Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al
Filing
198
OPINION AND ORDER - For the reasons set forth above, the Court issues this Opinion and Order as the construction of the disputed claim terms in the '492 patent family and the '733 patent family. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and on 9/25/13. Copies distributed to all parties 9/25/13.(ldab, )
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
VIRGINIA INNOVATION
SCIENCES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
2:12cv548
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., ET AL.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This
hearing,
matter
is
before
the
Court
the
briefs
submitted
by
and
Order
detailing
Markman
disputed
After careful consideration
the
advanced at the Markman hearing,
Opinion
a
conducted for the purpose of construing nine
claim terms in the patents-in-suit.
of
following
parties
and
the
arguments
the Court issues the following
the
claim
constructions
in
this
case.
I.
At
issue
7,899,492
in
("the
x711
patent"),
U.S.
Patent
7,957,733
No.
("the
FACTUAL AND
this
M92
U.S.
Patent No.
'733
M92 patent,
are
patent"),
8,224,381
("the '398 patent").
to the
case
PROCEDURAL
("the
patent"),
six
U.S.
HISTORY
patents:
Patent
8,145,268
No.
U.S.
Patent
8,050,711
("the
'381 patent"),
and
U.S.
No.
("the
'268 patent"),
U.S.
Patent
No.
Patent
No.
8,135,398
All of the patents-in-suit claim priority
which itself claimed priority to provisional
application
'711,
number
'268,
patent
60/588,359,
and
and
'381
all
specification
patents
four
{"the
filed
'492
are
share
on
share
a
a
includes
all
material
{"the
suit
of
describes
the
M92
and impracticability of
screens of mobile
'492
M92,
patent
Apparatus
Communication
respective
apparatuses,
Each
to
identical
'733
and
with
of
resolve
the
the
'398
these two
specification,
along
M92
which
additional
patents-in-
inconvenience
viewing multimedia content on the small
The '492 Patent Family
'711,
'268, and '381 patents
family")
for
the
'492 patent;
specification,
intended
of
The
terminals.
A.
The
The
identical
'733 specification").
inventions
2004.
substantively
specification").
substantively
16,
continuations
patents are continuations-in-part of the
patents
July
are
Displaying
each
Multimedia
Networks."
claims
are
titled
Their
directed
(collectively, "the
"Methods,
Information
Systems
from
Wireless
shared
specification
toward
methods,
and computer-readable mediums
that
and
and
systems,
can be
utilized
to convert multimedia signals appropriate for displaying content
on a mobile terminal so as to render such content
appropriate
for display on an alternative display terminal.
The '4 92 specification describes a "mobile terminal signal
conversion module"
MTSCM
"processes
{"MTSCM").
signals
to
E.g.,
'492
accommodate
Patent,
3:52-54.
reproduction
by
The
an
external
device."
the MTSCM
Id.
"receives
at
3:58-59.
[a] video
To
complete
and/or
display
Id.
signal
terminal
power
that
is
process,
signal" and "processes the video
signal to provide a converted video signal
format
this
level
that has a display
appropriate
separate"
from
for
the
an
external
mobile
terminal.
at 4:4-20.
Figures 2 and 3 of the
diagrams
of
"illustrates
one
MTSCM."
at
4:55-56.
"The MTSCM includes a mobile terminal interface module,
a signal
breakdown
the
for
conversion
5:9-11.
MTSCM.
'492 specification provide two block
the
components
module,
"The
Figure
and
an
mobile
of
5:12-13.
with
the
"The
terminal
mobile
received
signal
terminal
multimedia
recognizes
the
the
external
receiving the multimedia signal
at
2
device
interface."
interface
module
from the mobile
conversion module
interface
signal.
multimedia
Id.
module
The
signal
is
and
format,
in
Finally,
communication
accesses
the
"[t]he
with
the
converted
external
signal
signal.
device
also allows connection to the external
. . [and] may provide both the
accesses
Id.
the
module
processes
the
Id. at 5:22-
interface
conversion
The
accommodates
conversion
and
at
communication
thus
signal
Id.
terminal."
multimedia signal to provide a converted signal."
27.
modular
module
external
device
(e.g.,
display)
is
and
in
thus
interface
device
.
feeding of the converted signal
to
the
external device,
and driving the
external device."
Id.
at 5:34-40.
Figure
of
the
3 is
MTSCM
another block diagram illustrating an
that
"includes
signal conversion aspect,
types
of
external
converted
"includes
an
previously
which
"[t]he
mobile
buffer
5:57-60.
that
at
interface/buffer
accommodate signal
at
The
"receives
decompression
video
multimedia
Encoder
The
DAVE
compress
signal
(DAVE)
module
that
received
is
is
the
provide
depicted
analogous
to
module"
and
configured
a video compress
and
"outputs
prepare
to
to
Id.
"accommodates
signal"
module."
in
decoder
a
the
at
6:6-14.
decompressed
a
Id.
through
digital
Digital
Analog
and/or the Digital/Digital Video Encoder
is configured to
the
remaining elements."
multimedia
passed
may
MTSCM
are
signal"
(CO-DEC)
decoder
MTSCM
interface
includes
multimedia
that
regarding
The
interfacing
MTSCM also
the
the
5:44-4 8.
processing by the
the
of
which
terminal
and
"compression/decompression
The
to
Id.
described
detail
and illustrates examples of differing
devices
signals."
additional
example
signals
for
analog
Video
(DDVE).
external
display terminals, and the DDVE is configured to prepare signals
for digital external display terminals."
the
DAVE
and
and
convert
DDVE
the
"receive
signals
to
the
Id.
decompressed
the
format(s)
at
6:26-32.
multimedia
and
signal
Both
signal
power
level (s)
Id.
required
for
the
terminals
to
which
they
interface."
6:32-36.
Although described as a "module," the MTSCM "may
provided
as
thereof."
software,
Id.
at
firmware,
4:45-47.
hardware,
And,
"the
or
any
described
[also]
combination
functionality
may alternatively be provided by an MTSCM having fewer,
or
differently
figures."
named
modules
Id. at 4:57-60.
from
those
Furthermore,
be
greater,
illustrated
in
the
although all components
are shown to reside in a common location,
they "may be separated
such that portions of the overall functionality are respectively
provided by the mobile terminal,
and/or
the
Finally,
both
external
display
"the MTSCM may be
the
mobile
respective
terminal
connections
to
separate intermediate housing,
device."
Id.
at
4:61-67
& 5:1-3.
independently housed separately from
and
external
configuration that includes the three pieces of hardware
{mobile
terminal,
conversion
id.
6:62-67,
or it "may be
family")
'733 and
display
provide
terminal),"
at
located in either the mobile terminal or
the external display," id.
The
external
to
with
system
B.
devices
terminal,
a
box,
other
display
at 7:7-8.
The '733 Patent Family
'398 patents
(collectively
"the
'733 patent
are both entitled "Methods and Apparatus for Multimedia
Communications
with
Different
User
Terminals."
Their
shared
specification and respective claims are directed toward methods,
systems,
mediums
apparatuses,
for
computer
providing
programs,
"multimedia
and
content
computer-readable
to
and
from various
different devices" through the conversion and sending or routing
of such content.
The
E.g.,
'733 patent 1:47-49.
'733 specification describes
including
an
"[p]rovision
location",
Internet
of
content
Internet
payment,"
id.
at
of
and
management"
and
a
or
9:14-11:27,
"home
"system with
14:43-19:57.
For
embodiments,
description
and
customized
a system for
alerts"
mobile
for
terminal
the
"mobile
family
figures
where
the
according
to
"wireless management
tasks
security monitoring,"
'733
the
is
system
systems
a "systematical solution for mobile
corresponding
tasks
delivery
content
id. at 5:39-9:13,
several different
of
the
such
id.
signal
at
signal
specification
from
"diaper
11:28-14:42,
conversion,"
terminal
MTSCM
as
id.
at
conversion"
repeats
the
'492
the
family
specification.
The '733 specification also describes a "control system for
multimedia
communications
to implement the
at
19:58-60.
compresses,
between
different
terminals"
designed
'733 patent family's various applications.
The
control
system "receives,
decompresses,
another.
and
terminal
to
described
provides
function,
and functions bi-directionally,"
both
Id.
rout[e]s
"a
20:17-19.
routing
selects,
data"
The
function
from
converts,
one
control
and
in that
a
it
Id.
user
system
connecting
"provides
for
the
transmission and
receipt
of
content
and
converts
such
content in both directions depending upon the connected devices
and
corresponding
19:61-67.
This
protocols
used
by
"Management Center
such
(MC)
devices."
System"
is
Id.
at
depicted in
Figure 16 of the '733 specification.1
Content received by the MC System is routed to various user
terminals using a "data package that identifies the destination
device."
Id.
at
21:15-17.
The
destination
device
can
be
identified by a "unique device identifier" in the data package,
or
"by
referencing
according
example,
to
a
portions
predefined
"if the
determined
in
the
protocol."
received
Id.
at
data
package
21:18-27.
For
data package contains the identifier DIi it is
that
television
of
the
the
communication
household."
Id.
is
at
intended
for
main
"The
21:41-43.
the
data
transmission between an MC System and user terminals can be one
way
or
two-way,"
bidirectional."
In
HUB
"the
data
transmitted
is
preferably
16
depicts
Id^ at 25:30-39.
addition
Centralized
but
to
System
System and/or Internet
the
MC
{"CHS")
System,
that
Figure
"communicates
and/or other networks."
with
Id.
at
the
a
MC
23:2-4.
1 The MC System "includes a converter module with routines for
selecting, extracting, compressing, decompressing, adjusting data, and
converting the data format and/or power level and/or data package
size/format."
Id.
at 20:42-46.
It "also includes a mapping table
and routing module," as well as data storage,
and "may include
software and/or hardware for filtering and treating viruses."
Id. at
20:47-21:4.
The CHS
can
"be built
other device"
MC
cable modem,
TV set,
and "may perform the functions
system."
F[igure]
into a
Id.
at
23:4-8.
top box,
or
described for the
Additionally,
"[a]s
shown
in
16, the CHS communicates with the Internet through ADSL
or cable and cellular base stations through wireless connection.
The consumer electronics items communicate with the CHS through
wireless
channels
connection.
such
[The]
as
CHS
communication system."
receives
and
converts
Bluetooth,
is
Id.
the
UWB,
center
at 23:23-28.
multimedia
NFC
of
for
wire
this
Thus,
content
or
line
wireless
the MC System
transmission
to
various user terminals and the CHS operates as the center of the
wireless
communication
system
for
such
terminals.
Further,
because the specification makes clear the CHS may also perform
the
tasks
described
for
the
MC
System,
it
appears
that
the
embodiments of the claimed invention include systems utilizing
an MC System only,
See,
e.g.,
id.
formatting,
a CHS only,
at 21:24-26
address,
or
or both an MC
(describing
other
System and CHS.
the process
information"
as
to "obtain
one
that
can be
"a
process
performed by "the MC System (and/or CHS)").
The
'733
specification
also
describes
for
directing a television to display content using signals received
from
a
remote
network."
destination
location
through
Id. at 25:63-65.
television,
or
a
cellular
communications
In this process,
the MC System, the
a
connected
set-top
8
box
to
the
television is "equipped with processing capability for carrying
out the signal conversion requirements,
as described in detail .
. . regarding the MTSCM" disclosed in the '492 specification and
again in the '733 specification.
or
the
set-top
wirelessly
box
from
is
a
also
Id. at 26:6-9.
"equipped
cellular
base
to
The television
receive
station
the
and
signals
provide
the
corresponding conversion and direction to display the content on
a given channel."
Id.
at
25:67-26:3.
"The process
initiates
upon receipt of video content through a cellular communications
channel."
IcL
at
26:22-23.
formatted as required.
"[T]he content as
. . .
sent
. . . [is]
The MTSCM functionality converts
such signals from the cellular network and related format to the
format used by the television
at
the
26:28-32.
"Finally,
converted content
tunable
channel
content."
IcL
a
is
otherwise
the
Virginia
defendants
America,
Innovation
Samsung
(collectively
willfully
instant
Inc.,
Id.
is directed to display
predetermined
channel,"
unused
for
such
"a
forms
other
as
of
26:41-44.
C.
In
SD or HD standards)."
the television
on
that
at
(e.g.,
and
Procedural History
patent
Sciences,
Electronics
Samsung
"Samsung")
infringed
infringement
the
Inc.
Co.,
action,
("VIS")
LTD,
have
directly,
patents-in-suit
alleges
Samsung
Telecommunications
plaintiff
Electronics
America,
indirectly,
by
that
making,
LLC
and
using,
offering
for
accused
products,
players,
sale,
and
selling,
including
hubs.
or
under
several
affirmative
equitable
the
defenses,
doctrines.
counterclaims
denies
doctrine
prosecution
importing
smartphones,
Samsung
literal
patents-in-suit,
and/or
of
any
history
of
Blue-ray
either
and
asserts
invalidity
estoppel,
of
range
tablets,
equivalents,
including
declarations
wide
infringement,
Additionally,
seeking
a
of
and
Samsung
all
other
alleges
non-infringement
and
invalidity for each of the patents-in-suit.
The Court held its Markman hearing in
11,
2013
at
which
it
heard
claim terms reviewed below.
numerous
filings
in
this
pending before the Court,
argument
this matter on June
concerning
the
disputed
Since this hearing, there have been
matter
and
several
motions
remain
in various stages of briefing.
Court does not address such matters here,
The
but instead discusses
only the proper construction of the disputed claim terms argued
at the June 11, 2013 Markman hearing.
II.
In
Markman
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE
v.
Westview
Instruments,
the
United
States
Supreme Court succinctly explained the basis for, and importance
of,
claim construction:
The Constitution empowers Congress "[t]o promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for
limited
Times
to
Authors
and
Inventors
the
exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and
Discoveries."
Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
Congress first
10
exercised this authority in 1790, when it provided for
the issuance of "letters patent," Act of Apr.
10,
1790, ch. 7, § 1, 1 Stat. 109, which, like their
modern counterparts, granted inventors "the right to
exclude others from making, using, offering for sale,
selling,
or importing the patented invention,"
in
exchange for full disclosure of
an invention,
H.
Schwartz, Patent Law and Practice 1, 33 {2d ed. 1995) .
It
has
long been understood
that
a
patent
must
describe the exact scope of an invention and its
manufacture to "secure to [the patentee] all to which
he is entitled, [and] to apprise the public of what is
still open to them."
McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S.
419, 424 (1891).
Under the modern American system,
these objectives are served by two distinct elements
of
a
patent
document.
First,
it
contains
a
specification describing the invention "in such full,
clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in
the art
...
to make and use
the
same."
35 U.S.C. § 112; see also 3 E. Lipscomb,
Walker on Patents §10:1, pp. 183-184 (3d ed. 1985)
(Lipscomb)
(listing
the
requirements
for
a
specification).
Second, a patent includes one or more
"claims,"
which
"particularly
poin[t]
out
and
distinctly
clai[m]
the
subject
matter
which
the
applicant regards as his invention."
35 U.S.C. § 112.
"A claim covers and secures a process, a machine, a
manufacture, a composition of matter, or a design, but
never
the
function
or
result
of
either,
nor
the
scientific
explanation
of
their
operation."
6
Lipscomb § 21.17, at 315-316.
