United States District Court, D. Colorado
MARKMAN ORDER
R.
Brooke Jackson United States District Judge.
This
patent infringement lawsuit involves data compression.
See generally Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 32.
At the parties' request, the Court conducted a
“Markman” hearing on December 19, 2018. The
Court's interpretation of the key terms is set forth in
this order.
BACKGROUND
There
are two asserted patents in this case: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,
867, 610 (“the ‘610 patent”) and 8, 934,
535 (“the ‘535 patent”) (collectively,
“Asserted Patents”). Plaintiff Realtime is the
owner of both patents. The ‘610 patent is titled
“System and Methods for Video and Audio Data
Distribution, ” whereas the ‘535 patent is titled
“stem and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and
Distribution.” The specifications for both patents are
virtually identical.
The
Asserted Patents concern data compression and decompression
algorithms. The patents are directed to selecting a
compression scheme based on characteristics of the digital
data being compressed. The Asserted Patents attempt to
optimize compression time for digital files to prevent
problems such as download delay, data buffering, and reduced
system speeds. As depicted in Figure 1, the controller
selects a compression algorithm from a database of algorithms
based on the data type and throughput requirements.
(Image
Omitted)
To
select the optimal compression algorithm, the Asserted
Patents first assign a data or access profile to the user
based on the frequency that the data is accessed or written.
Then, the Asserted Patents assign a compression algorithm to
each profile. A symmetrical compression algorithm would be
optimal when the profile has a similar read to write ratio
(meaning the number of reads and writes is balanced). In
contrast, an asymmetrical compression algorithm is preferred
when the profile writes often but reads seldom, or vice
versa. In the former scenario, the preferred algorithm would
compress quickly and decompress slowly. The opposite is true
for the latter scenario.
Plaintiff
asserts that defendants have infringed and continue to
infringe on the Asserted Patents. The dispute has been set
for a five-day jury trial commencing on December 16, 2019.
However, the sole focus for this order is claim construction.
The parties have narrowed their claim construction disputes
to eight terms or groups of related terms. They have
expressed their respective positions in a joint claim
construction chart [ECF No. 121], claim construction briefs
[ECF Nos. 127, 134, and 135], and in their presentations at
the Markman hearing [ECF Nos. 144, 146]. On December 19, 2018
this Court conducted the hearing. At the parties'
request, each side asked for 1.75 hours per side to make
their arguments. In that time, we covered four of the eight
terms: access profile, throughput of a communication channel,
asymmetric compressor, and compressor. The parties agreed to
rest on their written presentations for the remaining terms.
LEGAL
PRINCIPLES
Claim
construction is a matter of law for the Court. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384-91 (1996).
The objective is to give disputed terms in a patent claim the
meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
would have given them at the time of the invention unless the
patent applicant has clearly and unambiguously defined the
terms differently. See, e.g., Honeywell
Int'l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493
F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The
Court principally considers “intrinsic evidence,
” i.e., the words of the claim itself in the context of
the entire patent including as relevant the specification and
the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1313-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
546 U.S. 1170 (2006). The specification is “the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The court may not, however, read
limitations from the specification, particularly the
disclosed embodiments, into the claim. Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1323-24. The district court may consult extrinsic
evidence if it is necessary “to understand, for
example, the background science or the meaning of a term in
the relevant art during the relevant time period.”
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct.
831, 841 (2015).
DISPUTED
CLAIM TERMS
I.
ACCESS PROFILE [Claims ‘535 pat., Cl. 1 and
14].
A.
Plaintiff's Proposed Interpretation.
No
construction is required beyond the plain and ordinary
meaning of the term as determined by one of ordinary skill in
the art based upon the claim being considered in context.
B.
Defendants' Interpretation.
The
term “access profile” is a “profile
containing information about the number or frequency of reads
and writes.”[1]
C.
Discussion.
