument, because the
specification suggests that the “original unencoded input data block” may already have been
compressed as part of the input data stream. Id. at 16:3–5, 22:41–47 The Court therefore finds
that there is no evidence that precludes data that was compressed with “content dependent”
compression from also being compressed with some other compression or vice versa.
9
Finally, although in prior cases Plaintiff agreed to phrasing similar to what Defendant has
proposed here for claims 1 and 25 of the ’728 Patent, Defendant has not demonstrated that any
estoppel applies. First, the Rackspace and NetApp cases Defendant relies on involved an agreedupon claim construction from Plaintiff. Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-cv961, Dkt No. 183, at 35 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 14, 2017); NetApp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC, IPR201701354, Paper No. 12, at 9 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2017). Further, the Actian claim construction
proceedings cited by Defendant involved different issues as to the claims of a different patent.
See Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., Case No. 6:15-CV-463 (“Actian”), Doc. No. 362 at 20–
21 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 28, 2016). Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds the claims
should be construed so that “content dependent data compression” means “compression using
one or more encoders selected based on the encoder’s (or encoders’) ability to effectively encode
the data type or content of the data block.”
B.
“one or more data compression encoders” / “one or more encoders” (the
’728 Patent, Claim 24)
Plaintiff’s Proposal
Defendant’s Proposal
No construction necessary
[encoder(s) / compression] that is applied to input data that is not
compressed with [a default data compression encoder / the default
data compression encoder], the compression using one or more
encoders selected based on the encoder’s (or encoders’) ability to
effectively encode the data type or content of the data block
Plaintiff asks for no construction on this claim term, and maintains that the language of
the patent is appropriate to show that there is “one or more [data compression] encoders” in the
construction. (Doc. No. 46 at 8.) Defendant argues that the claim shows that there is a mutually
exclusive relationship where “[a]n encoder cannot simultaneously be both ‘default’ and
‘selected’ based on its ability to encode data type or content.” (Doc. No. 92 at 13.) Defendant
maintains that its proposal is consistent with the Court’s other prior constructions of “closely
10
related terms featuring similar mutually exclusive relationships between two sets of encoders in a
single claim.” Id. at 15. Plaintiff replies that Defendant’s construction should be rejected
because it puts extraneous limitations into plain phrases. (Doc. No. 96 at 5.)
The terms “one or more data compression encoders” and “one or more encoders” present
substantially the same dispute addressed above as to the “content dependent data compression”
terms. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence presented does not support the finding that
the claims are limited as Defendant argues. In addition, unlike Claim 1 of the ’728 Patent, Claim
24 does not recite the term “content dependent.” This omission demonstrates that Plaintiff did
not intend to limit the terms in the manner urged by Defendant. The terms describe the system
where one or more encoders are used to compress data. ’728 Patent 28:12–30 (detailing the
system where the data block is compressed with one or more encoders based on their parameters
or attributes).
Having resolved the parties’ dispute, the claim terms “one or more data
compression encoders” and “one or more encoders” do not require further construction.
C.
“a single data compression encoder” / “the single data compression encoder”
(the ’728 Patent, Claims 1, 6, 10, 24, and 25)
Plaintiff’s Proposal
Defendant’s Proposal
No construction necessary
an encoder that is applied to input data that is not compressed with
[content dependent data compression encoders / content dependent
data compression], the compression applied without regard to the
encoder’s ability to effectively encode the data type or content of
the data block.
Alternatively, the [a single data compression encoder / the single
data compression encoder] is an encoder used automatically in the
absence of a designated alternative.
Plaintiff maintains that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms are clear, and nothing
in the plain meaning indicates that the terms are equivalent to “content independent”
compression, nor is there any intrinsic evidence establishing this. (Doc. No. 46 at 9–10.)
11
Defendant argues that its proposed construction is necessary, as shown from prior agreements for
this construction. (Doc. No. 93 at 16.) Defendant argues that the written description for the ’728
Patent “repeatedly juxtaposes content dependent data compression with content independent data
compression” but does not use “content independent” anywhere in the patent claims. Id. at 16–
17. Defendant maintains that the claims instead describe a first set of compression encoders that
are “relative to the mutual exclusion of a second set of compression encoders . . . and vice
versa.” Id. Defendant states that “[t]he relationship is mutually exclusive because the same
original unencoded input data block is never doubly compressed with the first set followed by
the second set, such that the output of the first set is never routed into the input of the second
set.” Id. Plaintiff maintains the construction should be rejected because it imports improper
limitations and there is no showing these encoders are independent. (Doc. No. 96 at 5–6.)
