United States District Court, D. Delaware
before the Court is the issue of claim construction of
multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 064, 434 ("the
'434 patent) and 9, 210, 142 ("the '142
patent") (collectively, "the asserted
patents). I have considered the parties' joint
claim construction chart and brief. (D.I. 102, 110). I heard
oral argument on June 20, 2019. (D.I. 118).
filed this action on July 7, 2016 against Defendants for
infringement of the '434 and '142 patents. (D.I. 1).
Plaintiff alleges infringement of claim 1 of the '434
patent and claims 1, 9, and 12 of the' 142 patent. Claim
1 of the '434 patent is representative for the purposes
of this opinion.
1. A method for providing a user of a telephone device with a
capability to use Internet-based applications, which method
comprises the steps of:
transmitting from said telephone device an indication towards
a first server, denoting a request to be connected to an
Internet-based application residing at a second server;
providing said user with a menu from which the user selects a
requested Internet-based application;
after selecting an application, establishing a communication
path that extends between said telephone device and said
second server via said first server;
at said first server, creating a virtual client entity
specific to said telephone device and said Internet-based
application to be used, created specifically to allow
communication between said telephone device and said
Internet-based application residing at said second server,
and maintained only for the duration of a communication
session that is about to take place between said user and
said Internet-based application, thereby providing the user
of said telephone device with the capability to use said
Internet-based application; and
exchanging communications between said second server and said
'434 patent at 8:11-34.
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) (citation
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). 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,
979-80 (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.
words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning. . . . [This 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. "[T]he ordinary meaning of a
claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after
reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321.
"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.
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.
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)
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
Plaintiff's Proposed Construction: plain and
ordinary meaning, or alternatively, "a telephone (e.g.,
a mobile phone) with the ability to communicate over the
Defendants' Proposed Construction: "a
cellular telephone that cannot communicate directly with
Court's Construction: plain ...