Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01477/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01477-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1477

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in Nos. 2:12-cv-00548-MSDTEM, 2:13-cv-00332-MSD-TEM, Judge Mark S. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: June 9, 2015

______________________ 

 TIMOTHY EDWARD GROCHOCINSKI, Nelson Bumgardner, P.C., Orlando Park, IL, argued for appellant. Also 

represented by JOSEPH P. OLDAKER; EDWARD R. NELSON,

III, Fort Worth, TX. 

GEORGE ALFRED RILEY, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also 

represented by BRETT JOHNSTON WILLIAMSON, CAMERON 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2015
2 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

WILLIAM WESTIN, Newport Beach, CA; BRIAN BERLINER, 

Los Angeles, CA. 

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. 

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff and appellant Virginia Information Sciences, 

Inc. (VIS) appeals from stipulated final judgments of noninfringement and invalidity entered in favor of Samsung 

Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (collectively, Samsung) by the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Virginia in two consolidated patent 

infringement actions. Because (1) the intrinsic evidence 

before us does not support the district court’s construction

of a claim term central to the parties’ dispute, (2) the 

specification of the patents-in-suit suggests that the term 

has an established understanding in the art, and (3) the 

parties have not sufficiently developed the record with 

regard to that established understanding, we vacate and 

remand for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

The patents-in-suit are directed to a device that converts compressed video content received by a mobile 

phone from a wireless network into a video signal format 

ready for display on a larger external display such as a 

television. At issue here are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,899,492 

(the ’492 patent), 8,050,711 (the ’711 patent), and 

8,145,268 (the ’268 patent). The ’711 and ’268 patents are 

continuations of, and share a common specification with,

the ’492 patent. According to the specification, the 

claimed invention addresses the problem of diminished 

enjoyment of received video content displayed on a mobile 

phone’s small screen by converting the received video 

content to a format that can be displayed on a larger 

screen. Id. at 2:1–15.

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 3

The common specification explains that in the preferred embodiment of the invention illustrated in Figure 

3, a mobile phone (“mobile terminal”) receives a multimedia data stream, or “video signal,” from a mobile or wireless network. See id. at 3:14–18. This video signal is 

typically provided in a compressed format because of the 

high bandwidth and data throughput rates needed to 

stream real-time video and audio in an uncompressed 

format. Id. at 6:7–9, 6:21–25. Examples of compression 

formats include those provided by the MPEG standards

(e.g., MPEG-4). Id. at 6:9–11.

After being received by the mobile phone, the compressed video signal is sent to a “signal conversion module,” which employs an appropriate compression/

decompression (CODEC) algorithm to convert the compressed video signal into a decompressed video signal. Id.

at 6:11–14. This decompressed video signal is sent to 

either a “Digital/Analog Video Encoder” (DAVE) or a 

“Digital/Digital Video Encoder” (DDVE) component within 

the signal conversion module that converts the decompressed video signal to a format and signal power level 

that can be displayed on an analog or digital display 

screen that is larger than the mobile phone’s screen. Id.

at 6:26–36. The specification identifies a number of 

examples of such formats, including S-video (analog video) 

and HDMI (digital video). Id. at 6:37–40.

Each claim of the patents-in-suit recites a device with 

three general components: (1) an interface that receives a 

compressed video signal, (2) a processing module that 

converts the received compressed video signal to a “display format” for display on a different screen, and (3) an 

interface for outputting the converted video signal to that 

different screen. Claim 23 of the ’492 patent is representative of the asserted claims and recites:

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2015
4 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

23. An apparatus for processing signals to accommodate reproduction by an alternative display 

terminal, the apparatus comprising:

an interface module, which receives a video signal 

appropriate for displaying a video content on a 

mobile terminal, the video signal being received 

from a cellular network communication that is 

sent to the mobile terminal and then received by 

the interface module;

a signal conversion module, in operative communication with the interface module, which processes the video signal to produce a converted 

signal for use by the alternative display terminal, 

wherein processing by the signal conversion module includes converting the video signal from a 

compression format appropriate for the mobile 

terminal to a display format for the alternative 

display terminal that is different from the compression format, such that the converted video 

signal comprises a display format and a power 

level appropriate for driving the alternative display terminal; and

a device interface module, in operative communication with the signal conversion module, which 

provides the converted video signal to the alternative display terminal to accommodate displaying 

the video content by the alternative display terminal.

’492 patent, 10:6–29 (emphases added).