The claim "define[s]
the scope of a patent grant," 3 id. § 11:1, at 280,
and functions to forbid not only exact copies of an
invention, but products that go to "the heart of an
invention but avoids the literal language of the claim
by making a noncritical change," Schwartz, supra, at
82.
.
.
.
Characteristically, patent lawsuits charge what
is known as infringement, Schwartz, supra, at 75, and
rest
on
allegations
that
the
defendant
"without
authority ma[de],
use[d]
or
[sold the]
patented
invention, within the United States during the term of
the
patent
therefor
.
.
.
."
35
U.S.C.
§
271(a).
Victory in an infringement suit requires a finding
that the patent claim "covers the alleged infringer's
product or process," which in turn necessitates a
determination of "what the words in the claim mean."
11
Schwartz,
supra,
at 80;
see also 3 Lipscomb § 11:2,
at
288-290.
Markman v.
It
Westview Instruments,
is
well-settled
that
a
requires a two-step analysis:
scope
"the
and
meaning
properly
of
construed
infringing device."
1448, 1454
"First,
patent
claims
1998)
370,
claims
are
is
a
of
to
and
the
second,
the
allegedly
Inc.,
138 F.3d
(citing Markman,
517 U.S.
v. FAS Techs.,
'bedrock principle'
infringement
asserted"
compared
(en banc)
(1996).
the court determines
In conducting this analysis,
"[i]t
373-74
determination
Cybor Corp.
(Fed. Cir.
at 371-73).
that
the
517 U.S.
of
it must be remembered
patent
law
that
'the
claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is
entitled the right
to exclude.'"
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Phillips v.
(en banc)
Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems,
1111,
1115
Cir.
2004));
see
415
(quoting Innova/Pure
Water,
{Fed.
AWH Corp.,
Inc., 381 F.3d
Vitronics
Corp.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
v.
("First,
we look to the words of the claims themselves, both asserted and
nonasserted,
to define the scope of the patented invention.").
A.
Claim Construction Principles
Focusing on the first step of the infringement analysis,
the Federal Circuit has repeatedly stated that
claim
'are
meaning,'"
generally
and that
given
their
ordinary
"the words of a
and
customary
"the ordinary and customary meaning of a
12
claim term is
of
ordinary
invention."
90
F.3d
which
to
at
the meaning that
skill
in
the
Phillips,
1582).
begin
art
415
This
claim
the term would have to
in
F.3d at
provides
in
the
field
of
the
at
1312-13
"an
interpretation"
well-settled understanding that
skilled
question
the
and
invention
time
of
the
(quoting Vitronics,
objective
inventors
a person
is
are
baseline
based
upon
from
"the
typically persons
and
that
patents
are
addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the
pertinent art."
Id. at 1313.
As noted by the Federal Circuit:
It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention through whose eyes the claims are construed.
Such person is deemed to read the words used in the
patent
documents
with
an
understanding
of
their
meaning in the field,
and to have knowledge of any
special
usage
meaning
inventor's
and
words
that
in
are
the
used
field.
to
The
describe
the
invention-the
inventor's
lexicography-must
be
understood and interpreted by the court as they would
be understood and interpreted by a person in that
field of
technology.
Thus
the court starts the
decisionmaking process by reviewing the same resources
as would that person, viz., the patent specification
and the prosecution history.
Id.
(quoting Multiform
Desiccants,
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Inc.
v.
However,
Medzam,
Ltd.,
133
"'[i]n some cases,
the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person
of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges,
and claim construction
the
application
of
understood words.'"
in
the
such
cases
widely
involves
accepted
little more
meaning
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
13
of
than
commonly
483 F.3d 800,
805
(Fed.
Finally,
cannot
Cir.
when
add
"abstract
2007)
(quoting
construing
or
subtract
policy
Phillips,
claim
terms
words
from
considerations"
and
the
to
415
F.3d
phrases,
claims
broaden
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
1339-40
(Fed.
F.3d 1577,
1584
2005);
(Fed.
Cir.
see Quantum Corp.
1995)
v.
1314).
the
or
or
scope.
Cir.
at
Court
appeal
narrow
to
their
403 F.3d 1331,
Rodime,
PLC,
65
("[I]t is well settled that no
matter how great the temptations of fairness or policy making,
courts do not redraft claims.").
B.
Types of Evidence to Be Considered
In determining the meaning of disputed terms or phrases,
the
Court
Phillips,
must
first
examine
the
claims
themselves.
415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water,
at 1115); see also Vitronics,
See
381 F.3d
90 F.3d at 1582 ("[W]e look to the
words of the claims themselves ... to define the scope of the
patented invention.").
Indeed
the
Federal
Circuit
has
stated
that "the claims themselves," both asserted and unasserted,
can
be "valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a
claim term,"
consistently
1314.
in part because
throughout
Furthermore,
enlightening,
"claim terms are normally used
the patent."
differences
"[f]or example,
in
Phillips,
claims
415
can
F.3d
also
at
be
the presence of a dependent claim
that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption
14
that
the
limitation
independent claim."
The
claims,
read in view of
Id.
at
1315
F.3d 967,
in
Id.
question
however,
"do
not
stand
the specification,
(Fed.
90 F.3d at 1582
is
the
term.");
Multiform
Cir.
1995)
describes
best
(en banc));
guide
The
the
133
informed,
35
U.S.
"'must
be
Inc.,
52
and
and
F.3d
at
USA,
§
Inc.,
112
347
a
1478
disputed
("The
best
term is the specification
by
the prosecution
required
of
making
by
and
statute,
using
claims must be construed so
F.3d 1367,
(establishing
1371
the
the
as
Merck & Co. v.
(Fed. Cir.
requirement
specification describe the invention in "full,
and exact terms . . . ").
of
as
process
"[t]hus
it is dispositive;
to be consistent with the specification . . . ."
see
and
meaning
as needed,
specification,
manner
patented invention,
Teva Pharms.
the
see also Vitronics,
Usually,
to
Desiccants,
it arose,
the
alone"
Westview Instruments,
source for understanding a technical
history.").
in
{"[T]he specification is always highly relevant
single
from which
present
of which they are a part.'"
to the claim construction analysis.
it
not
at 1314-15.
(quoting Markman v.
979
is
clear,
2003);
that
the
concise,
The Federal Circuit and Supreme Court
have thus long emphasized the specification's important role in
claim construction,
noting that,
usually,
the specification "is
dispositive," as it is "the single best guide to the meaning of
the
disputed
term."
Phillips,
15
415
F.3d
at
1315
(quoting
Vitronics,
90
F.3d
at
1582);
see
Markman,
517
U.S.
at
389
(referencing the "standard construction rule that a term can be
defined only in a
way
that
comports
whole"); Multiform Desiccants,
In
addition
should consider
complete
Patent
of
the
Trademark
cited during
the
claims
and
Office
Phillips,
"provides
evidence
instrument
specification,
proceedings
which
before
("PTO"),
examination of
reexaminations.
history
the
the
as
a
133 F.3d at 1478.
the prosecution history,
record
and
to
with
how
the
States
prior
art
and any subsequent
1317.
the
the
Court
of
United
including
415 F.3d at
of
consists
the
the patent
the
PTO
The prosecution
and
the
inventor
understood the patent" and "can often inform the meaning of the
claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
invention and whether
the inventor limited the invention in the
course of prosecution,
making the claim scope narrower than it
would otherwise be."
Id.
83);
Cir.
see Chimie v.
2005)
(citing Vitronics,
PPG Indus.,
(indicating
that
Inc.,
the
90
F.3d at
402 F.3d 1371,
purpose
of
1582-
1384
(Fed.
consulting
the
prosecution history as part of claim construction is to exclude
any
disclaimed
prosecution
the
PTO
interpretation).
history
and the
specification
purposes.'"
and
represents
inventor,
thus
Trading
is
"At
an
the
ongoing
'it often lacks
less
Technologies
16
useful
Int'l,
same
time,
negotiation
the
for
Inc.
between
clarity of
claim
v.
because
the
construction
eSpeed,
Inc.,
595 F.3d 1340,
eBay,
Inc.,
The
1352
(Fed.
Cir.
549 F.3d 1394,
Court
may
(quoting Netcraft Corp.
examine
history,
including expert and inventor testimony,
treatises."
to
the
evidence,
"all
learned
external
extrinsic
includes
and
v.
1401 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
also
evidence
2010)
Markman,
52
patent
F.3d
which
and prosecution
at
dictionaries,
980.
Expert
testimony can be useful:
to provide background on the technology at issue, to
explain how an invention works,
to ensure that the
court's understanding of the technical aspects of the
patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in
the art, or to establish that a particular term in the
patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in
the pertinent field.
Phillips,
415
F.3d
Hewlett-Packard
Co.,
at
1318;
182
see
F.3d
also
1298,
Pitney
1308-09
Bowes,
(Fed.
Inc.
Cir.
v.
1999).
Technical dictionaries may also provide the Court with a better
understanding of the underlying technology and the way in which
one of skill
in
415
1318;
F.3d
at
the art might use the
see
also
claim terms.
Vitronics,
90
F.3d
General usage dictionaries may also be consulted,
at
Phillips,
1584
n.6.
as they are at
times "useful to assist in understanding the commonly understood
meaning of words."
Phillips,
"[a] dictionary definition has
source
'accessible
to
the
415 F.3d at 1322.
the value of
public
17
in
advance
Specifically,
being an unbiased
of
litigation.'"
Id.
(quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585).2
Circuit
cautions
that
"'a
However, the Federal
general-usage
dictionary
cannot
overcome art-specific evidence of the meaning'
of a claim term,"
that
patent
"the
beyond
use
what
patent,"
of
the
should
and that
dictionary
properly
may
be
extend
afforded
by
the
"[t]here is no guarantee that a
protection
inventor's
term is used
in the same way in a treatise as it would be by the patentee."
Phillips,
BV
v.
415 F.3d at
I.T.C.,
366
1322
F.3d
"different dictionaries
{quoting Vanderlande Indus.
1311,
1321
(2004)).
may contain somewhat
definitions for the same words.
Nderland
Additionally,
different
sets
of
A claim should not rise or fall
based upon the preferences of a particular dictionary editor, or
the
court's
specification,
Idthe
Thus,
independent
decision,
uninformed
by
the
to rely on one dictionary rather than another."
"while extrinsic evidence 'can shed useful light on
relevant
art,'
2 In Phillips,
...
it
is
'less significant
the Federal Circuit
than
the
expressly discounted the
approach taken in Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308
F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002), in which the court placed greater emphasis
on dictionary definitions of claim terms.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 131924 ("Although the concern expressed by the court in Texas Digital was
valid,
the methodology it adopted placed too much reliance on
extrinsic sources such as dictionaries,
treatises, and encyclopedias
and too little on intrinsic sources, in particular the specification
and prosecution history.").
The Phillips opinion reaffirmed the
approach used in Vitronics, Markman, and Innova as the proper approach
for claim construction, but acknowledged that there was "no magic
formula," and that a district court is not "barred from considering
any particular sources ... as long as those sources are not used to
contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic
evidence."
Id.
at 1324.
18
intrinsic
record
in determining
of claim language."'"
Bard,
Inc.
v.
U.S.
Phillips,
"the
legally
operative meaning
415 F.3d at 1317
Surgical Corp.,
388 F.3d 858,
(quoting C.R.
862
(Fed.
Cir.
2004)).
With
the
foregoing principles
in mind,
the Court will
now
examine the patents and the disputed claim terms.
III.
ANALYSIS OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
In advance of
the Markman hearing conducted by this Court,
the parties submitted a joint claim construction and prehearing
statement
nine
(9)
that
included
three
(3)
disputed claim terms.
agreed upon
The Court
claim
adopts
terms
and
the parties'
stipulated constructions of the agreed upon terms3 and addresses
each of the disputed claim terms herein.
Accordingly,
the Court adopts the following constructions:
1) M[comprises ... ] a power level appropriate for driving the
alternative display terminal" is construed to mean "[comprises
...] a signal power level appropriate for driving the alternative
display terminal."
2)
wa power level required by the alternative display terminal0
is construed
to mean
"a signal
power
level required
by
the
mean
of
the
alternative display terminal."
3) "housing
housing."
interface"
is
construed
19
to
"interface
1.
"jnoJbile terminal"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS: hand-held mobile device
personal
digital
assistant,
such
not
as
a
a cellular phone or
desktop
or
laptop
computer
Samsung: a portable cellular-equipped device
b. Discussion
VIS's construction of this term is derived from a portion of
the '492 specification,
attempts
limited
repeated in the '733 specification,
to define the disputed term.
construction,
specifications,
that
based
on
requires
the
that
Samsung proposes
embodiments
all
a more
listed
"mobile
that
in
the
terminals"
be
"cellular-equipped," or capable of receiving communications from
a cellular communications network.
At the Markman hearing,
the
parties agreed that a proper construction of this disputed term
would
include
disagreed
as
appropriate
the descriptors
to
based
what
on
"device"
further
the
argument
that
the patentee's
"portable."
limitations,
intrinsic
Before considering this question,
and
and
if
any,
extrinsic
They
were
evidence.
the Court first addresses the
attempted definition of
this
term
should control.
Patent law allows a patentee to be a lexicographer, meaning
that he may
meaning."
its
own
"use
terms
Vitronics,
lexicographer,
in a manner other
90 F.3d at
a
1582.
patentee
20
must
than
their
ordinary
However,
"[t]o act as
'clearly
set
forth
a
definition of the disputed claim term'
ordinary meaning."
Thorner v.
F.3d 1362,
1365
(Fed.
Brunswick
Corp.,
288
special
meaning
deliberateness,
Cir.
must
and
In
re
1354
Paulsen,
1359,
30
1366
appear
F.3d
not
include a particular
the
clear
feature,
2002)).
that
that
Any
specification
Cir.
v.
clarity,
(emphasis omitted)
(Fed.
669
Inc.
Syntron Bioresearch,
1480
'[w]here the specification makes
Cir.
"reasonable
in
2003)
1475,
(Fed.
with
Abbott Labs v.
(Fed. Cir.
LLC,
(quoting CCS Fitness,
precision"
prosecution history.
334 F.3d 1343,
Sony Computer Entm't Am.
2012)
F.3d
other than its plain and
or
Inc.,
(quoting
1994)).
"And
the invention does
feature
is
deemed to be
outside . . . the patent, ' even if the terms might otherwise be
broad
enough
to
cover
1275 (quoting Thorner,
The
'492
that
feature."
Medtronic,
695
F.3d
at
288 F.3d at 1366).
specification
and
the
'733
specification
both
provide that:
As used herein, mobile terminal refers to typically
hand-held mobile devices such as cellular phones and
personal digital assistants.
Although these devices
include an execution platform as well as input and
display capabilities, such devices are distinguished
from personal computers, such as desktop or laptop
computers,
which
handheld usage.
E.g.,
'492
patent,
added).
Thus,
deliberate
attempt
are
not
4:37-43;
the
to
designed
'733
patent,
specifications
define
this
21
for
16:5-11
evince
disputed
convenient
(emphasis
the
patentee's
term.
See
3M
Innovative
1374
Props.
(Fed. Cir.
Co.
2003)
v.
lexicographer
that
'"embossed" means.