Similar to above, Defendant has not shown how the use of the term “single” specifically
relates to the written descriptions reciting “content independent.” Here, the terms describe a
scenario where the data compression uses a single data compression encoder, and omits the term
“content independent.” See, e.g., ’724 Patent at 26:29–48 (“A system for compressing data
comprising; a processor; one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and a single
data compression encoder[.]”). This demonstrates that Plaintiff did not intend to limit the terms
in the manner urged by Defendant. Further, although Defendant argues its proposal is similar to
prior constructions, the Court notes again that the prior constructions were agreed-to or did not
involve the ’728 Patent specifically. (See Doc. Nos. 93-2, 93-3, 93-5.) Limiting the claims so
that “single” means “content independent” would therefore be improper. Having resolved the
parties’ dispute, the terms “a single data compression encoder” and “the single data compression
encoder” require no further construction.
12
D.
“compressing with a first encoder” (the ’530 Patent, Claim 18)
Plaintiff’s Proposal
Defendant’s Proposal
No construction necessary
compressing with an encoder capable of the first
compression technique, different from the second
compression technique
Defendant argues for a construction on “compressing with a first encoder” because it
“explains to the jury in the context of a different claim that the first encoder [of the patent] is
capable of the first compression technique, rather than the second compression technique,
thereby defining the scope of that claim.” (Doc. No. 48 at 6.) Defendant maintains this is
supported by the specification, which shows “that each compression technique is associated with
a different encoder.” Id. At the April 5, 2018 hearing, Defendant similarly asserted that “each
encoder lines up with a different compression technique.” Plaintiff argues that Defendant could
not “justify rewriting ‘first encoder’ as a 14-word extraneous phrase.” (Doc. No. 52 at 1.)
Plaintiff argues that it makes no sense and the construction wastes time. Id.
The Court finds no support for Defendant’s proposal. Claim 1 of the ’530 Patent, on
which claim 18 depends, expressly recites that the “first and second compression techniques are
different.” Defendant’s proposal conflates these terms by requiring the “first encoder” to satisfy
a requirement that is recited in claim 1 as to the “first compression technique.” Contrary to this
proposal, claim 18 recites that the first compression technique comprises compressing with a first
encoder. Defendant’s construction is therefore confusing and unnecessary, and appears to be
contrary to the language in the claim. Having resolved the parties’ dispute, “compressing with a
first encoder” requires no further construction.
13
“communications channel” (the ’908 Patent, Claim 25)
E.
Plaintiff’s Proposal
Defendant’s Proposal
No construction necessary
connection to an external source
During the hearing on April 5, 2018, the parties stipulated that this term did not require
construction.
II.
AGREED CLAIM TERM CONSTRUCTIONS
The parties submitted the following agreed-upon constructions:
Term/Phrase
Agreed Construction
“data block(s)”
(ʼ728, claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25)
“a single unit of data, which may range in size
from individual bits through complete files or
collection of multiple files.”
“compressing / compressed /
compression”
“[representing / represented / representation] of
data with fewer bits”
(ʼ728, claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24,
25)
“data”
“a representation of information”
(ʼ728, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24,
25)
“analyze / analyzing”
“directly examine / directly examining”
(ʼ728, claims 1, 24, 25)
“a default data compression encoder /
the default data compression encoder”
(ʼ728, claim 24)
“memory device”
(’530, claims 1-4; ’908, claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
21, 22, 25)
“the [a default data compression encoder / the
default data compression encoder] is an encoder
used automatically in the absence of a designated
alternative”
“an identified memory device to which data is
directed for recording and later retrieval”
14
“[receiving/received] from an external source”
“receiving / received”
(’530, claim 1; ’908, claim 25)
“data accelerator”
Means-plus function:
(’530, claims 1-4; ’908, claims 1, 2, 4, 6)
Structure:
“hardware or software with one or more
compression encoders.”
Function:
’908 patent: “compress: (i) a first data block with a
first compression technique to provide a first
compressed data block; and (ii) a second data
block with a second compression technique,
different from the first compression technique, to
provide a second compressed data block”
’530 patent: “compressing said first data block
with a first compression technique and said second
data block with a second compression technique,
said first and second compression techniques are
different”
After reviewing the parties’ agreed constructions in light of the asserted claims,
specification, and prosecution history, the Court finds the parties’ agreed constructions
appropriate and construes the terms as set forth above.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the constructions set forth above.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of April, 2018.
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?