VIS filed two patent infringement actions against 

Samsung, both of which alleged that various Samsung 

mobile phones, tablets, and other devices that included a 

Mobile High-Definition Link (MHL) interface infringed 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 5

the ’492, ’711, and ’268 patents.1 The district court conducted a Markman hearing in the first action, and then 

consolidated the two cases for trial. See Va. Innovation 

Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 983 F. Supp. 2d 

713, 721–22 (E.D. Va. 2014) (VIS SJ I). Samsung moved 

for summary judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit, 

contending that U.S. Patent No. 7,580,005 (Palin) anticipated the asserted claims of those patents. The district 

court granted Samsung’s motion for claims 21, 22, 25, 28, 

and 29 of the ’268 patent, and denied it for all the asserted claims of the ’492 and ’711 patents. Id. at 749. Samsung then moved for, and the district court granted,

summary judgment of noninfringement of the remaining 

asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Va. Innovation 

Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:13cv332, 

2014 WL 1685932, *1 (E.D. Va., Apr. 11, 2014) (VIS SJ 

II). After denying VIS’s motion for reconsideration, the 

district court entered stipulated final judgments of noninfringement. J.A. 234–40, 241–47. VIS appealed, and we 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

The district court’s summary judgment determinations were based in part on the court’s construction of two 

terms used in the asserted patent claims: “display format” 

and “converted video signal.” On appeal, VIS challenges 

the district court’s (1) construction of “display format,” (2) 

conclusion that Samsung’s accused MHL-enabled devices 

do not infringe the “display format” limitation, and (3)

invalidity determination as to claims 21, 22, 25, 28, and 

29 of the ’268 patent. After careful review, we vacate the 

district court’s construction of “display format,” as well as 

a term closely linked to “display format”—“converted 

1 VIS also accused Samsung in each action of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,135,398 and 8,224,381. 

Neither of these patents is at issue in this appeal.

 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2015
6 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

video signal.” We also vacate the summary judgment 

determinations based on these constructions.

We turn first to the district court’s construction of 

“display format.” The ultimate question of claim construction is a matter of law that may rely on subsidiary 

factual findings. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 

135 S. Ct. 831, 838 (2015). While we review this ultimate 

question of claim construction without deference, we 

review underlying factual findings supporting the construction for clear error. Id. at 841.

I 

A 

During Markman proceedings, the parties did not ask

the district court to construe “display format,” seemingly 

agreeing that the term should be understood according to 

its ordinary meaning. To resolve Samsung’s motion for 

summary judgment of noninfringement, however, the 

district court construed “display format” to be a video 

signal in an uncompressed or decompressed video format 

“ready for use” by the alternative display. VIS SJ II, 2014 

WL 1685932, at *10. The district court further explained 

that for the signal to be “ready for use,” no “deconstruction and reassembly” could occur after transmission of the 

signal from the claimed apparatus to the external screen. 

Id. For its interpretation of “ready for use,” the district 

court relied on the patentee’s insistence during prosecution of the ’492 patent that its “claimed invention deal[t]

not only with mere decoding of a compressed video signal, 

but a conversion from a mobile terminal format to a 

different display format for the alternative display terminal.” J.A. 5304, 5328–29, 5354. The district court characterized these statements as “arguing against an 

interpretation of ‘display format’ as merely involving 

decompression.” VIS SJ II, 2014 WL 1685932, at *10. 

Samsung embraced this additional level of interpretation 

of “display format” and argued that the MHL signal 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 7

transmitted by its accused products did not meet this 

limitation because that signal was not ready for use—i.e., 

an external display was required to first “reassemble” the 

underlying video data from the received MHL signal 

before it could display the video. 

VIS argues that the district court’s construction cannot be correct because it necessarily excludes HighDefinition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), a preferred 

“display format” expressly identified in the specification. 

See ’492 patent, 6:37–40. According to VIS, HDMI signals 

require deconstruction and reassembly after being received by standard monitors, and thus would be excluded 

by the district court’s construction of “display format.” 

Appellant’s Br. 28. VIS also argues that the district court 

erred in finding that statements made during prosecution 

of the ’492 patent narrowed the scope of the patent claims 

so as to exclude “display formats” such as HDMI; rather,

these statements merely emphasized that the claimed 

“display format” must be “different” from the compressed 

video signal originally received by the mobile phone. VIS 

concludes that the ordinary meaning of a “display format” 

is simply a decompressed encoded video signal in a format 

different from the format originally received by the mobile 

phone.