(finding
an
Dennison
Corp.,
350
F.3d
1365,
(concluding that the patentee acted as its
own
55
Avery
when
the
specification
"expressly
. . '"); Abbott Labs.,
intent
to
define
a
state[d]
334 F.3d at 1354-
disputed
term
when
the
specification
introduced
the
term with
the
phrase,
"[a]s
herein,"
rejecting
the
definition
as
lacking
reasonable
clarity
but
and
definition
patent,
precision).
is
stated
4:37-43
However,
only
(defining
in
the
patentee's
exemplary
"mobile
terms.
terminal,"
used
attempted
E.g.,
as
'492
"refer[ing]
typically to hand-held mobile devices such as cellular phones
and
personal
computers,
added)).
digital
such
as
assistants"
desktop
or
and
excluding
"personal
laptop
computers"
(emphases
Such definition is not stated with reasonable clarity
and precision because it discloses only examples of devices that
fall within its scope and examples of
See Abbott Labs.,
334 F.3d at 1355
those that are excluded.
("Because the specification
provides two alterative definitions for the term at issue,
specification
does
not
define
the
claim
term
in
the
the
manner
required.").
Because the patentee failed to clearly and precisely define
this claim term in the specifications,
the Court gives the term
its ordinary and customary meaning.
See Elekta Instrument S.A.
v.
214
O.U.R.
Scientific
Intern.,
Inc.,
22
F.3d 1302,
1307
(Fed.
Cir.
to
2000)
(requiring a patentee acting as his own lexicographer
evince
"express
"clearly redefine
requirements
are
intent
[the]
not
to
impart
claim term"
met,
"claim
a
novel
meaning"
and noting that,
terms
take
on
and
to
when these
their
ordinary
meaning").
The
parties
have
agreed
that
a
"portable device."
See Vivid Techs.,
Inc.,
200 F.3d 795,
803
need
only
construe
(Fed. Cir.
claims
in
"mobile
Inc.
1999)
to
what
further
Am.
controversy
limitations
"to
a
& Eng'g,
the
However,
should
construction of this claim term.
Sci.
is
(noting that the court
necessary to resolve the controversy").
as
v.
terminal"
be
extent
they disagree
included
in
the
Their main dispute is whether
the term is limited to cellular-equipped devices.
Reviewing
the
claims
and
specifications,
the
Court
finds
little counseling for or against Samsung's proposed limitation.
The
claims
signals"
describe
from
both
the
mobile
"cellular
terminal
communications
"wireless network communication[s]."
8:30-33;
provide
'268
that
cellular
network."
terminal
patent,
these
8:32-35.
networks
communications
E.g.,
may
receive
See,
The
or
a
3:39-41.
multimedia
"video
network[s]"
e.g.,
content
are
not
wireless
The
fact
from
and
'492 patent,
specifications
"include but
network
'492 patent,
receiving
further
limited
local
that
various
a
to
a
area
mobile
networks
does not indicate whether it must have the capacity to receive
23
such content
not
clear
that
from a
from the claims
limiting
devices"
Claim
this
would
exclude
Tech.,
network.
It
is
term
cellular-equipped
to
8,
ECF
709
"portable
VIS
likewise
as
preferred
Br.
Inc.,
type of
and specifications,
claim
Construction
Artesyn
specific
embodiments.
No.
F.3d
64
PL's
(citing
1365,
at
contends,
SynQor,
1378-79
Opening
Inc.
v.
(Fed. Cir.
2013)) .
Samsung argues
that its proposed limitation is supported by
'492
prosecution
the
patent's
history,
in
which
the
patentee
allegedly distinguished "mobile terminals" from prior art on the
basis
that
the
configured
network
to
prior
art
receive
the
communication,"
cellular-equipped.
Opening
("Defs.'
disclosed
claimed
that
Defs.'
Br.")
is,
video
that
Opening
Ex.
L
devices
at
that
signal
such
Claim
were
in
a
devices
"not
cellular
were
not
Construction
VIS-001367,
Br.
ECF No.
The
65.
prosecution history can inform the meaning of claim language if
it
demonstrates
whether
the
making
otherwise be."
at
however,
the
"explicitly
of
the
To
patentee
scope
inventor
limited
Phillips,
1582-83).
disavowal
the
inventor
prosecution,
F.3d
"how
the
claim
understood
invention
scope
must
during
characteriz[ing]
the
make
an
24
aspect
of
clear
prosecution,"
of
invention
the
than
and
course
it
a
and
by,
his
claim
of
would
(citing Vitronics,
meaning
"a
in
narrower
415 F.3d at 1317
limit
the
90
term,
unmistakable
for
example,
invention
in
a
specific manner
Endo Pharms.
Here,
to overcome prior art."
Inc.,
438 F.3d 1123,
Samsung
argues
that
cellular-equipped
devices
patent,
VIS
the patentee
from
in
prior
which
art-U.S.
("Caspi")-that
digital
personal
Opening
Br.
L
"receive[d] content
LAN connection,
content
the
claim
to
the home
term
the
'492
et
al.
controlling
DPVSM."
No.
to
terminals"
Caspi
for
or
ECF
of
"mobile
system
v.
2006).
prosecution
manager,
so that it [could]
Pharma L. P.
this
2004/0177376
VIS-001366,
through
Cir.
limited
search
stream
at
(Fed.
distinguished
No.
"a
video
Ex.
during
Pub.
disclosed
1136
Purdue
65.
a
Defs.'
The
DPVSM
network subsystem,
via a
receive and display digital
. . . received by and made available through the home
network subsystem,"
which Caspi
by a personal computer."
During
the
'492
disclosed
could be
"controlled
Id.
patent
prosecution,
the
patentee
first
distinguished the personal computer disclosed in Caspi on the
basis that it was
"not
configured to receive the claimed video
signal in a cellular network communication that is sent to the
mobile
terminal."
Id.
at VIS-001366.
Although
this initial
distinction appears to be grounded in the device's ability to
receive
content
references
that
from
a
follow
cellular
make
network
clear
communication,
that
the
the
patentee
distinguished Caspi on both the absence of a mobile terminal and
the type of communications network involved.
25
Specifically,
the
patentee
emphasized
received content
environment,"
that
through
"a
implemented
communications
receipt
"is
receiving
a video
signal
at
computer
conventional
by
disclosed
"conventional
VIS-0013 67
clearly no
in a
example
cellular
(emphasis
in
in
Caspi
home broadband network
Local
. . . (whether wireless or wired)"
method of
Id.
the
of
a
Area
Network
and that such
mobile
network
terminal
communication."
original).
The
patentee
concluded:
"Caspi thus discloses neither the mobile terminal nor
the
of
type
(emphases
does
not
from
mobile
added);
terminal
see
also
communications
id.
at
VIS-001368
disclose a mobile terminal,
the
claimed
cellular
claimed."
network
Id.
("[S]ince
Caspi
or receiving video signal
communication,
it
possibly disclose [the claimed] conversion [process]."
cannot
(emphasis
added)).
Viewing Samsung's proposed limitation in light of all of the
patentee's
Court
statements
concludes
that
during
the
unmistakable disavowal"
receive
communications
Purdue Pharma,
patentee
438
disclosed
in Caspi
patentee
of
all
from
a
Caspi
terminal
was
did
cellular
on
and on
"not
'492
devices
F.3d at 1136.
distinguished
disclose a mobile
the
patent
not
make
lacking
"a
clear
as
VIS
that
it
the basis
that
the
to
and
network.
contends,
basis
configured
the
the ability to
communications
Rather,
the
prosecution,
receive
the
did
the
not
computer
claimed
video signal in a cellular network communication that is sent to
26
the
mobile
("PL's
terminal."
Resp.
Opening Br.
Markman
Ex.
Therefore,
proposed
Br.")
the
17,
intrinsic
of
Claim
ECF
No.
ECF No.
claim
69
(quoting
Br.
Defs.'
65).
record does
this
Construction
term
not
to
support
Samsung's
"cellular-equipped"
The Court has considered Samsung's proffered technical
dictionary
definitions
definition
for
radio
Resp.
L at VIS-001366,
limitation
devices.
PL's
"cellular
telephone."
However,
the
phone,"
Opening Br.
does
instructive
"mobile
communications,"
Defs.'
Court
particularly
for
not
to
find
its
and
Exs.
such
analysis,
incorporating
M
"cellular
&
N,
mobile
ECF No.
extrinsic
415
F.3d at
1320-22
especially when
(cautioning against
65.
evidence
intrinsic record fails to disclose the proposed limitation.
Phillips,
the
the
See
overreliance
on dictionary definitions when construing disputed terms).
For
term,
the
above
"mobile
devices.
reasons,
terminal,"
However,
the
is
Court
not
concludes
limited
to
that
the
claim
cellular-equipped
the Court agrees with the parties
that some
further description or limitation of this claim term-beyond the
agreed-to
"portable
device"-is
necessary.
Although
the
Court
has determined that the patentee's attempted definition of this
claim
term
considers
lacks
the
sufficient
characteristics
clarity
set
and
forth
in
precision,
that
Inc.
v.
Amino Chem.
Ltd.,
27
715 F.3d 1363,
Court
definition when
determining the term's plain and ordinary meaning.
Pharms.
the
1373
See Aventis
(Fed.
Cir.
2013)
("The
construing
specification
a
regarding
claim
use."
term
provides
and
(quoting
the
determining
Multiform
'best
the
source'
inventor's
Desiccants,
133
for
intent
F.3d
at
1478)).
First,
the
patentee's
attempted
"typically handheld mobile devices
personal digital assistants."
initially proposed a
"handheld."
definition
such as
E.g.,
construction
cellular phones
'492 patent,
that
describes
included
4:37-39.
the
limitation
the specifications.
drawn from the background sections of
See, e.g.,
'492 patent 1:47-2:6 (describing
the problems associated with the "limited size
(e.g.,
capability
and
of
solution
to
supported
the
usage."
patent,
mobile
such
terminal
"display
importation
of
screen"
limitations").
such
attempted
specific
definition,
Hr'g Tr. 56-57, June 11,
4:43.
Based
that
requirement
on
the
size
"mobile
Specifically,
laptop
from
computers"
of
terminals"
handheld usage."
the
by
this
for
party
handheld
"mobile
'492
limitation,
this
be
a
limitations.
the
term includes
"convenient
distinguishing
claimed
28
offering
2013, ECF No. 92; e.g.,
context
and
drawn from the
"convenient
the proper construction of
that
2x3")
Neither
VIS proposed an alternative limitation,
Court agrees
a
the
At
the Court inquired as to the propriety of
certain size limitations,
patentee's
VIS
Samsung opposed this limitation as ambiguous.
the Markman hearing,
Instead,
and
"desktop
terminals,"
for
or
the
patentee
made
"clear
particular feature,"
for
handheld
Thorner,
See
288
also
computers)
invention
1366)
patent,
does
not
include
a
the feature of being inconvenient
Medtronic,
F.3d at
for
the
that is,
usage.
'492
inconvenient
that
695
(internal
4:39-43.
handheld usage
F.3d
at
1275
(quoting
quotation marks
If
all
omitted).
devices
(including laptops
that
and desktop
are expressly excluded from the claim term,
proper construction must include a
limitation that
are
then the
the portable
device be convenient for handheld usage.
Second,
and in the same vein,
that this claim term excludes
patent,
4:39-43
computers,
such
designed
as
desktop
specification reveals
expressed
in
SkinMedica,
2013
WL
or
convenient
claim scope
"personal computers."
E.g.,
'492
("[S]uch devices are distinguished from personal
for
of
the specifications make clear
by
the
laptop
handheld
the
inventor, ' the
v.
4487603,
is
at
*7
(Fed
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) .
scope
of
regarded
Histogen Inc.,
Aug.
not
"the
or disavowal,
claim,
'as
dispositive.'"
, No.
23,
are
When
the
as
F.3d
Cir.
which
usage.").
'an intentional disclaimer,
specification,
Inc.
computers,
2012-1560,
2013)
(quoting
Although the Court may not import
limitations from the specification into the claim, it "can rely
on
the
claimed
SafeTCare
specification
and
'to
disclaimed.'"
Mfg.,
Inc.
v.
understand
Id.
Tele-Made,
29
what
the
patentee
(emphasis
added)
Inc.,
F.3d
497
has
(quoting
1262,
1270
(Fed.
Cir.
proper
2007)).
Accordingly,
construction
of
this
the
Court
claim
term
concludes
expressly
that
a
excludes
personal computers.
The
include
Court
the
does
not,
examples
definition.
The
however,
set
Court
forth
must
construe
in
"avoid
the Court must
claim
patentee's
importing
the specification into the claims."
To do so,
the
this
Phillips,
term
to
attempted
limitations
from
415 F.3d at 1323.
"keep in mind that the purposes of the
specification are to teach and enable those of skill in the art
to make and use the invention and to provide the best mode for
doing
so."
Inc.,
827
Id.
(citing
F.2d 1524,
1533
Spectra-Physics,
(Fed.
Cir.
Inc.
1987)).
v.
Coherent,
"One of
the best
ways to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make
and
use
the
practice
the
examples
are
invention
the
[are]
provided,
provide
an
the
Court
must
uses
a
in nature."
term
within
of
Here,
the
Ry.
Co.,
patentee's
121 U.S.
attempted
personal
digital
assistants)
30
and
the
the claim term or
Id.
definition
two
to
in which
and
claims
(citing Snow
630 (1887)).
examples of devices that are "mobile terminals"
and
whether
specification
617,
how
When such
"The manner
usually will make the distinction apparent."
v. Lake Shore & M.S.
of
Id.
determine
Id.
the
example
case."
"define the outer limits
exemplary
patentee
to
invention in a particular
cited embodiments
merely
is
includes
two
(cellular phones
examples
of
devices
that are not
4:37-43.
(desktop or laptop computers).
These embodiments do not appear
limits" of the claim term,
VIS's
proposed
inclusion,
such
proposals
Phillips.
No.
cites
WL
Additionally,
examples
whether
proposed
Express
1468594,
Co.,
suggest
563
1361-62
does
this
to
(Fed.
are
not
falls
not
Every
1383
Beyond
Cir.
No.
that
27,
2012).
of
there
not
included
the
the
Inc.
v.
Am.
2009)
Tech.
(citing 02
Co.,
that
it
the
521
jury").
Accordingly,
claim
term
include
F.3d
is
the
to
of
of
Counts,
Cir.
in
scope
of
31
are
determination
(observing
exhaustive list of exemplary embodiments.
such
that
questions
to
this
2:09-CV-395-
inclusion
the
Innovation
ensure
construe
(Fed.
on
July 22, 2011);
Apr.
the
Penny
2008))
left
Tex.
within
based
v. Bro-Tech Corp.,
Inc.,
to
their
Indeed,
rejected,
factfinder
relevant
1378,
"to
that
for
approach.
characteristics,
See
v.
(E.D.
the
product
Ltd.
been
Intrado,
Although
counsels
at *5 (D. Kan.
*11
device
F.3d
obligation
claims
for
observes
construction.
1351,
Court
at
Court
accused
Intern.
patent
v.
construction,
Micro
court's
Inc.
unspecified
an
"define the outer
Layne Christensen Co.
the
Court's
term
traditionally
2011 WL 3022445,
might
additional
the
authority
Plant Equip.,
2012
the
e.g.,
09-2381-JWL,
JRG,
of
have
See,
see also
no
to
'492 patent,
but instead are exemplary.
construction
VIS
E.g.,
the
scope
a
of
the
non-
Having
carefully
considered
the
parties'
proposed
constructions and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing,
particularly with reference
to
the
intrinsic
record,
the Court
adopts the below construction of "mobile terminal."
c. Construction
A portable device convenient for hand-held usage,
excluding
personal computers
2.
