VideoShare, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 41

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (ir)

Case 6:21-cv-00254-ADA Document 41 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
VIDEOSHARE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. 6:21-CV-00254-ADA

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
The Court provided preliminary claim constructions on January 6, 2022 for U.S. Patent
No. 10,362,341. The Court held a claim construction hearing on January 7, 2022, during which
the parties argued the construction of “depending on a compatibility of the second server system
or a compatibility of the second client with the first format or the second format.” Dkt. No. 38.
The parties also briefed whether “server system” is indefinite. Dkt. Nos. 29, 31, 33, 35.
In another case involving the same patent, the Court construed “depending on a compatibility of the second server system or a compatibility of the second client with the first format or
the second format” to mean “after determining which of the first format or second format is most
compatible with the second server system or the second client.” VideoShare, LLC v. Google LLC,
No. 6:19-cv-00663-ADA, Dkt. No. 69 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2020).
Defendant argues for revising this construction to read “after determining which of the first
format and second format is most compatible with the second server system or the second client.”
Dkt. 29 at 2 (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues for affirming the previous construction without the
change, noting that “or” and “and” are not synonyms. Dkt. 31 at 3. Defendant contends the

Case 6:21-cv-00254-ADA Document 41 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

revision to “and” provides clarity. Dkt. No. 29 at 2-3. Thus, the dispute centers solely on whether
to revise the first “or” to “and.”
The Court determined whether the Plaintiff or Defendant made arguments most compatible
with the law. To do so, the Court analyzed the briefing of both parties. In the same way, the
meaning of “after determining which of the first format or second format is most compatible with
the second server system or the second client” is clear and requires no further revision.
The Court construes “server system” to have its plain and ordinary meaning and finds
“server system” is not indefinite. A clam is indefinite only if it fails to inform those skilled in the
art about the scope of invention with reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). A skilled artisan must know not only what falls inside the scope of the
claim term, but also what falls outside of it. Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho Corp., 213 F. Supp.
3d 829, 836 (W.D. Tex. 2016).
Defendant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not discern the outer boundaries of the “server system” because it “includes no restriction on scale or the number of computers
and programs which may constitute a server system.” Dkt. No. 29 at 6-7.
The Court finds that “server system” informs, with reasonable certainty, a person of ordinary skill in the art what the scope of invention is: the system includes at least a server. Defendant
cites no law requiring claims to define a maximum outer boundary on the number of computers or
programs in such a server system. Defendant’s argument that the claim has “no restriction” on the
maximum boundary means the maximum boundary is clearly understood, not indefinitely claimed.
Further, the parties have reached agreement on the construction of certain claim terms
listed in their Joint Claim Construction Statement. Dkt. No. 37. The Court holds the parties to
their agreement.

2

Case 6:21-cv-00254-ADA Document 41 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

CONCLUSION
Term/Phrase

Plaintiff’s
Construction
“depending on a
“after determining
compatibility of the which of the first forsecond server system mat or second format is
or a compatibility of most compatible with
the second client
the second server syswith the first format tem or the second clior the second forent”
mat”
“server system”
Plain and ordinary
meaning

Defendant’s
Construction
“after determining
which of the first format and second format is most compatible with the second
server system or the
second client”

Court’s Final
Construction
“after determining which
of the first format or second format is most compatible with the second
server system or the second client”

Indefinite

Not indefinite; plain and
ordinary meaning

SIGNED on this 7th day of January 2022.

3