Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRISKIT, INC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REALNETWORKS, INC., and LISTEN.COM,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-5085 FMS

TENTATIVE CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Plaintiff Friskit has alleged that RealNetworks, Inc. (“Real”) has infringed several of

its patents related to integrated technology featuring streaming media. 

The parties presented oral argument addressing the proper construction of twelve

disputed claim terms per patent at the Markman hearing held on April 12, 2005. By earlier

order, dated March 4, 2005, the Court limited the parties to six claim terms each. The

Court has considered the oral argument, written briefs, supporting declarations and exhibits

and hereby issues its tentative order construing the disputed claim terms. This tentative

order will be adopted as the claim construction ruling unless one of the parties files a

written request for a hearing within ten (10) days of this tentative order. If one of the

parties requests a hearing, the parties are to meet and confer regarding a date for the

hearing and then schedule it with the courtroom deputy (415-552-3018). The Court does

not anticipate taking any further evidence on the construction but would allow each side

forty-five minutes to explain why changes should or should not be made to the tentative

ruling.

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LEGAL STANDARD

Patent claim construction and interpretation is a question of law, determined by the

Court. Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en

banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). To properly construe the terms, a court first looks to

the intrinsic evidence, including the wording of the claims and the specifications and

drawings. See Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331

(Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim terms should be understood and construed in the context of one

another. Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). At

claim construction, words should be given their ordinary meanings, unless the patent

specifications clearly indicate otherwise. Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, PLC, 65 F.3d 1577,

1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Further, a claim term must not be narrowed unless the patent

language clearly narrows the scope of the meaning. See SunRace Roots Enter. Co. v.

SRAM Corp., 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1442-43 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Only after the Court

considers intrinsic evidence may it resort to the extrinsic, i.e. expert testimony, treatises

and other materials. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308

(Fed. Cir. 1999). 

II. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS

Claim Term 1 Construction

Client Module A module that is installed and executed on

a user-terminal.

 The parties have agreed to, and the Court adopts, the above construction for the

term “client module.” 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Claim Term 2 Construction

Media Resource At least one media file including audio,

video or combinations thereof, capable of

being loaded into a user accessible

playback component.

The Court agrees with Friskit that media resource may consist of one, or several

files. As discussed at oral argument, an example of a media resource is a movie, which may

contain several separate files that function together. 

The Court disagrees with Friskit that the definition should include the limitation of

“streaming media.” Friskit did not limit its patent to streaming technologies, but included

references to loading media on the client terminal, which may be considered a description,

or variation of, downloading. See ‘648 Patent 4:8-11. Thus, the technology includes, but is

not limited only to, streaming media.

Claim Term 3 Construction

network server module a module located on the server-side in a

client-server network, capable of

performing a stated task or function. 

The parties have agreed to the construction of “module,” therefore, the remaining

disagreement ties to the location of the network server module. Although Friskit argued

that the module could be located on the server, client or both, the Court is persuaded by

Real’s arguments pertaining to the location of the network server software.

Although it may be true that the network server hardware may be installed on

virtually any system, including a server or client terminal, when discussing the network

server software, the module cannot exist on both the server and client side. Thus, the Court

construes the term to describe the“server-side” as the location. Real Brief at 23. As

discussed at the Markman hearing, “server-side” and “network-side” are virtually identical. 

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Claim Term 4 Construction

Search Module A module that uses a database on the

server-side in order to identify search

results and communicate those results to a

playback component on the user terminal.

The parties have agreed to the construction of “module;” thus, the construction of

this term primarily addresses the “search” feature and the location of the search module. 

The Court understands the term to describe the process by which the search module

communicates with a database to locate particular results. This communication occurs with

a database on the server-side. To avoid future confusion, and because “server-side” and

“network-side” are the same, the Court adopts “server-side” as part of the construction of

the term.

As discussed, the Court adopts a construction that does not include the limitation of

“streaming media.”

Claim Term 5 Construction

Search Request A transmission that communicates a search

based on user specified criteria to identify

media files. 

As discussed at oral argument, the parties virtually agree to the construction

proposed by Friskit, with the exception of the inclusion of “streaming media.” As

previously discussed, the Court disagrees with this limitation and omits it from the

construction.

Claim Term 6 Construction

Search Criteria Information based on text or words entered

by a user for the purpose of identifying

matching media resources and/or

associated information. 

 The parties have agreed to, and the Court adopts, the above construction for the

term “search criteria.” 

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Claim Term 7 Construction

Address(es) Identifiers unique to the location where

specific information is stored.

An identifying address must be unique to a particular location. This construction is

consistent with the patent language that implies that address is unique. See 628 Patent 3:2-

3 (“Each address locates a media network resource on the network.”); id. 3:23-25 (“Each

media network resource is locatable on the network by a corresponding address that

accesses the media network resource.”).

Claim Term 8 Construction

Associate/associates to connect or relate

The Court adopts a construction that comports with the reasonable and ordinary

meaning of the term “associates.” This construction is not indefinite.

Given the plain meaning of the term, Real’s proposed construction is too

constrictive and inappropriately narrow. 

Claim Term 9 Construction

Media A combination of video and/or audio.

The Court adopts Friskit’s construction of the term, taken directly from the patent

specifications. Although Real argued to include additional examples that could essentially

limit the term if incorporated into the construction, the Court rejects such a construction. 

When read in the context of the patent, the construction is best limited to “a combination of

video and/or audio.” 467 Patent 11:21-22. Even though the definition further describes

several different examples of video, such examples must not limit the construction of the

term. See SunRace Roots, 67 USPQ2d at 1442-43.

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Claim Term 10 Construction

Media resource locator/identifier An identifier for locating and ascertaining a

particular media resource.

Friskit has described this term as involving identifiers to locate particular media

resources, similar to metadata, see Friskit Brief at 2, and this description appears

consistent with the patent language. 

The Court adopts a construction that comports with the plain meaning of locate and

identify in the context of ascertaining a particular media resource. 

Claim Term 11 Construction

Set of Media Resources A collection of media resources each

satisfying one or more search criteria. 

The parties primarily disagree on the language “is established” that was removed

from Friskit’s earlier construction as set out in the Joint Claim Construction. Aside from

this language, the parties essentially agree on the Court’s construction.

The “is established” language fails to add meaning to the claim term, and is

eliminated from the Court’s construction. 

Claim Term 12 Construction

Substantially Automatically

The Court agrees with Real that the addition of “substantially” to the claim term is

inherently ambiguous, and any reasonable construction of the term would contain the same

vagueness. Thus, this term is indefinite. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

III. CONCLUSION

The Court construes the subject term definitions for the reasons articulated above,

and issues this ORDER subject to possible amendment, as set forth on page one of this

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: April 29, 2005 ______________/s/__________________

FERN M. SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 177 Filed 04/29/05 Page 7 of 7