"housing"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS: a separate device,
VIS
Alternative:
outside the mobile terminal
a
separate
enclosed
device,
outside
the mobile terminal
Samsung:
enclosure
b. Discussion
This
disputed claim
term
is
found only
in
claims of the
'268 and
'381 patents.
See,
8:61-62;
patent,
9:14-18.
parties
'381
Markman hearing
that
the
claim
The
the
e.g.,
term should be
dependent
'268 patent,
agreed
at
construed as
"enclosure" that is outside the mobile terminal.4
the
an
However, they
4 VIS argued that the claims and specifications require that this
claim term be construed as something "outside the mobile terminal."
VIS had previously proposed the additional
limitation that
the
"housing" be "separate," but conceded at the Markman hearing that such
additional limitation was not necessary and could be omitted as
potentially confusing.
Hr'g Tr. 73, June 11, 2013, ECF No. 92 (citing
PL's Resp. Markman Br. 24 n.15, ECF No. 69).
At the Markman hearing,
Samsung did not oppose a construction including the "outside the
mobile terminal" limitation, to the extent the Court rejected its
proposed construction of "enclosure."
Id. at 75.
32
disagreed
as
to
whether
the
claimed
enclosure
should
be
construed as a separate device or merely as a covering or shell.
Samsung
contends
claims requires
enclosure;
conversion
display
device.
that
the Court
specifically,
device
language
of
several
dependent
to construe this claim term as
that
the dependent
resides
in
preclude
terminal"
E.g.,
the
a
'268 patent,
a
claims
housing
of
construction
8:61-62;
"wherein the
the
of
a mere
alternative
"housing"
'381 patent,
as
10:5-7.
a
The
Court does not read the claim language to require such a limited
construction.
First,
the
claims
cited
by
Samsung
in
support
of
their
proposed construction do not disclose the proper construction of
the
disputed
claim
term.
Rather,
they
alternative display terminal can have a
conversion device
(MTSCM)
e.g. , '268 patent,
relationship of
is
8:61-62,
this
instructive,
can reside
9:44-46;
disputed
but,
alone,
patent's
dependent
"housing"
in
that
does
claims,
not
and
of
indicates the "housing" is, as VIS contends,
Unlike
Samsung,
the
several
brief
descriptions
dependent
claims
33
in
of
the
an
and that
the
See,
8:62-63.
other claim
require
Indeed,
that
"housing."
'381 patent,
term vis-a-vis
construction that Samsung proposes.
'381
indicate
the
The
terms
limited
the language of the
the
specifications,
a device.
this
'381
term
patent
cited
by
describe
the "housing,"
in detail,
as
an active and integral part of
claimed video signal conversion process.
12.
The
method
of
claim
1,
the
Specifically:
wherein
the
mobile
terminal receives
the video signal sent from the
wireless network communication,
provides
the video
signal to a housing through a housing interface, such
that the said receiving of the video signal is through
the housing interface of the housing.
17.
The method of claim 1, wherein a housing having a
housing interface is configured to interface with the
mobile terminal, and wherein the housing provides the
converted video signal to
the alternative display
terminal through the HDMI.
18.
The
method
of
claim
17,
wherein
at
least
a
portion of said processing the video signal occurs in
the housing.
'381 patent,
9:14-18,
also id. at 10:26-31,
19
9:33-37,
10:39-43,
(describing nearly
from
other
and 9:38-39
11:21-12:3,
identical
independent
(emphases added).
12:13-17, and 12:18-
dependent
claims).
Thus,
See
claims
the
which depend
majority
of
the
claims that use the disputed term contemplate a device capable
of
receiving
embodiments,
and
without
video
processing such signals.
the term "housing"
or
transmitting
to mean
reference
to
signals
VIS's proposed construction,
in
some
A construction limiting
"enclosure,"
such
and,
specifically excluding
capabilities,
is
insufficient.
"device," therefore, better conveys
the meaning of the claim term.
Samsung attempts
descriptions
patent's
of
earlier
this
to distinguish the
claim
references
'381 patent's detailed
term
on
the
to
"a
device
34
ground
that
within
a
the
'268
housing"
foreclose any construction of this term as something other than
an
"enclosure."
Defs.'
Reply Markman Br.")
Reply
Claim
24, ECF No.
Construction
70.
Br.
("Defs.'
Samsung acknowledges that
such a construction will render some of VIS's claims technically
deficient.
Id.
at
23.
But
Samsung
contends
that
the
Court
cannot use claim construction to correct VIS's
alleged drafting
error
to
(and
misuse
validity of
of
this
later dependent
v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd.,
As
noted
Samsung
do
claims.
so
Id.
as
(quoting Pfizer,
1292
however,
dependent
not
the
require
the
preserve
(Fed. Cir.
limited
the
Inc.
2006)).
claims
on
which
construction
it
Nor is Samsung's proposed limitation supported by the
specifications,
across
term)
457 F.3d 1284,
above,
relies
proposes.
claim
the
which,
'268
functionality
of
and
the
importantly,
'381
MTSCM
are substantively identical
patents.
as
In
depicted
in
describing
the
Figure
the
1,
specifications observe that "[i]n the illustrated embodiment,
mobile terminal signal conversion module
a separate
patent,
housing,
3:55-57.
outside
The
(MTSCM)
resides within
the cellular phone."
specifications
phone is connected to the MTSCM.
continue:
a
E.g.,
"The
'268
cellular
This may be accommodated by a
cable connection that interfaces the cellular phone to the MTSCM
housing.
signal
Through this connection,
from
(emphasis
the
added).
cellular
phone."
Finally,
the MTSCM receives
E.g.,
"following
35
the
'268
the video
patent,
signal
4:4-8
conversion,
the MTSCM provides
the
converted video
signal
to
the
external
display terminal," a process that "may be accommodated through a
connection
between
the
MTSCM
terminal as shown."
E.g.,
describing Figure
the
functionality of
of
the
overall
mobile
2,
external
4:33-39.
specifications note
functionality
separate
bulk
specifications
the
display
Similarly,
that
in
"the overall
the MTSCM may be separated such that portions
terminal,
the
and
'268 patent,
external display device."
like
housing
of
are
respectively provided by
intermediate
housing,
and/or
Id. at 5:2-6 (emphasis added).
the
claims
contemplate
a
including
device
transmitting video signals and,
this
capable
of
the
Thus,
term,
the
receiving
in some embodiments,
the
and
performing
at least some portion of the claimed conversion process.
Based on the claims and specifications,
that
this
term
is
properly
construed
to
the Court concludes
be
a
"device."
This
conclusion is not undermined by the fact that the specifications
also
use
the
term
"intermediate
device"
claimed process.
Although different
generally
different
assigned
meanings,
from the use of such distinct
terms
"are
F.3d at
very
1119-20
"connected"
and
similar
in
in
words
any
describing
the
in a patent are
inference
arising
terms may be discounted if the
meaning."
(rejecting distinct
"associated").
constructions
Here,
36
Innova/Pure Water,
it
is
of
clear
the
381
terms
that
the
specifications use the terms "housing" and "intermediate device"
interchangeably.
Additionally, although modules as shown to reside in a
common location, it is noted that the functionality
may reside in separate components of a system that
includes a mobile terminal, an external monitor, and
(optionally) an intermediate device housing the MTSCM
and
interfacing
the mobile
terminal
and
external
monitor.
In other words, the overall functionality of
the MTSCM may be separated such that portions of the
overall functionality are respectively provided by the
mobile terminal, separate intermediate housing, and/or
the external display device.
'381
patent,
4:64-5:6
(emphases
discernibly different meanings,
added).
When
terms
"the patentee [may have simply]
used different words to express similar concepts,
doing so is a "confusing drafting practice."
381
F.3d at
Ins. Co.,
1120
correspondence
portion
(citing Bancorp
359 F.3d 1367,
of
substantial
the
between
reference
specification
support"
Servs.,
for
the
in
LLC
to
that
"contention
that,
the terms . . . are equivalent")).
claims
and
specification
claims
and
employ
specifications
terms very similar meanings.
"housing" as
"device" regardless of
grammatically distinct.
37
one
claim
as
in
the
the
"provides
used in
the
although the
terms-device
appear
Accordingly,
and
Here,
different
Hartford Life
(noting that the
claim
patent,
housing-the
v.
a
related
even though"
Innova/Pure Water,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
a
lack
to assign
and
those
Court construes
the fact that the terms are
Having
carefully
considered
the
parties'
proposed
constructions and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing,
particularly with reference to the intrinsic record,
the Court
adopts the below construction of "housing."
c. Construction
An enclosed device outside the mobile terminal
3.
"converted video signal"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS: Plain and ordinary meaning.
No construction required.
Samsung: a video signal where the underlying video content
has been changed to be appropriate for display on the
alternative display
b. Discussion
The crux of the parties'
dispute respecting this term is
whether a "converted video signal" requires some change to the
underlying video content.
VIS maintains that this term does not
require construction because, as used in the specification,
term simply requires that the video signal has changed.
the
Samsung
argues for a narrow construction requiring some change to the
underlying video content, based on the prosecution history. VIS
maintains
that Samsung's construction is
improper because it
would exclude all embodiments of the claims at issue and because
it is based on a misinterpretation of
statements
the prosecution history of the '492 patent.
that
Samsung's
proposed
construction
38
is
reflected in
The Court concludes
inconsistent
with
the
plain
language
'268,
and
of
'381
all
independent
patents
and
prosecution history and,
is
claims
not
in
clearly
the
'492,
required
'711,
by
the
therefore, should be rejected.
The term "converted video signal" is used in several of the
'492,
'711,
claims.
'268,
Although
specifications,
claims
and
or
it
the
the
'381
patents'
is referenced
term
is
not
independent
twice
further
specification.
In
construction of this disputed term,
in
and
the
defined
dependent
corresponding
in
either
determining
the
the
proper
the Court looks first to the
claims themselves, considering not only the use of the same term
across claims,
ACTV,
Inc.
but also "the context of the surrounding words."
v. Walt Disney,
2003); see also Phillips,
The
Co.,
patents
describe
memories
storing
program
readable
mediums
storing
in the
methods,
processing,
F.3d 1082,
1088
{Fed. Cir.
415 F.3d at 1314.
independent claims
receiving,
346
'492,
systems,
code,
program
and
'711,
'268,
and
'381
computer
non-transitory
and
apparatuses,
computer
code
providing
that
of
contemplate
video
signals
the
to
accommodate the reproduction of video content by an alternative
display terminal.
29;
'711
patent,
61,
patent,
8:29-50,
and
claims").
See '492 patent,
8:26-44,
9:12-33,
10:44-63
8:26-50,
8:62-9:15,
10:10-29;
(collectively,
9:10-31, and 10:6-
and
9:36-10:10;
'381 patent,
'492
8:30-51,
family
'268
9:40-
independent
The context of these claims suggest that a "converted
39
video
signal"
does
not
require
some
change
to
the
underlying
video content.
First,
all of
the
distinguish
"video
signals"
'492
patent,
'492
8:26-31
family independent claims
from
"video
(describing
content."
"[a]
method
expressly
See,
e.g. ,
comprising:
receiving by a conversion module a video signal appropriate for
displaying
a video
different
words
meanings,
unless
are
given
F.3d
at
very
a
the
that
content,
meanings.
on a
patent
and
Nothing
thus
in
See
plain
signal
that
the
as
claims
that
language
two
or
of
different
the words
Innova/Pure
supports
the
Generally,
having
evidence reveals
the
video
terminal).
construed
meanings.
Here,
the
mobile
are
intrinsic
similar
1119-20.
contemplate
video
in
content
Water,
the
claims
the display of
terms
have
381
the
different
specifications
counsels
otherwise.
Second,
the
plain
language
of
the
claims
also
indicates
that the video content is not changed during the claimed signal
conversion processes.
the same word,
See Phillips,
that word is presumed to have the same meaning.
415 F.3d at 1314.
"video content,"
and
after
patent,
Generally, if a patent repeatedly employs
the
The claims use the same term,
to describe the content displayed both before
claimed
conversion
processes.
See,
e.g.,
'492
8:26-50 (describing first the receipt of "a video signal
appropriate
for
displaying
a
40
video
content
on
a
mobile
terminal," the processing of that signal to produce a converted
video signal,
"to
and
the provision of
the
the alternative display terminal
converted video signal
to accommodate displaying
the video content by the alternative display terminal").
there
is
a
presumption
that
the
same
both ends of the claimed processes,
content
is
Thus
displayed
at
albeit on different display
terminals.
Not only do the
term
to
describe
conversion
'492 family independent claims use the same
the
process,
content
but,
when
content after that process,
content
Id.
at
using
a
8:47-50
signal
to
definite,
of
a
the
a
Construction
describing
as
alternative
new
in
article
opposed
display
ends
of
display
to
indefinite,
the
of
such
will
terminal
not
"to
accommodate
Generally,
construed
D.
Manzo,
Patent
Claim
2:31
(2011)
("The
Circuit
§
to
the
be
Edward
Federal
article.
the converted video
(emphasis added)).
element.
the
both
the
(describing the provision of
definite
implicate
on
the independent claims describe the
displaying the video content"
use
displayed
somehow
introduction of a new element is accomplished through the use of
an
indefinite
article.")
F.
App'x
when
term,
a
article
and
not
through
the
use
of
a
definite
(citing Tuna Processors v. Hawaii Int'l Seafood,
204,
210
claim
uses
that
term is
(Fed.
a
Cir.
definite
construed
2009)
(nonprecedential) ) .
article
"as
41
in
referring
its
to
discussion
an
element
327
Thus,
of
a
that
has
been established earlier
family
independent
before and after
claims
in a
use
the video
claim."
the
signal
is
first with an indefinite article
is
a new element)
that
same
term,
Here,
"video
converted,
(suggesting
and then with a
the video content is
Id.
the
'492
content,"
introducing
that
it
such content
definite article
(suggesting
the same content referenced earlier in
the claim).
The
plain
independent
language
claims
in
and
which
the
reveal that the disputed term,
contemplate
as
VIS
signal
a
change
argues,
the
identified
to
term
of
the
"video
requires
the
'492
content"
family
appears,
"converted video signal" does not
the underlying video
term
at
context
only
beginning
a
of
content.
change
the
to
Rather,
video
See
claim.
the
PL's
Opening Markman Br. 11, ECF No. 64 ("[T]he term simply requires
that the video signal has changed, such as by altering the video
format or changing the signal strength.").
The
'492
construction.
specification
supports
VIS's
proposed
Although this specification does not assign any
special meaning to the disputed term, it does contain revealing
statements
assist
as
to
the Court
the
in
advantages
its
MRI
Devices
Corp.,
the claimed inventions
construction.
Med., 558 F.3d 1368, 1375
v.
of
See
{Fed. Cir. 2009)
401
F.3d
1313,
ICU Med,
v.
Alaris
(quoting Medrad,
1319
(Fed.
Cir.
that
Inc.
2005))
{holding that it is "entirely proper to consider the functions
42
of
an
invention
in
seeking
particular claim language"
the
specification
spike
was
inventor
to
required
was
be
determine
the
degree
pointed).
attempting
to
and
prosecution
consideration"
when
construing
112
F.3d 1146,
Materials
v.
