Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al, No. 2:2012cv00548 - Document 198 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: 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, )

Download PDF

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 a Markman conducted for the purpose of construing nine hearing, matter is before the Court disputed claim terms in the patents-in-suit. of the briefs submitted by Opinion and Order detailing After careful consideration the advanced at the Markman hearing, 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 patents all four {"the specification filed '492 are share on share includes all material {"the suit a a of describes the M92 and impracticability of screens of mobile '492 M92, patent Apparatus Communication respective apparatuses, Each to identical '733 and which with additional the patents-in- of resolve '398 these two specification, along M92 the 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 (collectively, "the "Methods, Information Systems from Wireless Their shared specification directed 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 signals." "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 and module" a video compress and to to Id. decoder "accommodates signal" module." "outputs prepare in configured 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 converted 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 sale, accused products, players, 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 baseline based upon from "the are 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."); Cir. 1995) Multiform best (en banc)); guide it arose, history."). The U.S. "'must be Inc., 52 the 133 it is dispositive; meaning F.3d at USA, § of specification, as required of making and process "[t]hus Inc., 112 347 ("The best by the prosecution 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 . . . "). disputed term is the specification as needed, and a 1478 to be consistent with the specification . . . ." 35 and informed, manner patented invention, see the see also Vitronics, Usually, to Desiccants, from which Teva Pharms. in {"[T]he specification is always highly relevant single the alone" Westview Instruments, source for understanding a technical describes 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, because negotiation between the for Inc. clarity of claim v. 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. other than its plain and Sony Computer Entm't Am. F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting CCS Fitness, Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 special meaning LLC, deliberateness, must and In re 1354 Paulsen, F.3d include a particular (Fed. clear feature, 2002)). that that Any specification Cir. v. clarity, (emphasis omitted) 1480 '[w]here the specification makes not the Inc. Syntron Bioresearch, 2003) 1475, Cir. "reasonable in Abbott Labs v. (Fed. Cir. 30 with precision" prosecution history. 334 F.3d 1343, appear (Fed. 669 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 Props. Co. 1374 (Fed. Cir. own lexicographer that '"embossed" means. 55 (finding 2003) v. an Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, (concluding that the patentee acted as its 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 during Pub. disclosed 1136 the search video stream Opening Br. L "receive[d] content LAN connection, content through manager, ECF the home so that it [could] claim of "mobile to term the '492 et al. controlling DPVSM." No. to terminals" Caspi for or v. 2006). prosecution system VIS-001366, Pharma L. P. this 2004/0177376 personal at Cir. limited digital Ex. (Fed. distinguished No. "a 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 specification construing a claim regarding 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 such as designed for convenient desktop specification reveals claim scope expressed in SkinMedica, 2013 WL "personal computers." E.g., '492 ("[S]uch devices are distinguished from personal computers, of the specifications make clear by the or 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., 1361-62 to (Fed. are not 1378, falls Cir. Penny (Fed. "to ensure not left that of are not included in determination the Cir. of the Inc. v. Am. 2009) (citing 02 Co., that it the scope of jury"). Accordingly, claim term include F.3d is the 31 the 521 of to of scope Tech. (observing exhaustive list of exemplary embodiments. such there questions to this 2012). that Counts, Innovation 2008)) 27, inclusion the within Every 1383 to 2:09-CV-395- Apr. characteristics, Beyond construe No. factfinder relevant on July 22, 2011); Inc., the the based v. Bro-Tech Corp., that See v. Intrado, their Indeed, rejected, Tex. product Ltd. been for approach. at *5 (D. Kan. *11 device F.3d obligation does this (E.D. suggest 563 claims for Although counsels 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., a 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, 8:61-62, relationship of is 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 '381 patent's detailed claim ground references term on the to "a device 34 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 article. the converted video terminal "to (emphasis added)). accommodate Generally, Federal not be construed D. Manzo, Patent Claim 2:31 (2011) ("The Circuit § to the Edward 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 to the term argues, identified at context term of the "video content" family appears, "converted video signal" does not the underlying video requires the '492 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., Anascape Cir. 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, not the ECF No. statements specifically to disclose However, in describing processing, the multimedia/data 69. failure signals. such conversion data" and PL's Resp. Markman Br. Here, to content" display "underlying "converting" 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, the level a of 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, they repeatedly describe this term as converting signals to produce display formats and power levels appropriate driving for 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, item. and methods describe device's 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 independent dependent than a an 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 3) these content, a predetermined limitations independent claims require that specified 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, the shared this over the others. includes only broadly specify how the and accomplishing construing does evidence."). identified and not 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 such a variety disputed term of Thus, in a drafted destination identification specification. Id. 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 limits such as relevant during the that the alternatively, that this term "predetermined channel." selectable frequencies, based concerning specification term it does not on the Samsung argues "predetermined traditional '733 patent's centers 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, the claims and 1374 that, despite term be construed uniformly, the is no the requirement exemplary to embodiments depicted in embodiment content the disclosed Figure in "in 16. which a Compare "channels" fashion so 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 a id. traditional general that terms, "communication channels" of of the specification describing several types of all 1375 particularly where doing only in presumption discusses in context 520 F.3d 1367, Here, channels" meaning." Microprocessor would lead to a "nonsensical reading"). "tunable the specification. (citing Inc., there in the same claim term may of Instruments, term construed light at terms, claim in within (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 understood the term at the filed," id., a full review of the history reveals, as VIS argues, that Samsung's rejected during the course of patent's The Allowance removed references operation of to the Notice "tunable of channels" "predetermined independent claims. See Defs.' VIS-001843 (striking the when channel" Opening language the '733 specifically describing in the the relevant Br. Markman "directing the '733 patent's proposed limitation was prosecution. time Ex. B the 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 box" television connection"). from specification's this earlier use the term channels" 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, in the the types including 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 for this broader definition of "predetermined pathway." This proposal patent's 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 term path."). the Court concludes "communication path" interchangeably Although the dependent claims further limit the which do such not path[s]," which, channels 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 "separate personal 23:23-28 (describing area "consumer electronic items . . . with the CHS channels such as Bluetooth, UWB, 71 id. secure wireless 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. Opening and "a route in a data- stored D description "[s]ignal Defs.' added), processing system or computer," a specific signal or channel,'" (emphasis travel definitions (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 to 441 Samsung's proposal intrinsic record does not of the this term, it referenced 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 "conversion module," "processing unit." include the catch-word apply. "If . . However, . 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 reside a signal, the converted in converted conversion terminal."). Thus, disclose a Third, the that do 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. video produce providing claims 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 Reading the specification signal a module." reveals claim See '492 patent, include claims, such as anywhere (which discloses conversion module") means-plus-function "conversion disclosed not 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, when determining whether claimed as means-plus-function Circuit has recommended and 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" and describes this reads the disputed term the 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.