Samsung contends that the district court’s construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “display 

format.” Samsung explains that the district court’s 

construction actually adopted an argument VIS made in 

opposing Samsung’s summary judgment motion on invalidity—that conversion to a “display format” occurs at the 

mobile phone, and not at the alternative display. In 

Samsung’s view, VIS advocated a construction of “display 

format” for validity purposes that excluded signals requiring “decompression” or “reassembly” of underlying video 

content. Samsung also contests VIS’s characterization of 

the HDMI format, arguing that none of the video signals 

in a “display format” listed in the specification requires 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/09/2015
8 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

further decompression, deconstruction, or reassembly—

the claimed “conver[sion]”—before they can be displayed 

by a standard monitor.

Samsung further argues that VIS’s proposed construction would render the “display” in “display format” 

meaningless, because any uncompressed video signal 

would satisfy the term, even signals that could not be 

“displayed.” Samsung contends that the specification 

does not support such a broad reading of that the term, 

instead disclosing that the uncompressed video signal is 

further “convert[ed] . . . to format(s) and signal power 

level(s) required for the terminals to which [those signals] 

interface.” ’492 patent, 6:26–36. Specifically, because the

specification explains that the uncompressed/decompressed video signal is “converted” by a 

video encoder (the DAVE or DDVE), Samsung argues that

an uncompressed/decompressed video signal must undergo further processing to become a video signal in a “display format.” 

B 

To begin, we agree that a video signal that is decompressed/uncompressed is a necessary feature of a “display 

format.”2 As discussed above, the specification explains 

that the “Video Compress Decoder” component of the 

claimed apparatus “is configured to include the appropriate compression/decompression (CODEC) module to 

accommodate decompression of the received multimedia 

signal.” Id. at 6:11–14. The specification explains that 

this “Video Compress Decoder [] outputs a decompressed 

digital multimedia signal” that is converted to a “format[] 

and signal power level[] required for the terminal to 

2 Neither party contends that the disputed terms 

should be construed differently in any asserted claim of 

the patents-in-suit at issue in this appeal.

 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 9

which [it] interfaces” by the analog or digital video encoder (DAVE or DDVE). Id. at 6:26–36. Thus, the specification makes clear that a “display format” entails a video 

signal that is uncompressed. 

The extrinsic evidence is consistent with the intrinsic 

evidence. In deciding Samsung’s summary judgment 

motion on invalidity, the district court gave weight to

declarations from the parties’ experts and disclosures 

from relevant treatises available at the time of the 

claimed invention to conclude that (1) video signals must 

be decompressed before they can be displayed, and (2) 

when decoding video signals, CODECs and decoders 

“convert compressed video signals into raw, uncompressed 

video signals.” VIS SJ I, 983 F. Supp. 2d at 728. The 

district court found this to be “compelling evidence” that a 

“video [signal] in a display format must be uncompressed.” Id. As a result, the district court concluded 

that conversion to a “display format” requires decompression of the compressed video signal to an uncompressed 

video signal. Id. We find no error with this part of the 

district court’s analysis. 

While briefing its summary judgment motion for noninfringement, Samsung successfully petitioned the district court to further narrow the construction of “display 

format” in two ways. Here, VIS challenges the district 

court’s construction, arguing that the district court should 

not have departed from the understanding of “display 

format” it used when ruling on Samsung’s summary 

judgment motion on invalidity—that a “display format” is

simply an uncompressed video signal. We address each 

subsequent narrowing of the district court’s construction 

of “display format” in turn.

First, Samsung argued that during prosecution, VIS 

had repeatedly characterized its invention as “deal[ing] 

not only with mere decoding of a compressed video signal.” Samsung contended that these statements mandatCase: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/09/2015
10 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

ed a construction of “display format” involving something 

more than an uncompressed video signal. VIS SJ II, 2014 

WL 1685932 at *10. The district court agreed with Samsung. Id. So do we. 

The limitations of the asserted claims suggest that a 

“display format” is more than an uncompressed video 

signal. In particular, the wording of “display format” 

itself suggests that a “display format” is not just any 

uncompressed video signal, but a signal in a format 

that—per the claims—“accommodate[s]” the display of 

video content on an external monitor. Further, the claims 

recite that a “signal conversion module” not only decompresses the received compressed video signal, but also 

converts that signal to a specific video signal comprising

“a display format for the [external monitor]” and a power 

level appropriate for driving the [external monitor].” See

’492 patent, 10:9–24. VIS’s desired construction would 

essentially read the word “display” out of the term and is 

inconsistent with the surrounding limitations of the 

asserted claims.