Advanced
1573
(Fed.
Cir.
1160
as
a
Cir.
the
discerned
is
a
1997)
the
of
from
claimed
from
the
the
relevant
term.
CVI/Beta
(citing Applied
Materials,
Ordinarily,
language
"the problem
disputed
(Fed.
meaning
which
history,
Semiconductor
1996)).
to
Indeed,
solve,
specification
Ventures,
the
and adding functional
define
to
to
98
F.3d
1563,
construction
final
should align with the purpose of the patented invention.
See,
e.g.,
Cir.
Anascape
2010);
Innovad
33{Fed. Cir.
Here,
v.
Nintendo,
Inc.
v.
601
Microsoft
F.3d
1333,
260
Corp.,
1337
F.3d
(Fed.
1326,
1332-
2001).
the
specification generally describes
and functionality of handheld mobile
terminals,
the
evolution
including the
capacity to support high rate multimedia data services resulting
in "rich multimedia information being destined for display on
the
small
screens
typical
E.g. , '492 patent, 1:40-42.
state
of
cellular
phones
(or
the
like)."
The written description goes on to
(e.g.,
that "[t]he limited size
2x3")
and capability of
the mobile terminal screen may render enjoyment of the high rate
data
flow
useless."
applications
Id.
at
inconvenient,
1:47-50.
It
and
concludes
43
in
that:
some
instances
"What is needed
is
a
solution
to
the
problem of
diminished
user
enjoyment
mobile terminals because of display limitations."
Thus,
the
patented
inventions
were
Id.
designed
to
of
At 2:4-6.
solve
the
problems associated with attempting to view video content on the
small displays of mobile terminals.
enable
users
terminal.
to
display
Reading
specification's
"converted
changed,"
that
the
signal"
and counsels
same
content
disputed
description
video
Their stated purpose is
on
term
a
in
supports
"a
as
the
light
signal
video
against including a
large
display
of
the
construction
that
to
has
of
been
limitation that
the
underlying video content is also changed.
Samsung does
not
contend that
require its proposed limitation.
the
patentee's
statements
the
claims or
Rather,
during
the
specification
Samsung contends
prosecution
of
the
that
'492
patent counsel against applying the plain and ordinary meaning
of
this
disputed claim
term,
because
the patentee
allegedly
disclaimed any construction that does not require a change to
the underlying video
alleges
that
content.
Samsung's
VIS
argument
is
denies
any
based
on
disclaimer and
an
incomplete
reading of the prosecution history.
The
language
prosecution
"by
history
demonstrating
can
how
inform
the
the
meaning
inventor
of
understood
claim
the
invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the
course of prosecution,
making the claim scope narrower than it
44
would
otherwise
be."
Phillips,
415
F.3d
at
1317.
However,
"[c]laim language and the specification generally carry greater
weight than the prosecution history."
&
Co.,
KG,
Federal
667
Circuit
represents
inventor,
thus
is
an
less
1401).
useful
For
construction
and
for
amenable
to
rise
to
Corp.,
Northner
1293-95
for
multiple
334
statements as
F.3d
Ltd.
Cir.
he
or
of
2000),
a basis
357
by
she
scope
PTO
and
a
1324
Samsung
which
the
specification and
549
a
must
an
F.3d at
particular
have
during
Trading
made
"a
prosecution"
aspect
of
his
Purdue
see also Microsoft Corp.
F.3d
1340,
patentee
1349
may
(Fed.
Omega
Cir.
Elecs.
rejected
Co.,
(Fed.
be
interpretations,
disclaimer.
1314,
V.
the
the
history
to overcome prior art."
reasonable
prosecution
the
disclaimed
(emphasis added);
made
As
prosecution
characterizeing]
specific manner
remarks
2012).
between
have
disavowal
Inc.,
iPHCom GmbH
(quoting Netcraft,
prosecution,
"explicitly
v.
construction purposes.'"
to
Telecom
(Fed.
claim
patentee
Systems,
Cir.
the clarity of
1352
438 F.3d 1136
When
Raytek
negotiation
unmistakable
2004) .
(Fed.
"because
F.3d at
during
Multi-Tech
give
noted,
a
invention in a
v.
1276
595
example
Pharma,
has
ongoing
Int'l,
by,
1270,
'it often lacks
Techs.
clear
F.3d
HTC Corp.
viewed
they
Eng'g,
2003)
215
Cir.
as
cannot
Inc.
v.
(reviewing
F.3d
prosecution
1281,
history
for narrowing broad language because such
statements were "far too slender a reed to support the judicial
45
narrowing of a clear claim term"). Here, the prosecution history
does
not
reveal
that
VIS
disclaimed
all
constructions
of
"converted video signal" except those requiring a change to the
underlying
video
content,
despite
Samsung's
argument
to
the
contrary.
During
some
of
the
("Tryding")
the
'492
pending
and
patent prosecution,
the
claims
U.S.
U.S.
in
light
Publication
of
No.
examiner rejected
Patent
5,880,732
2002/0102998
("Lin").
Tryding disclosed "a method and apparatus enabling the usage of
a
remote
mobile
display
monitor
for
presenting
display
telephone"
through
the
generation
of
a
data
from
a
"communications
link between the mobile telephone and a receiver of a display
monitor"
that "enables the transmission of numerical and textual
data intended to be displayed on . . . the larger screen of the
remote display monitor."
Abstract,
ECF No.
65.
Defs.'
Lin
Opening Markman Br.
disclosed
the
transmission
Ex.
E at
of
rich
content across a mobile device and an auxiliary rendering device
"so that the content can be transcoded to a
the auxiliary rendering device."
In distinguishing Tryding,
format suitable for
Id. Ex. F at Abstract.
the patentee argued that,
among
other things:
Tryding fails to generally disclose converting the
signal for display on the external display monitor.
Tryding (e.g., at 2:26-38) emphasizes generation of a
communications link between the mobile telephone and
the
display
monitor.
There
is
no
mention
of
46
conversion.
Tryding
notes
that
alphanumeric
data
(text) to be shown by the mobile telephone would be
difficult to see due to its small size, and proposes
sending the alphanumeric data to the display monitor,
apparently because it would be easier to see on the
larger display.
There is no
conversion of the
alphanumeric data-it would be displayed larger because
the external display is larger, but the underlying
text would be exactly the same.
Applicant
also
notes
that
signal
processing
to
accommodate transmission to the external display is
merely with regard to the parameters required for the
wireless
communications
link
between
the
cellular
phone and the external display, not the conversion of
the underlying content (video or otherwise) so that it
is appropriate for display on the alternative display
(See,
e.g.,
Tryding at
3:4-13).
Accordingly,
in
Trying, there is no conversion of the signal for the
alternative display.
Tryding
also
fails
to
disclose
or
suggest
the
particular conversion of the video signal claimed by
Applicant.
That is,
the "converted video signal
produced by the conversion module comprises a display
format and a power level appropriate for driving the
alternative display
terminal."
Tryding does not
convert the signal to provide a display format or
power level appropriate for driving the display.
With
regard to the display format, as noted Tryding merely
passes the same alphanumeric character data that would
be
displayed
on
the
cellular
phone
along
to
the
external display.
Id. Ex. H at VIS-001681-82
(emphases added).
Samsung reads the
above explanation to limit "conversion of the video signal" to
conversions of the underlying content.
Br.
17-18,
ECF
No.
concerning content
65.
VIS
argues
Defs.'
that
conversion were referring
47
to
Opening Markman
the
statements
"conversion of
the
underlying
content.
signal
Tryding
the
patentee's
based
"processing"
on
conversion
or
its
or
of
12,
processing,
display
"underlying
the
ECF No.
to
However,
the
not
statements
failure
signals.
such conversion
data"
and
PL's Resp. Markman Br.
Here,
to
content"
69.
specifically
disclose
in
multimedia/data
"converting"
describing
the Applicant
content
content
the
parties
concludes
arguments
that
they
at
do
the
not
Markman
rise
to
disclaimer.
Although
the references
content
somewhat
problematic,
the
are
absence
of
"alphanumeric
or
Considering the patentee's statements in full,
the
the
and
apparently refers
(i.e.,
(video
distinguish
otherwise)").
and in light of
hearing,
level
the
of
a
Court
specific
to conversion of display
the
patentee's
statements
regarding Tryding are clearly concerned with distinguishing the
claimed video signal conversion on the basis that Trying simply
disclosed passing data through a cellular phone to an external
display with only minimal processing to accommodate transmission
over
the
the
established communication
patentee's
bases
for
link.
distinguishing
absence of a video signal conversion,
statements
refer to
Furthermore,
Tryding
all
concern
while only two of
converting the display content.
of
the
those
Thus,
the
entirety of the Applicant's statements concerning Tryding do not
limit
video
signal
conversion
to
alter the underlying content.
48
those
conversions
that
also
This
construction
is
supported
by
the
Applicant's
later
summary of its position regarding Tryding:
As noted by the Examiner, Tryding fails to disclose
providing a video signal
to an external
display
monitor.
(Office Action,
at p.3) .
However,
the
Action
fails
to
address
that
there
is
also
no
production of a converted video signal to provide the
display format and power level appropriate for the
alternative display monitor.
With specific reference
to the claim, Tryding fails to disclose or suggest
nproduc[ing] a converted video signal for use by the
alternative display terminal,
wherein the converted
video
signal
produced
by
the
conversion
module
comprises
a
display
format
and
a
power
level
appropriate
for
driving
the
alternative
display
terminal..."
As
noted,
Tryding
(e.g.,
at
2:26-38)
emphasizes
generation of a communications link between the mobile
terminal and display monitor.
There is no mention of
conversion of the video (or other display) signal.
Tryding proposes sending alphanumeric data to the
display monitor, apparently because it would be easier
to see on the larger display.
However, there is no
conversion of the alphanumeric data - it would be
displayed larger because the external
display is
larger, but the underlying text would be exactly the
same.
There is thus no provision of a converted video
signal such
appropriate
that it will have a display format
for
driving
the
alternative
display
terminal.
As noted in the Action, Tryding is also deficient in
that in Tryding there is no provision of the converted
video
signal
to have
a power
level
appropriate
for
driving the alternative display terminal, and there is
no disclosure of a video signal (or converted video
signal)
Defs.'
as claimed.
Opening Markman Br.
(bolded
emphases
Tryding's
failure
Although
these
Ex.
added).
to
J
Again,
disclose
statements
at
a
VIS-001638-39,
the
49
Applicant
converted
similarly
ECF No.
emphasized
video
referenced
65
signal.
content
conversion,
they
again,
do
not
rise
to
the
level
of
a
clear
disclaimer.
After
distinguishing Tryding,
the
patentee
addressed
Lin,
stating:
Lin does not remedy the deficiencies of Tryding.
Lin
describes a situation where a transcoding proxy is
used as an intermediary between content servers (e.g.,
Internet content servers) and the mobile telephone.
Rich
content
is
ordinarily
transcoded
prior
to
delivery to the mobile telephone because the mobile
telephone does not have the platform to handle the
rich content (See Lin at [0004]).
This transcoding
traditionally removes rich content such as animations
and the like so that they can be displayed on mobile
telephones that do not have support for such features.
In lieu of removal of rich content, Lin proposes
sending the rich content to the cellular phone, and
then sending the rich content from the cellular phone
to the alternative display.
Again, Lin fails to disclose converting the video
signal
for
display
on
the
alternative
display
terminal, and more particularly that the "converted
video
signal
produced
by
the
conversion
module
comprises
a
display
format
and
a
power
level
appropriate
for
driving
the
alternative
display
terminal."
Lin offers no
realization or application of the
technical issues required for providing rich video
content from a mobile terminal (e.g., cellular phone)
to an alternative display terminal.
...
Regardless, in Lin there is clearly no conversion of
the video signal to provide "a power level appropriate
for driving the alternative display terminal," as
claimed by the Applicant. ...
Thus, as with Tryding,
there is clearly no conversion of the video signal in
the cellular phone of Lin.
Id.
Ex.
Tryding,
H
at
VIS-001682-83
(bolded
emphases
added).
Unlike
the patentee's statements regarding Lin do not refer at
50
all
to
converting
patentee's
later
video
content.
summary of
its
The
same
argument
is
true
of
regarding Lin,
the
which
recites much of the above and then provides:
In Lin, the cellular device is at best a pass through
device (presuming that it would be operable, which is
dubious).
Thus, as with Tryding, there is clearly no
conversion of the video signal in the cellular phone
of Lin.
That being the case, Lin offers nothing more
than Tryding with regard to these claimed features of
Applicant's invention.
Id.
Ex.
J
at VIS-001640.
Considered
in
full,
the
patentee's
statements
during
the
prosecution of the '492 patent do not clearly limit video signal
conversions to conversions including a change to the underlying
video
content.
Rather,
converting signals
appropriate
for
they repeatedly describe
this
term as
to produce display formats and power levels
driving
the
alternative
display
device.
Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for ignoring the plain and
ordinary meaning revealed by the claim terms and specification
and,
therefore,
does not
construe
Samsung's proposed limitation.
the disputed term to include
See HTC Corp.,
667 F.3d at 1276
(noting that "[c]laim language and the specification generally
carry greater weight than the prosecution history").
Having
carefully
Court
concludes
from
its
use
specification.
considered
that
the
in
the
the
parties'
plain meaning
Accordingly,
claim
terms
of
this
arguments,
term
themselves
is
and
the
clear
the
the Court agrees with VIS that this
51
term does not require construction.
Ethicon,
Inc.,
103
F.3d
1554,
See U.S.
1568
Markman decisions do not hold that
or
state
that
every
claim
term
claim construction
is
for
(Fed.
the
in order
the
Surgical Corp.
to
Cir.
trial
1997)
("The
judge must repeat
comply with
court.
v.
the
ruling
Claim construction
.
. . is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.").
c. Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning.
4.
"multimedia
content
item
.
No construction required.
.
.
destined
for
a
destination
device"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS: Plain and ordinary meaning.
No construction required.
Samsung: a multimedia content item that uniquely identifies
the destination device on which it is to be displayed
b. Discussion
VIS contends
Samsung proposes
"multimedia
that
a
this
construction
content
items"
intended destination device.
the
Court
to
construe
"destination device."
"destined"
term does not require construction.
to determine
the
that
that,
limits
the
to
those
identify
themselves,
term
their
Neither party's position requires
terms
Rather,
whether
"multimedia
the
this
Court
content
need
portion
of
only
item"
or
construe
the disputed
term requires that the multimedia content item uniquely identify
its destination device.
See Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803.
52
The
disputed
term
dependent claims in the
29:10-32,
47,
and
29:48-58,
30:50-31:18,
27,
and
item
outside
a
independent
'733 and '398 patents.
31:1-34,
34:19-32,
34:48-35:15,
patent,
31:19-54,
as
31:55-32:10,
All
1)
29:10-29,
such
having
location"
or
31:37-67,
refer
"originated
30:17-49,
35:46-56,
to
from
"designated
32:35-
35:36-36:12;
29:61-30:16,
32:11-34,
claims
and
See '733 patent,
30:29-59,
'398
home
several
30:4-28,
36:53-64.
content
in
33:45-34:3,
32:60-33:24,
36:13-47;
appears
a
the
multimedia
source
location,"
36:16-
located
and
2)
as
being "destined for a destination device located within the home
location," or vice-versa
or
designated
home),5
location
(originating from a source in the home
and
destined
for
a
device
outside
the
Id.