Claim 1
of the ‘535 patent claims
A
method, comprising:
determining a parameter or attribute of at least a portion of
a data block having audio or video data;
selecting an access profile from among a plurality
of access profiles based upon the determined parameter or
attribute; and
compressing at least the portion of the data block with one
or more compressors using asymmetric data compression and
information from the selected access profile to create one or
more compressed data blocks, the information being indicative
of the one or more compressors to apply to the at least the
portion of the data block.
‘535 pat. at col. 20:29-41 (emphasis added).
Defendants
argue that the ‘535 patent consistently describes
different “access profiles” for data based on
information about the frequency a user reads (meaning opening
a document) and writes (meaning saving a document) the data.
ECF No. 127 at 2. To illustrate, defendants cite the chart at
the bottom of column 12 of the ‘535 patent.
(Image
Omitted)
‘535
pat. at col. 12. This chart, defendants argue, constitutes
intrinsic evidence to support their proposed interpretation.
Id. at 3.
In
response, plaintiff argues that claim construction for
“access profile” is unwarranted because the term
is readily understandable to a person of ordinary skill in
the art, and the term is used in the specification according
to its plain meaning. ECF No. 134 at 1. Moreover, there is no
clear lexicography or disavowal of the plain meaning of the
term to warrant claim construction. Id. In response
to defendants' proposed construction, plaintiff asserts
that defendants improperly import limitations from the
specifications into the claims. Id. at 2. And,
plaintiff argues that defendants' proposed construction
excludes disclosed embodiments. Id.
I
disagree with plaintiff that the plain and ordinary meaning
of “access profile” is a term that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would readily understand. This is
an obscure term that should be construed. However, I cannot
accept defendants' proposed construction, as that
proposal attempts to define an obscure term with an obscure
definition. Instead, I choose to adopt a construction that
tracks the language of the ‘535 patent itself. The
‘535 patent's specification provides a sufficient
construction for the disputed term: “[t]he access
profiles comprise information that enables the controller to
select a suitable compression algorithm that provides a
desired balance between execution speed (rate of compression)
and efficiency (compression ratio).” ‘535 pat. at
col. 8:8-12.
At the
Markman hearing, I proposed this very construction to the
parties. Plaintiff generally agreed with my proposal should I
feel compelled to construe the term. Defendants' primary
issue with my construction was that it was too broad, and
that the use of the word information would be confusing to
the jury. Defendants suggested “saves and opens”
instead.
Defendants'
position is a little odd considering defendants' proposal
also contained the word information. Nonetheless, I agree
with defendants that the word information could be further
clarified to assist the jury. Based on intrinsic evidence-as
depicted in the “access profile” chart above-I
choose to use the words reads and writes as opposed to saves
and opens. I also take comfort in the fact that defendants
stated at the Markman hearing “reads” is
synonymous with “opens, ” and
“writes” is synonymous with “saves.”
D.
Court's Construction.
Therefore,
the Court construes the term “access profile” to
mean “comprising the read and write data that enables
the controller to select a suitable compression algorithm
that provides a desired balance between execution speed (rate
of compression) and efficiency (compression ratio).”
II.
THROUGHPUT OF A COMMUNICATION CHANNEL [Claims ‘610
pat., Cl. 1, 9, 12-14].
A.
Plaintiff's Proposed Interpretation.
No
construction is required beyond the plain and ordinary
meaning of the term as determined by one of ordinary skill in
the art based upon the claim being considered in context.
B.
Defendants' Proposed Interpretation.
“Throughput
of a communication channel” means the “number of
pending transmission requests over a communication
channel.”
C.
Discussion.
Claim 1
of the ‘610 patent claims
A
method, comprising:
determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a
portion of a data block having video or audio data;
selecting one or more compression algorithms from among a
plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the at least
the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a
communication channel, at least one of the plurality of
compression algorithms being asymmetric; and
compressing at least the portion of the data block with the
selected compression algorithm after selecting the one or
...