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.

Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

December 13, 2017

PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT INC., HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC., and ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC. Defendants. PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT SA and UBISOFT INC., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          HON. LEONARD P. STARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 183)[1] on December 2, 2016, recommending that the Court adopt certain claim constructions for disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5, 513, 129 (the'" 129 patent");

         WHEREAS, on December 23, 2016, Defendants Konami Digital Entertainment Inc. ("Konami"), Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. ("Harmonix"), Electronic Arts, Inc. ("EA"), Ubisoft Entertainment SA, and Ubisoft, Inc. (together with Ubisoft Entertainment SA, "Ubisoft" and, collectively, "Defendants") objected to the Report (D.I. 185), specifically objecting to the recommended constructions of "virtual reality computer system" and "virtual environment;"

         WHEREAS, on January 6, 2017, Princeton Digital Image Corporation ("PDIC") responded to the objections (D.I. 186);

         WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a second Report and Recommendation (D.I. 193) on June 16, 2017, recommending claim constructions for additional disputed terms in the ' 129 patent, primarily its means-plus-function terms;

         WHEREAS, on June 30, 2017, PDIC also objected to the second Report (D.I. 196), specifically objecting to the recommended constructions of the "means for supplying a first signal, " "means for prerecording, " and "control track is time shifted relative to the music signal" terms;

         WHEREAS, on June 30, 2017, Defendants also objected to the second Report (D.I. 195); specifically objecting to the recommended construction of the "means for prerecording" term;

         WHEREAS, on July 14, 2017, Defendants responded to PDIC's objections (D.I. 197) and PDIC responded to Defendants' objections (D.I. 198);

         WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties' claim construction disputes addressed in the Report de novo, see St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 691 F.Supp.2d 538, 541-42 (D. Del. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);

         NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Defendants' objections (D.I. 185) to Judge Burke's recommended constructions of "virtual reality computer system" and "virtual environment" are OVERRULED and the constructions set forth in Judge Burke's Report (D.I. 183) are ADOPTED.

         2. PDIC's objections (D.I. 196) to Judge Burke's recommended construction of the "means for supplying a first signal" term are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. The construction set forth in Judge Burke's Report is MODIFIED only with respect to the structure corresponding to Function 2, which the Court will construe as that recited at col. 12 I. 63 - col. 13 1. 10; col. 13 1. 60 - col. 14 1. 22; col. 16 1. 43 - col. 17 1. 12; col. 20 ll. 10-34; and Figures 1, 2, 4, and 6.

         3. With respect to the "means for prerecording" term, Defendants' objections (D.I. 195) to Judge Burke's recommended construction are OVERRULED, while PDIC's objections (D.I. 196) to Judge Burke's recommended construction are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. The construction set forth in Judge Burke's Report is MODIFIED only with respect to the structure corresponding to Functions [a] and [c], which the Court will construe as that recited at col. 7 ll. 30-32; col. 8 1. 58 - col. 9 1. 3; col. 12 ll. 38-42, 57-62; col. 13 II. 21-31, 41-59; col. 141. 55 - col. 15 1. 16; col. 20 ll. 10-20; and Figures 2 and 5.

         4. PDIC's objections (D.I. 196) to Judge Burke's recommended construction of "control track is time shifted relative to the music signal" are OVERRULED and the construction set forth ...


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.