The independent claims that employ the disputed term do so
in
reference
to
the
first
step
of
the
claimed
conversion
processes and methods-the receipt of a multimedia content
The
subsequent
various
uses
steps
for
in
the
these
processes
destination
address, and communications protocol,
and
device's
item.
methods
describe
signal
format,
although not all claims do
5 Three of the '398 patent claims (11, 12, and 13) do not assign
a location to the destination device.
'398 patent, 30:17-31:54.
Instead, they note that the multimedia content originated from a
source "outside the designated location" and is simply "destined for a
destination device."
Id.
53
so with the same degree of specificity.6
among
the
independent
claims
that
use
Despite the differences
this
disputed
term,
all
such claims clearly require that some information identifying a
specific
destination
process.
be
readily
discernible
The independent claims,
do
in
the
not however,
conversion
identify the
source of such information.
Similarly,
the
source
many
of
of
the
the
dependent
information
content's destination.
Instead,
of
See,
such
information.
claims
fail
identifying
to
the
disclose
multimedia
they generally describe the use
e.g.,
'733
patent,
29:40-43
("The
method of claim 4, where the destination device is recognized to
be the television based upon the use of an address corresponding
to
the
television by
and id.
at
34:12-18.
program product
of
Although
signal
mobile
See also,
claim 46,
identified destination
protocol,
the
the majority
of
id.
at
wherein a
device
format
terminal.");
to
and
an
34:37-40
mapping
at
claims
32:28-31;
("The computer
table maps
appropriate
address.")
dependent
id.
communications
(emphases
do
not
the
added).
describe
the
6 Compare '733 patent, 29:10-32 (describing first the receipt of
"a
multimedia
content
item
.
.
.
destined
for
a
destination
device"
and then the determination of "a communications protocol, a signal
format, and an address for the destination device," followed by the
conversion of the content "according to the determined signal format"
and the routing of the converted content "using the determined address
and communications protocol") with '398 patent, 29:10-29 (describing
the receipt of "a multimedia content item . . . destined for a
destination device" and then only the conversion of that content "for
reproduction
according
to
a
determined
signal
format
of
the
destination device").
54
source
of
the
identifying
specific sources.
information,
some
do
provide
for
These dependent claims state that:
1) "the received requests for . . . multimedia content
include an identification of the destination device,"
'733 patent, 32:14-16, 33:38-40, 35:29-31; or
2)
"the multimedia content is
received from the source
in connection with a data package that identifies the
destination device," '733 patent, 29:59-61; 32:48-50,
and
34:33-36;
36:65-67;
'398
patent,
35:57-59,
36:28-30,
and
or
3) "a predetermined processing category identifies a
communication,
signal
format,
and address
for the
destination device," '398 patent, 29:34-40, 33:51-57,
and 34:63-35:2.7
The
claims
describing
specific
sources
of
destination
device-
identifying information depend from some, but not all,
of the
'733 and '398 patents independent claims.
Generally,
narrower
Phillips,
scope
dependent
than
the
claims
claims
415 F.3d at 1315.
are
from
construed
which
they
"For example,
to
have
depend.
a
See
the presence of a
dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to
a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in
the
independent
Flarsheim Co.
claim."
v.
(Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Id.
Medrad,
at
Inc.,
1314-15
358
(citing
F.3d
Liebel-
898,
910
See Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d
1 The Court observes that this last category of dependent claims
arguably
requires
an
destination
device
from
predetermined
processing
initial
identification
of
some
other
source
before
category
could
identify
characteristics of such source.
55
the
the
the
specific
claimed
listed
1334,
1341-42
(Fed.Cir.2000)
claim should be
(concluding
given broader
scope
that
than a
an
independent
dependent
claim
to
avoid rendering the dependent claim redundant).
Here,
some
of
the
dependent
claims
contain
limitations
requiring that the destination device be identified by 1) a data
package
the
received
in connection with
received request
for
processing category.
such content,
depend
identified
do
in
not
the
or,
The presence of
rise to the presumption that the
they
the multimedia
require
specified
3)
these
content,
a predetermined
limitations
independent claims
that
the
ways.
claim
gives
from which
destination
Because
2)
device
terms
be
"are
normally used consistently throughout the patent," Phillips, 415
F.3d at
1314,
permitting
this
receipt
interpretation of
of
content
identifying data package,
processing category)
not
the
disputed term
in
connection
a received request,
not
have
the
with
an
or predetermined
applies to all uses of the disputed term,
even though some of the independent claims
do
(i.e.,
same
limiting dependent
employing such term
claims.
Because
the
independent claims are not limited to content received in these
ways,
the question of
how the destination device
is
identified
and accounted for in the claimed conversion processes remains.
The
claims
However,
provide
themselves provide
the
Court
various
notes
ways
of
that
little guidance
the
fact
identifying
56
that
the
on
this point.
dependent
claims
destination
device
suggests
that
the
independent
claims
do
not
contemplate
a
specific source of identification.
Turning
next
to
the
specification),
the
functionality of
the MC
receipt,
content
E.g.,
to various
states that,
converted
specification
therein
provides
System depicted in Figure 16
and
transmission
of
(the
'733
that
the
"includes
content
in
two
It also includes facilities for mapping and routing
connected devices
'733 patent,
devices
language
conversion
directions.
relevant
20:29-33.
and data storage.
Although
in at least one embodiment,
"in
both
directions
the
'733
. . ."
specification
content is received and
depending
upon
the
connected
and corresponding protocols used by such devices,"
id.
at 19:61-67, it does not assign a default method for identifying
the specifically intended destination device.
dependent
claims,
the
specification discusses
ways to identify such device.
All
discussed
of
the
in
identification
discussed
means
the
for
'733
methods
above.8
Rather, as do the
only
potential
See, e.g., id. 20:16-22:49.
identifying
specification
included
In addition
in
to
a
destination
contemplate
the
these
the
dependent
methods,
device
same
claims
the
'733
8 The '733 specification discloses the identification of the
destination device via the received request. '733 patent, 20:24-28
(describing "a user's phone call (wireless or wired)" being routed to
the
destination
discloses
the
device
"as
inclusion
designated
of
a
by
the
destination
user").
it
device's
identifying
further
information in a data package accompanying the inbound communication.
Id. at 21:15-23 (stating that such data package "may be in the form of
57
specification identifies at least one other way to identify the
destination device.
Specifically,
it provides that:
Devices that are intended to work with the MC System
may also be equipped with software and/or hardware
that allows them to insert and deliver the appropriate
information in communications with the MC System. For
example,
a
cellular
phone
may
be
equipped
with
software that provides the appropriately configured
data package in initiating communications with the MC
System that are directed to destination devices.
a unique device identifier that is associated with each device managed
by
the
MC
System").
specification provides:
Regarding
this
data
package,
the
'733
[Information within the received data package may indicate
the format (e.g., TCP package in Internet) for transmission
and
the
format
(e.g.,
data
package
defined
by
WCDMA
standard in 3G) for receiving, as well as the destination
address corresponding to the converted data format.
The
overhead information within the received data package can
inform the MC/CHS regarding the next transmission protocol
and
matched
format.
.
.
.
This
information
informs
the
MC/CHS
regarding
the
inbound
data
format
transmission
protocol,
and
also
the
outbound
data
format
and
the
transmission protocol corresponding to the data format. . .
In a simple example, all communications to a given
device may be required according to the same format and
same address.
Id. at 21:27-45.
the
'733
In addition to received requests and data packages,
specification
also
discloses
the
identification
of
a
destination device through a predetermined processing category.
id.
at 21:24-27 ("Additionally, or alternatively, the MC System (and/or
CHS)
can obtain formatting,
address,
and
other information by
referencing portions of the received data package according to a
predefined
protocol.").
Accordingly,
the
'733
specification
all
of
the
potential means
of
describes,
in exemplary terms,
identifying the destination device contemplated by the dependent
claims discussed above.
However, the '733 specification's description
of the predetermined protocols teaches that the processing categories
described in the claim terms do not,
themselves,
identify the
but instead obtain information regarding the
destination device,
device already identified by another means, such as the data package.
58
'733
patent,
22:35-42
(emphases
added).
embodiment contemplates identification of
through
the
operation
of
software
This
described
the destination device
and/or
hardware
that
independently provides a data package.
In sum,
both the claim terms and the specification describe
a number of ways
multimedia
to
content
identify the destination device
item
will
be
routed.
All
of
to which a
these
methods
are described in dependent claims or by examples provided in the
specification.
"preferred
relied
upon
to
Wright Med.
that
limit
Inc.
(Fed. Cir.
(noting
fact
embodiments
Instruments,
1563)
The
v.
or
that
the
specific
otherwise
U.S.
1989).
Inc.,
Intern.
the
540
Federal
examples"
broad
See also,
Tech.,
specification
claim
Trade
broad
claim
F.3d 1337,
Circuit
language.").
readily apparent in the patents,
should
not
language.
805
be
Tex.
F.2d
1558,
Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
has
1345
(Fed.
repeatedly
single embodiment in the specification is
otherwise
Com'n,
describes
Cir.
held
2008)
that
There
themselves,
is
simply
nothing
requiring that the
item contain a unique device identifier,
Samsung proposes.
Indeed,
packages
derived
as
doing so would appear to exclude the
other methods of identification described
data
a
"insufficient to limit
multimedia content
and
v.
independently
(such as user commands
from
the
multimedia
content item via the operation of software or hardware).
59
Generally,
way
that
excludes
ArcelorMittal
(Fed.
Cir.
Corp.,
that
the court should "not interpret claim terms in a
the
France
2012)
503
disclosed
v.
final
1305
are
Corp.
1321
v. Vonage Holding
2007)).
Samsung argues
this
disputed
term
and
not
4, ECF No.
Inc.,
1314,
need
because such
"preferred"
embodiments.
70 (quoting TIP Sys.,
529 F.3d 1364,
not
1373
LLC v.
(Fed.
Cir.
{"[T]he mere fact that there is an alternative embodiment
disclosed
in
district
language of
the
[asserted]
court's
the
a
Rather,
the
preference
'733
claims
device
to
is
embodiments
dependent
for
for
claims
for
that
be
is
one
embodiment
family
do
not
encompassed by
not
outweigh
However,
shared
this
over
includes
such
a
the
only
specify
and
accomplishing
construing
does
evidence.").
identified
and
not
the
the
'733
as did the specification in TIP Systems,
patent
independent
that
especially when the court's construction
intrinsic
specification does not,
express
patent
claim construction
the claim,
supported by
basis
F.3d
Cir.
of
"alternative"
Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin,
is
700
specification."
the embodiments reviewed above,
Defs.' Reply Markman Br.
the
the
Corp.,
(Fed.
construction
contemplate all of
2008))
Steel
in
(quoting Verizon Servs.
F.3d 1295,
embodiments
AK
examples
how
broadly
the
variety
term
of
Thus,
in
a
Id.
drafted
destination
identification
specification.
disputed
others.
exemplary
in
their
Samsung's
manner
that
obviates several of the exemplary embodiments is without merit.
60
For the above reasons,
construction of
the
Court
this
agrees
the Court rejects Samsung's proposed
term.
with
Having rejected Samsung's proposal,
VIS
instant term is necessary,
that
no
other
not
F.3d
at
words
an
obligatory
1568.
is not
exercise
Notably,
always
a
of
the
as such term is comprised of easy to
comprehend language with a clear meaning,
"is
construction
"[t]he
in
and claim construction
redundancy."
task
of
difficult one,"
Ethicon,
comprehending
103
[claim]
and in some cases
claim
construction "'involves little more than the application of the
widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.'"
Acumed
LLC,
1314).
483
F.3d
at
805
(quoting
Phillips,
415
F.3d
at
Because the disputed language includes commonly understood words
with
widely
accepted
meanings,
which the language is used,
made
clear
by
the
context
in
the Court finds it unnecessary to
adopt a construction that differs from the plain language of the
disputed term.9
c. Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning.
9 On
this
point,
the
No construction required.
Court
acknowledges
the
alternative
constructions that VIS proposed at the Markman hearing ("ultimately
meant for display upon" and "fit for delivery"), but determines that
such alternative constructions merely rephrase the plain language of
the
only portion
of
this
claim
term
that
is
in
dispute.
See
C.R.
Bard, 388 F.3d at 863 ("[W]e question the need to consult a dictionary
to determine the meaning of such well-known terms.
itself 'submits that
language of a claim
. . . Indeed,
Bard
merely rephrasing or paraphrasing the plain
by substituting synonyms does not represent
genuine claim construction.'").
61
5.
"establishing a predetermined channel"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS: Plain and ordinary meaning.
VIS Alternative:
No construction required.
establishing a communication pathway,
such as an HDMI connection or the like
Samsung: specifying a selectable frequency band of an input
on the destination device for receiving multimedia content
b. Discussion
The
parties'
dispute
proper construction of
for
a
construction
on
the
statements
that
contends
that
alternatively,
limits
such as
relevant
during
the
the
term
specification
it
does
not
centers
on
the
Samsung argues
"predetermined
traditional
'733 patent's
term
that
this
"predetermined channel."
selectable frequencies,
based
concerning
channel"
to
television channels,
and
the
examiner's
prosecution history.
VIS
require
or,
construction
should be given the broad construction,
"communication pathway."
As
Samsung observes,
specification),
uses
the
the
relevant
term
specification
"channel"
in
Defs.' Opening Markman Br. 10, ECF No. 65.
20:1-9
fashion
(the
varying
contexts.
Compare '733 patent,
(describing the receipt of content via a "channel"
similar
television
to
channels")
that
with
used
id.
"in a
for
accessing
traditional
at
25:22-29
(describing
"communication channels" used to transmit data,
62
'733
including direct
and
wireless
connections).
Because
such
references
could
be
read as giving the term "channel" a broader or narrower meaning,
depending on the context,
the Court concludes this disputed term
requires some construction.
Before
Court
turning
observes
construction
communication
to
that
the
heart
the
provides
latter
a
pathway.
of
the
half
parties'
of
VIS's
representative
For
the
reasons
dispute,
alternative
example
stated
the
in
of
the
a
above
analysis of VIS's similar proposal regarding the construction of
"mobile
terminal,"
the
Court
concludes
that
a
construction
this disputed term including such exemplary language,
not
"define the outer limits of
Phillips,
415 F.3d at
Accordingly,
this
1323;
aspect
the claim term,"
see also supra
of
VIS's
§
of
which does
is improper.
IV(1) (d) (iii) (2) .
proposed
construction
is
rejected.10
The term "establishing a predetermined channel" appears in
nearly all of the '733 and
'398 patents' independent claims.11
10 The Court notes that VIS conceded at the Markman hearing that
the
exemplary
omitted.
11
language
in
its
alternative
construction
Hr'g Tr. 108-09, June 11, 2013, ECF No.
Samsung
asserts
that
the
limitation
could
be
92.
appears
in all
of
the
independent claims,
however the following claims do not disclose
"sending" content and, therefore do not include the limitation: '733
patent claims 17, 33, 50,
and 58 (31:37-67, 32:60-33:24, 34:48-35:15,
and 36:13-47).
The limitation is included in all of the '398 patent's
independent claims.