The specification also reinforces the conclusion that 

conversion to a “display format” involves additional 

processing beyond simply decompressing a compressed 

video signal. As we have long held, the “specification is 

always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis,” and often “the single best guide to the meaning of a 

disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, the specification 

explains that the decompressed video signal output by the 

Video Decompress Decoder is passed to an analog or 

digital video encoder (DAVE or DDVE), which then further converts that uncompressed signal to formats such as 

“S-video, RGBHV, RGBS, and EIA770.3” (analog), or 

“DVI, DVI-D, HDMI, and IEEE1394” (digital). ’492 

patent, 6:26–40; see also id. at 6:33–36 (“The [video encoders] receive the decompressed multimedia signal and 

convert the signals to the format(s) and signal power 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 11

level(s) required for the [external monitors] to which they 

interface.”). Thus, the specification underscores that a 

“display format” is more than a decompressed video 

signal, because further “conver[sion]” of the uncompressed 

video signal is necessary for the signal to be in a format 

“required for the [external monitor].” Id.

Second, in briefing its motion on noninfringement, 

Samsung characterized the district court’s partial denial 

of its summary judgment motion on invalidity as a determination that a video signal in a “display format” needed 

no further “decoding” and “reassembl[y]” by the external 

monitor. J.A. 4349. Samsung used this position as a 

springboard to argue that the MHL video signal transmitted by its accused products was not in the claimed “display format” because external monitors must first decode 

and reassemble the content within that MHL signal 

before it can be displayed. J.A. 4351–52. The district 

court adopted Samsung’s reasoning, narrowing its construction of “display format” to exclude signals in formats 

that required further deconstruction or reassembly at the 

external monitor in order to be displayed by the monitor. 

VIS SJ II, 2014 WL 1685932 at *10.

This was error. Nothing in the specification mentions—much less prohibits—the “deconstruction” or 

“reassembly” of video signals at the external display, key 

components of the district court’s ultimate construction of 

the term “display format.” Nor do the parties identify 

anything in the prosecution history suggesting that the 

meaning of “display format” is tied to the absence of any 

“deconstruction,” “decoding,” “reassembly,” or other 

processing of the converted video signal by the external 

monitor. Indeed, these terms appear to have been introduced by VIS when analogizing a pre-assembled nursery 

crib to compressed video signals in its summary judgment 

briefs. J.A. 2813, 4919–20. 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 11 Filed: 06/09/2015
12 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

Nor does the extrinsic evidence in the record resolve 

the question of whether a signal is in a “display format” if 

it must undergo further decoding or reassembly at the 

external monitor. The parties’ expert declarations submitted for summary judgment focus on whether HDMI 

and MHL video signals were “decoded”3 and “reassembled” in accordance with the district court’s construction, 

rather than on what “display format” means to one of skill 

in the art. See J.A. 4345, 4349–52 (Samsung); J.A. 4919–

27, 4930–31, 4954–60 (VIS). For example, Samsung’s 

expert testified that before an external monitor can 

display an MHL signal, it must be decoded, rearranged, 

and reassembled into an HDMI signal—a “display format” 

that is “ready for use” by a monitor. See J.A. 4345, 4352. 

VIS’s expert did not dispute that MHL signals must be 

translated into HDMI signals before they can be displayed. J.A. 4957–58; see also J.A. 4930–31. Instead, 

VIS’s expert suggested that HDMI signals—like MHL 

signals—must also be “decoded” and “reassembled” by the 

external monitor in order to be displayed. J.A. 4955–56, 

4958. In particular, VIS’s expert declared that to translate the video content in an HDMI signal to the pixels on

a monitor, the HDMI signal must be processed through a 

Low Voltage Differential Signaling (LVDS) interface to an 

LCD controller, components commonly incorporated into 

digital televisions. J.A. 4956. Relying on this declaration, 

VIS argued that the district court could not have been 

correct in concluding that a “display format” would not be 

“decoded” or “reassembled” by an external monitor, because HDMI signals—which both parties agreed were 

encompassed by the claimed “display format”—were also 

3 While the parties’ described the “decoding” of video signals in their briefing, the district court referred to 

this decoding step as a “deconstruction” of the video 

signal. VIS SJ II, 2014 WL 1685932, at *10. We express 

no opinion on whether these terms are interchangeable.

 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 12 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 13

“decoded” and “reassembled” by the LVDS interface and 

LCD controller within many external monitors. See J.A. 

