United States District Court, D. Delaware
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire, Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire and Vanessa Ribeiro Tiradentes, Esquire of Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiffs. Of Counsel: Daniel Hipskind, Esquire, Eric J. Carsten, Esquire, Fredricka Ung, Esquire, Jacob R. Buczko, Esquire and Marc A. Fenster, Esquire of Russ, August & Kabat.
Steven J. Balick, Esquire, John G. Day, Esquire, Lauren E. Maguire, Esquire and Andrew C. Mayo, Esquire of Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc. Of Counsel: Barry W. Graham, Esquire and Yanbin Xu, Esquire of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
John W. Shaw, Esquire and Andrew E. Russell, Esquire of Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Alcatei-Lucent USA, Inc.
Frederick L. Cottrell, Ill. Esquire and Katharine Crawford Lester, Esquire of Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. Of Counsel: Douglas F. Stewart, Esquire of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.
Adam Wyatt Poff, Esquire and Pilar G. Kraman, Esquire of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant VIZIO, Inc. Of Counsel: Adrian M. Pruetz, Esquire, Avraham Schwartz, Esquire and Charles C. Koole, Esquire of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP. Steven R. Hansen, Esquire and Edward S. Quon, Esquire of Lee Tran & Liang APLC.
Gregory B. Williams, Esquire of Fox Rothschild LLP of Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. Of Counsel: Laura L. Chapman, Esquire of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and Victor de Gyarfas, Esquire of Foley & Lardner LLP.
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire, Karen Jacobs Louden, Esquire, and Stephen Kraftschik, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Ingenico Corp., Ingenico Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. Of Counsel: John Fry, Esquire of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP.
SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff CyberFone Systems, LLC ("plaintiff'), previously named LVL Patent Group, LLC, is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 044, 382 ("the '382 patent"), 5, 805, 676 ("the '676 patent"), 5, 987, 103 ("the '103 patent"), 8, 019, 060 ("the '060 patent") and 7, 334, 024 ("the '024 patent"), relating to telecommunications technologies. Plaintiff initially asserted infringement of combinations of these patents against a total of 175 defendants and 970 accused products across a span of 21 related cases. The court has since granted defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to the '060 patent. Presently before the court is the issue of claim construction of three disputed limitations of the remaining patents ("the patents-in-suit").
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Claim construction is a matter of law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim construction focuses on intrinsic evidence - the claims, specification and prosecution history - because intrinsic evidence is "the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claims must be interpreted from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
Claim construction starts with the claims, id. at 1312, and remains centered on the words of the claims throughout. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In the absence of an express intent to impart different meaning to claim terms, the terms are presumed to have their ordinary meaning. Id. Claims, however, must be read in view of the specification and prosecution history. Indeed, ...