63
Every such independent claim concludes with the following threeclause limitation:
Wherein the sending comprises:
establishing
a
predetermined
channel
operatively
communication with the destination device,
in
and
transporting the multimedia content to the destination
device via said predetermined channel,
for directing the destination device to display the
multimedia content in conjunction with a navigational
command
to
the
destination
device
for
the
predetermined channel.
E.g.,
'733 patent,
family
claims
channel."
contain
do
Each
not
of
channelfs]."
(emphases added).
further
the
dependent
'733
define
and
the
'398
claims
that
channel[s]"
"predetermined
34:30-40.
29:25-32
and
See,
e.g.,
'733
The
term
patents
'733 patent
"predetermined
does,
alternatively
"predetermined
patent,
Reviewing the claim language,
32:32-34;
however,
reference
tunable
'398 patent,
the Court finds little
that clearly supports one party's proposed construction over the
other.12
12 On this point, the Court observes that an exemplary reference
to a "predetermined tunable channel" in only two of the several
dependent claims related to this term does not weigh significantly in
favor
of
Samsung's
proposed
narrow
construction.
See
32:32-34
&
34:16-18.
Similarly, the fact that many of the '398 patent claims
state that this term comprises "initiating a communication pathway"
and contemplate embodiments wherein the communication pathway is an
HDMI connection does
proposes.
See, e.g.,
might
"implement"
selectable
not require
'398 patent,
an
frequency
HDMI
band,
the broader construction that VIS
34:30-44.
Indeed a tunable channel
connection
a
by
pre-existing,
between two devices.
64
activating,
physical
HDMI
through
a
connection
Similarly,
channelfs]"
'733
'733 specification refers to both "predetermined
and
patent,
"predetermined
3:21-32
tunable
(summarizing
describing one embodiment that
channel[s]."
the
claimed
"displays
Compare
invention
and
the video content at
a
predetermined tunable channel") with id. at 26:41-55 (describing
an
embodiment
comprises
content
a
embodiments
"an
the
component
does
term,
in which
"to
channel"
cable,
the
display
and
the predetermined channel,
final
the
providing
step
converted
alternative
including a
"tunable
that provides content through
S-video,
or
other
connection").
'733 specification's use of the term "predetermined
little
the Court
to
elucidate
finds
"communication channel[s]"
'733
television
or a set-top box channel
Although the
this
claimed process
predetermined
of
HDMI,
channel"
the
directing
on
channel"
of
its
the
proper
related descriptions
to be instructive.
specification describes
construction
of
of
various
Specifically,
the
"communication channels between the
MC System and the various local user terminals," such as:
(1)
direct
connection[s]
using
the
available
transmission port/standard such as
USB,
RS232,
TV
cable, Ethernet, Telephone line,
etc.;
(2) Wireless
Personal Area Network[s] such as UWB, Bluetooth, WLAN,
etc.;
(3)
Long-range wireless
connections
such as
WiMax, Satellite, e.g., VSAT, TV broadcast, etc' or
(4) Wire-line connection such as DSL, Cable, Ethernet,
etc."
Id.
at
25:13-29.
The parties
disagree as
is used interchangeably among the terms
65
to whether
"channel"
"predetermined channel"
and "communication channel."
Samsung contends
given a distinct meaning in each context,
a
"tunable
channel"
is
merely
one
that the term is
while VIS argues that
example
of
the
many
"communication channels" disclosed in the '733 specification.
There
same
or
is
given
which
presumption
related
Omega Eng'g,
be
a
patents
that
term
(Fed.
Cir.
claim
v.
2008)
consistent
use
used
715
Enhancement Corp.
F.3d
Tex.
claim
same
same
However,
in
within
the
at
terms,
despite
term be construed uniformly,
is
"tunable
channels"
in
the
and
no
the
requirement
Here,
only
depicted
in
embodiment
content
Figure
in
"in
16.
which
a
Compare
"channels"
fashion
that
a
so
terms,
the
in relation
claimed
system
are
used
to
to
that
used
for
accessing
id
at
25:14-29
television
channels")
(summarizing
the
features
listing several different types of
20:5-9
while
at
similar
66
of
id.
traditional
general
1375
the specification
exemplary
of
in
presumption
embodiments
disclosed
context
520 F.3d 1367,
to
the
meaning."
Microprocessor
"communication channels"
of
the
specification.
describing several types of
all
in
particularly where doing
would lead to a "nonsensical reading").
discusses
of
(citing
Inc.,
there
term
construed
claims
1374
that,
claim
the same claim term may
light
Instruments,
(holding
of
the
constructions
is
Pharms.,
"the
carries
334 F.3d at 1334.
different
Aventis
that
with
of
the
(disclosing one
access
claimed
and
system
"communication channels"
view
and
that
may
be
used
Accordingly,
to
implement
the reference
on which Samsung relies
of
is
the
to
as
VIS
contends,
"traditional
data
transmission) .
television channels"
summarized in the broader discussion
"communication channels,"
is,
claimed
suggesting that
given
the
same
the
term
meaning
"channel"
across
the
references contained in the specification. To fully resolve this
question,
however,
the Court considers
the prosecution history
related to this disputed term.
In
support
of
its
proposed
limited
construction
"predetermined channel[s],"
Samsung relies on an email
examiner
in
to
the
patentee
which
a
proposed
of
from the
amendment
was
discussed with reference only to the embodiment describing the
provision
of
"traditional
Ex.
A
at
content
television channels."
VIS-0001197,
examiner's
statement
construction
through
of
ECF No.
65.
weighs
in
"predetermined
"channels"
Defs.'
analogous
Opening Markman Br.
Samsung contends
favor
channel"
to
of
that
their
because
it
the
limited
shows
that
the "claim language was intended to reflect the description of a
tunable channel of a television," as described in the referenced
embodiment.
Generally,
"unilateral
statements
by
an
examiner
do
not
give rise to a clear disavowal of claim scope by an applicant."
Salazar v.
2005).
Procter & Gamble Co.,
414 F.3d 1342,
1347
(Fed.
Cir.
Although an examiner's statement "may be evidence of how
67
one
skilled
in
application was
prosecution
the
art
removed
history
reveals,
references
of
independent
VIS-001843
term
The
to
the
as
VIS
at
Notice
"tunable
the
See
Defs.'
the
(striking
of
Allowance
channel"
language
that
when
Opening
the
Samsung's
the
'733
specifically
describing
in
the
Markman
"directing
time
'733 patent's
the course of
channels"
"predetermined
claims.
argues,
rejected during
prosecution.
operation
the
filed," id., a full review of the
proposed limitation was
patent's
understood
Br.
the
the
relevant
Ex. B
at
destination
device to display the multimedia content item at a predetermined
tunable
channel"
and
replacing
it
with
comprised of several steps involving a
id.
at
VIS-001845
(same);
id.
at
a
sending
process
"predetermined channel");
VIS-001855
(same).
This
change, which occurred after the email exchange on which Samsung
relies,
reveals
"tunable"
channels
examiner's
were
that
was
initial
clearly
any
limitation
of
this
expressly rejected.
recommendations,
contemplated
as
disputed
Thus,
whatever
"predetermined
encompassing
more
than
channels" when the Notice of Allowability issued.
this
clear
indication of
prosecution
history
limitation.
The
"predetermined
exemplary
and
claim
tunable
must
be
meaning,
does
not
support
language
and
channels,"
read
in
68
the Court
concludes
Samsung's
context
of
such
the
to
the
channels"
"tunable
In light of
specification
however
term
do
that
the
proposed
refer
references
to
are
specification's
broader discussion of
implement
the
the various
claimed
invention
communication channels used to
and
the
prosecution
history's
clear rejection of the proposed limitation.
The removal
of
"tunable channel"
from the
independent claims
further informs
term in
the
claims.
a
that
Generally,
particular
two
of
the
analysis
the Court's
inclusion of
language of
the
'733 patent's
of
dependent
"the presence of a dependent claim that adds
limitation
gives
rise
to
a
presumption
that
the
limitation in question is not present in the independent claim."
Phillips,
415
prosecution
F.3d
at
history
1314-15.
confirms
Here,
what
the
the
Court
'733
is
patent's
entitled
to
presume-that the '733 patent's independent claims describing the
establishment of
a
"predetermined channel"
the related dependent claims are,
are not
limited,
to "tunable channels."
as
Absent
such limitation, Samsung's proposed construction is inapposite.
Samsung's
between
argument
"channels"
that
the
and "connections"
otherwise.
See Defs.'
discussion
on
which
specification
does
not convince
Opening Markman Br.
Samsung
relies
distinguishes
12,
in
the Court
ECF No.
support
65.
of
The
this
distinction describes alternative embodiments for the final step
of
a
claimed
"process
for
directing
a
television
to
display
content using signals received from a remote location through a
cellular
communications
also id. at 26:41-55
network."
'733
patent,
25:63-66;
see
(describing the final step of that process
69
as,
a
and alternatively describing the "predetermined channel"
"tunable
provided
such
channel"
"through
as
HDMI,
a
"[a]
attempt
reference
is
to
cable,
discern
undermined
to
interchangeably
with
specification's
broader
through
data
channel
S-video
marked
the
'733
description
the
intrinsic
record
set
to
top
the
other
which
connection").
from
use
types
including
this
earlier
the
term
in
the
channels"
the
box"
television
specification's
of
transmitted,
a
distinction
channels,"
frequencies and hard-wired connections.
Considering
or
"communication
is
on
connection
a
by
"connection
which
given
conventional
component
Samsung's
references
or
as,
of
channels
both
tunable
See 24:64-25:29.
as
a
whole,
the
Court
finds that any discussion of "predetermined channels" as tunable
or selectable frequencies is exemplary only.
Court
concludes
specification's
that
a
broader
discussion
of
reading,
several
Accordingly,
based
types
of
on
the
the
'733
"communication
channels," is appropriate.
In
arguing
definition
of
pathway."
This
patent's
for
this
broader
"predetermined
proposal
dependent
is
construction,
channel"
based
claims,
which
communication
content
item
to
path
the
for
.
.
destination
70
.
as
on
proposes
a
"communication
several
of
the
'398
methods
describe
"establishing the predetermined channel,"
a
VIS
for
that include "managing
transporting
device."
the
E.g.,
multimedia
'398
patent
32:56-64
path,
("[S]aid managing includes initiating the communication
and
engaging
said
in
initiating
an
the
authentication
communication
procedure
path
with
the
includes
destination
device prior to said transporting the multimedia content item to
the
destination
device
over
the
communication
Reviewing these dependent claims in context,
that
they employ the
with "channel."
process
by
limitations
path[s],"
channels
term
path.").
the Court concludes
"communication path"
interchangeably
Although the dependent claims further limit the
which
do
such
not
which,
channels
inform
in context,
established
the
are
through
the
are
established,
referenced
"communication
clearly used
process
those
to
describe
described
in
the
these
dependent claims.
Likewise, the specification employs the terms "pathway" and
"channel" interchangeably to describe the means by which data or
content
is delivered across various
devices.
See,
e.g.,
'733
patent, 8:49-54
("The locally applicable content may be sent and
delivered
request
upon
by
users"
over
various
pathways," such as radio or cellular networks.);
(describing
channel[s],"
wireless
communications
such
hubs);
id.
as
at
via
wireless
23:23-28
"separate
personal
area
"consumer electronic items
. . . with the CHS
channels such as Bluetooth,
UWB,
71
id.
secure
(describing
NFC,
"communication
at 10:37-42
communication
networks
communications
and
of
through wireless
or wire line connection").
This construction is further supported by the extrinsic evidence
before
the
Court.
provided by
Specifically,
Samsung
define
a
the
"channel"
technical
to
include
transmission or processing path dedicated to
signal
component,
Markman
along
Br.
Ex.
which
e.g.,
C,
'chrominance
ECF
No.
information
65
may
or
be
id.
Accordingly,
a proper
disputed
the Court
term
concludes
includes
the
Ex.
and
stored
D
description
"[s]ignal
Defs.'
added),
processing system or computer,"
a
specific signal or
channel,'"
(emphasis
travel
definitions
Opening
"a
in
route
a
data-
(emphasis added).13
construction of
of
a
this
"channel"
as
a
communication pathway.
Although
proper
scope
VIS's
of
proposed
this
claim
construction
term,
the
better
Court
defines
finds
that
the
such
construction fails to give meaning to the
term "predetermined."
Generally,
as
claims
should be
all of their terms. See,
F.3d 945,
13
950
Because
support
(Fed.
Samsung's
consider
those
e.g.,
Cir.
the Court
limited
definitions
construed so
Bicon,
Inc.
2006).u
finds that
construction
included
v. Straumann Co.,
While
the
in
to give effect
Samsung's
intrinsic record
of
the
this
term,
it
referenced
to
441
proposal
does not
does
exhibits
not
as
instructive to its analysis.
Conversely, and as noted above, the
alternative definitions provided support VIS's proposed construction,
which the intrinsic record recommends.
14
"Allowing a patentee
to argue that physical
structures and
characteristics
specifically
described
in
a
claim
are
merely
superfluous would render the scope of the patent ambiguous, leaving
examiners and the public to guess about which claim language the
drafter deems necessary to his claimed invention and which language is
merely
superfluous,
nonlimiting
elaboration.
72
For
that
reason,
claims
improperly limits the scope of this disputed term,
effect to the term "predetermined"
term
"specifying,"
establishment
of
which
a
through its inclusion of the
indicates
particular
adopts
the
same
as
this
the
the
selection
communication
suggested by the term "predetermined."
proposed construction of
it does give
pathway,
as
As Samsung's is the only
term before
proper
or
the
Court,
construction
of
the Court
the
term
"predetermined."
Having
carefully
considered
the
parties'
proposed
constructions and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing,
particularly
with
reference
to
the
intrinsic
record
and
the
Notice of Allowability's express rejection of Samsung's proposed
limitation,
the
Court
adopts
the
below
construction
of
"establishing a predetermined channel."
c. Construction
Specifying a communication pathway
6.
"in
conjunction
with
a
navigational
command
to
the
destination device for the predetermined channel"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS: Plain and ordinary meaning.
No construction required.
VIS Alternative: in conjunction with a command to the
destination device to select the communication pathway
are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the
claim." Bicon,
441 F.3d at 950.
73
Samsung: upon selection amongst a plurality of selectable
frequency bands of the input of the specified frequency
band for receiving the multimedia content
b. Discussion
This
disputed
term appears
the above discussion of
channel."
the
in all
term
of
the
claims
cited in
"establishing a predetermined
The parties' proposed constructions are tied to their
respective views concerning the proper construction of that term
and,
of
in particular,
the
Court's
of the "predetermined channel."15
determination
required construction,
construction
of
the
the
plain
that
Court
and
the
prior
In light
disputed
similarly concludes
ordinary
meaning
of
term
that
this
some
claim
term is needed.
The
parties
agree
that
"a
navigational
command"
involves
the selection of the predetermined channel (however construed).16
15
At
the
Markman
hearing,
the
parties
agreed
that
the
construction of this term is necessarily tied to and derived from the
proper construction of the "predetermined channel."
June 11,
2013,
ECF No.
Hr'g Tr.
111-12,
92.
16 Samsung cites portions of the specification and the intrinsic
record for the proposition that "navigation" to an appropriate channel
involves the selection of that channel's frequency band.
Defs.'