4919–27. But beyond conclusory statements that “MHL is 

[or is not] a display format,” see J.A. 4958, 4352, none of 

this testimony before us offers insight into the relevant 

inquiry: whether one of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand the claimed “display format,” which encompasses standard formats such as HDMI and S-video, to

necessarily exclude decoding/deconstruction and reassembly of that signal by the external monitor before displaying the signal’s underlying video content. 

In short, although the intrinsic evidence strongly suggests that the claimed “display format” must be a video 

signal that is “ready for use” by a conventional external 

monitor, the intrinsic evidence before us does not provide 

a complete understanding of the term. Thus, while review of the intrinsic evidence is commonly dispositive in 

understanding the ordinary meaning of a claim, such is 

not the case in this particular instance. For example, the 

specification does not provide an explanation of what 

separates a video signal that is “ready for use” by an 

external monitor from a video signal that is not. Nor does 

the specification explain what type of additional processing an external monitor may perform on a signal in a 

“display format” in order to display the video content 

within that signal. Instead, the specification lists examples of standard “display formats” without elaborating on 

the term’s meaning, suggesting that those of skill in the 

art would understand the term’s meaning simply by 

reference to the listed examples and standards. See ’492 

patent, 6:39–40 (listing examples of “display formats” to 

include “standards such as DVI, DVI-D, HDMI, and 

IEEE1394”). As a result, our review of the record suggests that one of skill in the art understood a “display 

format” to have particular technical characteristics describing its compatibility and operational interaction with 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 13 Filed: 06/09/2015
14 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

an external monitor. What those characteristics are, 

however, has not been established in the record on appeal.

VIS’s expert testified that even a signal in a “display 

format” that is “ready for use” by the monitor might 

require further processing to translate the video content 

in the signal to physical pixel locations on the monitor. 

This testimony appears to be consistent with the specification, which cites a digital RGB signal as an example of

a “display format” that is transmitted to an external 

cathode-ray-tube (CRT) monitor and then further processed to “drive a set of electron guns” in order to “produce a controlled stream of electrons to display red, green 

and blue light respectively on a CRT screen.” ’492 patent, 

6:50–58. While Samsung disputes the relevance and 

significance of any such additional processing at the 

external monitor, it does not persuasively explain with 

supporting evidence how such processing differs from the 

precluded “deconstruction” and “reassembly” of the video 

signal in the district court’s construction. 

Thus, extrinsic evidence in this instance must be consulted concerning “the meaning of technical terms, and 

the state of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The 

parties did not ask the district court to construe the term 

during Markman proceedings, and Samsung did not offer 

its proposed construction until briefing for its summary 

judgment motion on noninfringement. As a result, the 

record before us is not sufficiently developed to discern 

the skilled artisan’s understanding of the relevant aspect 

of a video signal in a “display format.” To the extent the 

district court’s construction relied on the parties’ arguments introducing the notion of signal deconstruction and 

reassembly at the external monitor, attorney arguments 

are not relevant intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. We therefore remand to the district court with instructions to 

further develop the record and to determine the meaning 

of the “display format” to one of skill in the art at the 

effective filing date of the patents-in-suit, whether by 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 14 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 15

further examination of the prosecution history, evaluation 

of direct and cross-examination testimony from experts 

showing and explaining usage in the field, or consultation 

of other relevant sources as set forth in Phillips.

II

We turn next to VIS’s challenge to the grant of Samsung’s summary judgment motion of noninfringement. In 

determining that Samsung’s accused products do not 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’492, ’711, and ’268 

patents, the district court relied on the now-vacated 

construction of “display format.” VIS SJ II, 2014 WL 

1685932 at *10–11. Therefore, we also vacate the district 

court’s summary judgment grant of noninfringement. 

III

We turn last to VIS’s challenge to the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment of invalidity of claims 21, 22, 

25, 28, and 29 of the ’268 patent. Because “display format” appears in each of the asserted claims of the ’268 

patent, we also vacate the district court’s finding that 

Palin anticipates those claims and its corresponding grant 

of summary judgment of invalidity. 

