Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alex is Best, LLC v. Blu Products, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

November 3, 2017

ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
BLU PRODUCTS, INC. Defendant. ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. and HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., Defendants. ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
LENOVO HOLDINGS COMPANY INC. and LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendants. ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
TCT MOBILE INC., and TCT MOBILE (US) INC., Defendants.

          Stephen B. Brauerman (argued), Sara E. Bussiere, BAYARD, P.A., Wilmington, DE. Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          Dennis J. Butler, John D. Simmons, PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARO & NADEL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam W. Poff, Robert M. Vrana, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Stephen J. Kraftschik, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, PHILLIPS GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Chad S. C. Stover, BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel P. Albers, BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Chicago, IL; Todd G. Vare (argued), Jeffrey M. Barron, BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Indianapolis, IN. Attorneys for Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. JUDGE.

         Presently before me is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S. Patent No. 7, 633, 524 (the '"524 patent), U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 172 (the '"172 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8, 134, 600 (the '"600 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8, 477, 197 (the '"197 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8, 581, 991 (the '"991 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8, 947, 542 (the '"542 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 9, 197, 806 (the '"806 patent"). I have considered the parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I.50)[1]. I held oral argument on November 1, 2017. (D.I. ___ ("Tr.")).

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         "It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). '"[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks omitted).

         "[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. . .. [Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In 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 in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314.

         When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the court's construction is a determination of law. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The court may also make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19. Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history. Id.

         "A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following claims are representative for the purposes of this Markman.

         Claim 1 of the '524 Patent

         1. An integrated Internet camera system, comprising:

a website archive and review center (WSARC) for storing and managing images;
an Internet direct camera (IDC) for capturing an image, automatically transmitting said image to an account associated with said IDC on said WSARC upon image capture and receiving stored image from said WSARC, and comprising a display for displaying said captured image and said received image; and
wherein said IDC automatically connects to said WSARC over an Internet connection on power-up using one of a plurality of available modes of connection, which is designated as a primary mode of communication, and wherein said IDC automatically switches to another mode of communication when said IDC detects that said primary mode of communication to said WSARC is unavailable.

         (D.I. 49-1, Exh. 1 ("524 patent"), claim 1).

         Claim 1 of the '600 Patent

1. An Internet direct device comprising an imaging system to capture still or video images; a microprocessor to transmit said captured still or video images to another Internet direct device upon image capture, and receive still or video images from said other Internet direct device over a communications network; and wherein the Internet direct device automatically connects to said communications network on power-up using one of a plurality of available modes of connection, which is designated as a primary mode of connection, and wherein the Internet direct device automatically switches to another available mode of connection when the Internet direct device detects that said primary mode of connection to said communications network is unavailable.

         (D.I. 49-1, Exh. 3 ("'600 patent"), claim 1).

         Claims 1, 12, 13, and 22 of the '172 Patent

1. An Internet direct device comprising an imaging system to capture a still or video image; and a microprocessor to transmit said captured still or video image to an account associated with the Internet direct device on a website archive and review center (WSARC) upon image capture, and receive still or video image from said WSARC; and wherein the Internet direct device automatically connects to said WSARC over an Internet connection on power-up using one of a plurality of available modes of connection, which is designated as a primary mode of communication, and wherein the Internet direct device automatically switches to another available mode of communication when the Internet direct device detects that said primary mode of communication to said WSARC is unavailable.
12. The Internet direct device of claim 1, wherein said imaging system further comprises an image pickup, an optical module for forming an image on the image pickup, and an image capturing module for capturing digital still or video images from said image pickup.
13. The Internet direct device of claim 12, where said optical module comprises an auto-focus optical system.
22. The Internet direct device of claim 1, furthering comprising an image compression module for compressing said captured image.

(D.I. 49-1, Exh. 2 ('"172 patent"), claims 1, 12, 13, 22).

         Claims 1, 16, 17, and 19 of the '197 Patent

1. An Internet direct device comprising an imaging system to capture still or video image; a microprocessor to transmit said captured still or video images to an account associated with the Internet direct device on a website archive and review (WSARC) upon image capture, and receive still or video images from said WSARC over a communications network; and wherein the Internet direct device automatically connects to said communications network on power-up using one of a plurality of available modes of connection, which is designated as a primary mode of connection, and wherein the Internet direct device automatically switches to another available mode of connection when the Internet direct device detects that said primary mode of connection to said communications network is unavailable.
16. The Internet direct device of claim 1, wherein said imaging system further comprises an image pickup, and an image capturing component for capturing digital still or video images from the image pickup.
17. The Internet direct device of claim 16, wherein said optical component comprises an auto-focus optical system 19. The Internet direct device of claim 1, further comprising an image compression component for compressing said captured still or video images.

(D.I. 49-1, Exh. 4 ('"197 patent"), claims 1, 16, 17, 19).

         III. TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION

         1. "Internet"

a. Plaintiff s proposed construction: No construction necessary. Plain meaning. Alternatively, the global system of linked computer networks that is typically ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.