Opening Markman Br. 14-15, ECF No. 65. Despite framing the discussion
as a construction of the term "navigation," the Court observes that
this argument does not concern such construction.
Rather, it is
directed at further supporting Samsung's position that the channels
being navigated should be interpreted as "selectable frequencies."
Id. at 15.
Indeed, in stating their position, Samsung specifically
equates the terms "navigating" and "selecting."
Id. ("A user thus
navigates to a particular channel ... by selecting the frequency band
. . . associated with that channel.").
In its reply brief, Samsung
makes much of VIS's "eliminat[ion]" of the term "navigational" and
rephrasing of
"for the
communication pathway."
predetermined
Defs.' Reply
74
channel"
as
"to select
Markman Br.
10, ECF No.
the
70.
Compare
PL's
Opening
Markman
concludes
Opening
Br.
Markman
15,
ECF
Br.
No.
17,
ECF
65.
No.
64
with
Accordingly,
that the term "navigational"
is
Defs.'
the
Court
properly construed as
"selection" or "selecting."
The
term
"navigational,"
vacuum.
Rather,
device"
provided
it
for
modifies
in
the
however,
the
does
"command
claim
to
term.
should give meaning to the entire term.
not
the
Claim
See,
occur
in
a
destination
construction
e.g., Bicon,
441
F.3d at 950 ("[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving
effect
to
all
terms
in
the
claim.").
VIS's
proposed
construction incorporates both the command and the purpose of
such
command
command
to
destination
(i.e.,
the
navigating)
destination
device
to
by
device"
select"
the
Samsung's proposed construction fails
construing
as
"a
contemplates
command
predetermined
to
the
channel.
to similarly incorporate
both aspects of this portion of the claim term.
proposal
"navigational
While Samsung's
the need for navigation by including the
phrase "upon selection," it does not appear to give any meaning
to
that
portion
destination
of
device."
the
term
requiring
a
"command
Instead,
Samsung's
construction
to
the
merely
specifies that the predetermined channel is selected from among
This argument is incongruous in light of Samsung's own apparent
construction of "navigational" as "selection . . . for receiving the
multimedia content."
75
a plurality of channels.17
portion of
VIS's
Accordingly, the Court finds that the
proposed construction requiring
the destination device
to
select"
"a
command to
the predetermined channel
the proper construction of this portion of
the claim term,
is
which
requires some command or direction to the destination device in
addition to the selection of the predetermined channel.
The Court construes
claim term,
the
"for the predetermined channel,"
construction
"establishing
construction
a
adopted
for
predetermined
given
to
the
carefully
this disputed
in accordance with
preceding
channel."
"predetermined
the construction of this
Having
the remaining portion of
claim
term,
Accordingly,
channel"
is
reflected
the
in
term.
considered
the
parties'
proposed
constructions and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing,
the Court adopts the below construction of "in conjunction with
a
navigational
command
to
the
destination
device
for
the
predetermined channel."
c. Construction
in conjunction with a command to the destination device to
select the communication pathway.
17
Samsung cites
to
the
'733
specification and
to
extrinsic
evidence to support its argument that "navigation" must be construed
as
"tuning"
or
choosing
among
selectable
frequencies.
These
arguments, however, do not address that aspect of the claim term
requiring a command.
76
7-9.
"conversion module,"
"conversion
device,"
and
"processing
unit"
a. Proposed Constructions
VIS:
Not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
extent governed by section 112(f), then:
Function:
processing a
converted video signal
display terminal.
However,
to
the
video signal
to produce a
for use by the alternative
Any of the following: (1) a microprocessor
to perform the algorithm of
Figure 4;
(2) the
mobile
terminal
signal
conversion
module
(MTSCM) disclosed in Fig. 2; (3) the MTSCM disclosed
in Fig. 3; (4) any combination of software, hardware,
and/or
firmware programmed
to
decompress
a
video
signal,
send the
decompressed video signal
to a
Digital/Digital Video Encoder, thereby preparing the
output signal for use by the alternative display;
(5) any
combination
of
software,
hardware,
and/or
firmware programmed to decompress a video signal, send
the decompressed video signal to a Digital/Analog
Video Encoder, thereby preparing the output signal for
use by the alternative display; or (6) equivalents of
the foregoing.
Structure:
programmed
Samsung: Governed by § 112(f).
Function: processing a
converted video signal
display terminal.
Structure:
the
Digital/Analog
closest
Video
video signal to produce a
for use by the alternative
corresponding
Encoder
and/or
structure
is
a
Digital/Digital
Video Encoder.
b. Discussion
The
parties
plus-function
dispute
claims
whether
governed by
77
these
35
claim
U.S.C.
§
terms
are
112(f).
means-
Because
these
terms
are
used
interchangeably
across
the
'492
patent
family's nearly identical claims and because the parties advance
the same arguments as
to
the applicability of
§ 112(f)
to each
term, the Court considers the claims together.18
Pursuant
to
35
U.S.C.
§
112(f),
a
claim
element
can
be
expressed as a means for performing a specified function without
reciting
the
function.
structure
35 U.S.C.
or
material
§ 112(f);
Cir.
2013).
Whether
a
performs
the
claimed
accord Power Integrations,
v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intern.,
(Fed.
that
Inc.,
claim
711 F.3d 1348,
is
in
Inc.
1363-64
means-plus-function
form is a question for the court during claim construction.
Inventio AG
1350,
1356
To
v.
ThyssenKrupp
(Fed. Cir.
determine
Elevator Americas
applies
whether
performance
AOL,
LLC,
of
a
to
649
F.3d
2011).
§
112(f)
generally apply two presumptions.
§ 112(f)
Corp.,
See
claims
function.
641 F.3d 1331,
is
First,
operative,
it is presumed that,
that use the word "means"
See
1340
Rembrandt
(Fed.
Cir.
courts
and recite
Data Techs.,
2011).
LP
v.
Conversely,
when a claim does not use the word "means," courts presume that
the claim is not governed by § 112(f).
Power Integrations,
18 Although Samsung argued against such an approach,
711
based on
alleged differences drawn from the prosecution histories of the
'711,
'268, and '381 patents, the Court rejects this argument, particularly
in light of Samsung's own recognition that all of the terms "should be
treated under § 112(f) for the same reasons discussed . . . regarding
the term 'conversion module.'"
Defs.' Opening Markman Br. 27 & 28,
ECF No.
65.
78
F.3d
at
1364;
see
also
Phillips,
415
F.3d
at
presumptions are rebuttable by a preponderance of
1311.
Both
the evidence,
however the Federal Circuit has emphasized that "the presumption
flowing
that
from
is
the
not
readily
Lighting, Inc.,
Here,
rather,
absence
of
the
term
overcome."
382 F.3d 1354,
'means'
Lighting
is
World
1358 (Fed. Cir.
a
strong one
v.
Birchwood
2004).
the disputed claim terms do not use the word "means;"
they use
"processing
"conversion module,"
unit."
include
the
apply.
"If
However,
catch-word
.
.
.
does
the
just
not
claim
"conversion device,"
because
mean
term
a
claim
does
not
§ 112(f)
that
recites
and
does
not
a
function
without
reciting sufficient structure for performing that function,
the
presumption
falls
and
Power Integrations,
711
[against
the
application
of
means-plus-function claiming applies."
F.3d at 1364
Inc. ,
232
(emphasis
F.3d
"recites
877,
in original)
880
sufficient
(Fed.
112(f)]
(citing Watts v. XL
to
Sys.,
2000)).
Cir.
structure
§
claim
avoid
Whether
a
means-plus-function
claiming" is determined "from the vantage point of an ordinarily
skilled artisan."
Id.
The mere presence of a functional expression in a claim is
not sufficient to invoke § 112(f).
Corp.,
514
inquiry
light of
is
F.3d
1256,
whether
the
1259
(Fed.
claim
the specification,
See TriMed,
Cir.
limitation
connotes
79
to
Inc. v. Stryker
2008).
itself,
"The
when
proper
read
in
the ordinarily skilled
artisan
a
sufficiently
identified
functions."
(citing Apex,
(Fed. Cir.
In
definite
Inc.
v.
2003)).
cases
Power
structure
for
Integrations,
Raritan Comp.,
performing
at
1365
325 F.3d 1364,
Inc.,
711
F.3d
the
1373
The Federal Circuit has held that:
where
the
claims
do
not
recite
the
term
"means," considering intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
is usually helpful,
as
the litigated issue often
reduces to whether skilled artisans, after reading the
patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so
devoid of structure that the drafter constructively
engaged in means-plus-function claiming.
Inventio AG,
A
649 F.3d at 1357
review
disputed
of
terms,
the
used
'492 patent family,
the
claims
intrinsic
in
record
nearly
here
identical
reveals
the
across
contexts
that
the
are not means-plus-function claims.
Samsung
cites
are
method
construction
(emphasis added).
in
support
claims
of
a
First,
means-plus-function
describing
a
method
for
processing signals to accommodate reproduction by an alternative
display
terminal.
See,
e.g.,
'492
patent,
8:25-50.
The
fact
that a method discloses a device used in the performance of that
method without
surprising,
specifying
given
the
the
structure
invention
of
being
that
device
is
not
claimed
(i.e.,
the
dependent
claims
that
method).
Second,
suggest
cited
structure,
features.
method
the
such
For example,
"wherein
claims
include
as
location
claim 5
of
the
and
specified
'492 patent discloses
the conversion module resides
80
other
in
a
the alternative
display terminal."
'492 patent,
8:61-62.
claim 10 to the '268 patent describes
wherein
the
conversion
device
display terminal."
9:42-46
'268 patent,
to
the
in
a
the
conversion
Thus,
disclose
a
Third,
the
that
do
signal,
at
video
means
module
video
some
the
the
of
include
the
the
means
display
related
to
avoid
for
terminal
display
dependent
means-plus-
711 F.3d at 1364.
disclose
disputed
and
alternative
See Power Integrations,
not
'492 patent,
wherein the means
signal,
structure
patents-in-suit
and
and the alternative
See also
to
within
least
terminal
for processing the video
signal
sufficient
function claiming.
claims
mobile
terminal
9:9-11.
converted
converted
terminal.").
claims
video
produce
providing
reside
the
{describing "[t]he system of claim 12,
for receiving the
signal
"[t]he method of claim 1,
includes
an intermediary between the mobile
In another example,
means-plus-function
terms.
For
example,
claim 12 of the '492 patent is a means-plus-function claim that
discloses
a
"system
by
reproduction
for
alternative
an
processing
signals
display
to
terminal
comprising means for receiving a video signal[,]
processing the video signal[,]
converted
video
'492 patent,
there
See
is
signal
9:10-31.
Data
that
Techs.,
. . . means for
. . . and means for providing the
the
alternative
display
Because this claim uses
a presumption
Rembrandt
to
accommodate
it
is
641
81
terminal."
the word "means,"
a means-plus-function claim.
F.3d
at
1342.
Notably,
the
disputed
terms
"processing
("conversion
unit")
are
not
Reading the specification
signal
a
module."
disclosed
reveals
claim
See '492 patent,
include claims,
such as
"conversion
anywhere
(which discloses
conversion module")
means-plus-function
module,"
that
would
be
the
3:51-4:36.
claim 12 of
in
the
the
device,"
this
and
claim.
"mobile terminal
"structure"
MTSCM,
a
of such
"conversion
That the patents-in-suit
the
'492 patent,
that are
drafted in means-plus-function form shows that the patentee knew
how to claim means-plus-function and did not attempt
when
claiming
methods,
systems,
apparatuses,
to do so
and
computer
readable mediums that include the disputed terms.
Fourth,
claimed
as
Circuit
when
has
and
determining
whether
means-plus-function
recommended
extrinsic
evidence
that
to
under
the
determine
sufficiently definite structure.
include
"conversion
specification,
"mobile
at
"conversion
specification
112(f),
consider
whether
Here,
modules."
§
disputed
the
the
terms
the
the
terms
are
Federal
intrinsic
state
a
'492 patent claims
Looking
to
the
shared
the Court finds that it discloses and teaches the
terminal
invention
Court
the
signal
length.
module,"
and,
conversion
The
to
Court
include
accordingly,
module"
reads
the
and
describes
this
the
disputed
term
MTSCM
determines
that
taught
this
in
the
disputed
term has a sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-plusfunction claiming.
82
Having
determined
that
"conversion
sufficiently definite structure,
constructions
and
of
the
"processing
terms
are
inventions
used
in
other
unit,"
in
the
disputed
same
'711,
to
terms,
the
'268,
and
'381
structure,
to
claims.
When
"the patentee
express
F.3d at
Ins.
Co.,
between
a
1120
359
F.3d
13 67,
reference
in
a
1373
Servs.,
(noting
claim
and
the
same
terms
lack
even though"
Innova/Pure Water,
LLC
that
one
v.
Hartford
the
patent,
the
although the claims
terms
to
describe
terms
across
the
.
.
.
are
in
the
specification
which
although
these
different meanings.
part
by
reference
the
or
device
to
See,
used
distinct,
the
the
that,
This construction is supported,
at least in
shared
with
the
terms
conclusion
discernibly
"conversion
e.g.,
accomplishes
the identical contexts
compels
the
that
lack
relevant
interchangeably
module."
are
grammatically
Here,
the patents-in-suit employ different
module
terms
as used
equivalent")).
claimed video signal conversion process,
in
Life
the correspondence
"provides substantial support" for the "contention that,
in
those
[may have simply]
similar concepts,
(citing Bancorp
as
describe
doing so is a "confusing drafting practice."
381
such
"conversion device"
same
manner
discernibly different meanings,
used different words
has
the Court concludes that proper
include
the
module"
specification,
device,"
which,
employs
more-frequently
'492 patent,
83
5:4-8
used
in
its
the
sole
term
"conversion
("The MTSCM may also be
provided in the form of a chipset,
mobile terminal,
dedicated separate signal conversion device,
external
display
terminal,
terminal
signal
conversion
Samsung acknowledges,
that
the
configured for inclusion in a
choice
to
and
to provide
the
or
described mobile
functionality.").
Additionally,
as
the relevant prosecution histories suggest
use
one
term
over
another
across
the
'492
patent was based primarily on the "language particulars that are
preferred by the
at
VIS-002517
[PTO]."
(noting
Defs.'
that
the
Opening Markman Br.
28 & Ex.
Q
term conversion module has been
replaced with the term conversion device).
Considering
concludes,
these
for
the
all
disputed
intrinsic
of
terms
the
record
reasons
lacks
in
stated
sufficient
full,
above
presumption
case
and
against
the
rebutted.
constructions,
the
Court
In
finds
the
the
application
that
absence
Court
such
of
concludes
of
that
structure
application of means-plus-function claiming.
claiming
presumption
that
to
has
alternative
no
Construction
No construction required.
84
none
of
justify
in
this
not
been
proposed
construction
required.
§ 112(f) does not apply.
Court
There is a strong
such
any
the
is
IV.
For
Opinion
the
and
reasons
Order
as
set
the
CONCLUSION
forth
above,
construction
the
of
Court
the
issues
disputed
this
claim
terms in the '492 patent family and the '733 patent family.
The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of
this Opinion and
Order to counsel of record for the parties.
It
is
SO ORDERED.
m£r
/s/
Mark S.
UNITED
Norfolk,
Virginia
September S5 , 2013
STATES
Davis
DISTRICT JUDGE
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?