We also note that VIS challenges the district court’s 

determination that Palin discloses a “converted video 

signal,” a term closely linked to “display format” in each of 

the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. For example, 

claim 21 of the ’268 patent recites that the claimed apparatus “convert[s] a signal format appropriate for the 

mobile terminal to a display format for the alternative 

display terminal that is different from the signal format” 

and that the “converted video signal produced by the 

processing unit comprises [a] high definition digital 

format.” ’268 patent, 10:18–24. Similarly, claim 23 of the 

’492 patent recites that the claimed apparatus “convert[s] 

the video signal from a compression format appropriate 

for the mobile terminal to a display format for the alterCase: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 15 Filed: 06/09/2015
16 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

native display terminal” and that the “converted video 

signal comprises a display format and a power level 

appropriate for driving the alternative display terminal.” 

’492 patent, 10:18–24. Thus, the claim language itself 

makes clear that these terms cannot be understood in 

isolation—the meaning of one term affects and informs 

the meaning of the other.

During Markman proceedings, the district court construed “converted video signal” to require only a “change 

to the video signal” received from the mobile network and 

not a change to “the underlying video content” carried by 

the signal. Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 

Co., Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 794, 814–15 (E.D. Va. 2013) 

(VIS Markman). In other words, a “conver[sion]” to the 

video signal could encompass any alteration to the video 

signal, such as a change to an informational data packet

accompanying the actual video content contained in the 

signal. See id. at 815.

VIS argues that Palin discloses only the conversion of 

a file transport protocol, not the conversion of the underlying video signal format contained within that file 

transport protocol. VIS thus contends that Palin does not 

disclose a “converted video signal” and therefore does not 

anticipate the asserted claims of the ’268 patent. VIS 

attempts to bolster its argument by asserting the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) 

“reached th[e] same conclusion” in rejecting a petition for 

inter partes review of the ’492 patent. Appellant’s Br. 33; 

J.A. 5516–17 (IPR2013-00572). VIS fails to mention, 

however, that the Patent Office found the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “convert” in “converted 

video signal” to be “to change the representation of data 

from one form to another.” J.A. 5516. As the Patent 

Office explained, this was how the IEEE dictionary defined “convert” at the time of the claimed invention. Id.

(citing Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 

The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 16 Filed: 06/09/2015
VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 17

238 (7th Ed., IEEE Press 2000)). The Patent Office found 

the treatise definition consistent with the specification, 

which it found to “differentiate[] repeatedly between 

converting signal formats and routing via a communications protocol.” J.A. 5516.

Although the district court stated that its construction 

for “converted video signal” was based on the term’s “use 

in the claim terms themselves and [in] the specification,” 

VIS Markman, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 819, it did not explain 

how the claims or specification provided a clear understanding of “converted,” either as it was intended to be 

understood in context of the patent or as it was understood in the art. Id. at 813–19. Nor do we see anything in 

the intrinsic evidence before us that provides guidance on 

what appears to be a term with an established technical 

meaning in the art. While we emphasize that the district 

court is not bound by determinations of the Patent Office, 

our review of the record suggests that the Patent Office’s 

approach to rely on relevant treatises and other extrinsic 

evidence may be more illuminating than the specification 

in this particular instance.

Because the claim limitations make clear “that converted video signal” and “display format” must be evaluated together, the district court’s seemingly erroneous 

construction of “converted video signal” may bear on the 

construction of “display format.” Therefore, as with 

“display format,” we vacate the district court’s construction of “converted video signal” and remand with instructions to evaluate the term in context of the surrounding 

claim limitations, and in particular its relationship to 

“display format,” and to further develop the record as to 

the meaning of the term to those of skill in the art at the 

relevant timeframe. Cf. Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystemen B.V. v. Stopaq Amcorr Inc., 744 F.3d 715, 725 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In enumerating problems relevant to 

arriving at a proper construction, we do not mean to be 

exhaustive or to suggest the absence of solutions. . . . 

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 17 Filed: 06/09/2015
18 VA. INNOVATION SCIENCES v. SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. 

Rather, we are identifying at least some of the problems 

that require attention in a more focused and systematic 

claim-construction analysis than the parties and the 

record currently supply.”).

* * *

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive.

CONCLUSION

The record does not shed sufficient light on the meaning of the claim terms central to the dispute on appeal. 

We therefore vacate the district court’s construction of 

“display format” and “converted video signal” and remand 

to the district court to construe these terms after further 

developing the record as to their meaning to those of skill 

in the art at the relevant timeframe. Because the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of 

the asserted claims of the ’492, ’711, and ’268 patents and 

its grant of summary judgment of invalidity of claims 21, 

22, 25, 28, and 29 of the ’268 patent are based on its nowvacated construction of these terms, we also vacate these 

two grants of summary judgment.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-1477 Document: 78-2 Page: 18 Filed: 06/09/2015