Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085-1/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

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

issued a Tentative Order construing the patent terms on April 29, 2005. The Tentative

Order allowed the parties to request a hearing to address specific issues with the Order. 

Friskit requested a hearing, held May 20, 2005. The Court has considered the additional

briefing and oral argument and adopts the following claim construction.

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 

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 181 Filed 05/20/05 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

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.” 

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. This interpretation is supported by the patent language. See ‘628 Patent 11:26-28

(“The media network resource includes files that can be loaded into the media playback

component to output media.”). 

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

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 181 Filed 05/20/05 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

“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 software module located on the serverside 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. Further,

compared to the broad definition of module, “a program, a portion of a program, a

subroutine or a software or hardware component located on the client side, server side or a

combination thereof that is capable of performing a stated task or function,” the term

network server implicitly modifies, and limits, the term module by locating it on the server

side. Without this modification, the term “network server module” would have an

understanding virtually the same as “module.” Thus, the Court construes the term to

describe the “server-side” as the location. See 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 181 Filed 05/20/05 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 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 can occur

with a database on either the client or the server side.

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 181 Filed 05/20/05 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. The Court sees no benefit in listing

some or all of the many examples included in the patent. See ‘467 Patent 11:21-22.

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 181 Filed 05/20/05 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 10.1 Construction

Media Resource Identifier Information such as a song title, an author,

or a media URL which assists in searching

a database for a particular media resource

file location.

The Court separates claim term ten into two separate terms: media resource

identifier and media resource locator. 

Media resource identifier describes characteristics such as song title, artist or URL,

see ‘628 Patent 12:51-63. These identifiers help to locate particular media resources

through a search function. 

Claim Term 10.2 Construction

Media Resource Locator A unique identifier for locating and

ascertaining a particular media resource.

As described in the patents, the Court finds no discernable difference between the

terms “media resource locator” and “address.” See ‘467 Patent Claim 28, 41:8-9 (“a

database comprising a plurality of addresses, each address locating a media resource on the

network...”); ‘648 Patent Claim 1, 15:41-49 (“a search module that signals a search request

to a first network site to receive a search result, and in response to receiving the search

result, identifies a plurality of media resource locators for locating media resources on the

network...”).

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.

Given its ordinary meaning, “is established” is neither a limitation on the claim 

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 181 Filed 05/20/05 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

term, nor a necessary component of the term “set of media resources,” and is eliminated

from the Court’s construction. 

Claim Term 12 Construction

Substantially Automatically Largely, but not wholly, without human

intervention.

Although the Court does not consider the adopted construction to be necessarily

helpful, the caselaw weighs in favor of not finding the term “substantially automatically”

indefinite. See LNP Eng’g Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347, 1354

(Fed. Cir. 2001). The Court adopts a construction consistent with LNP Engineering. 

III. CONCLUSION

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

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May 20, 2005 ______________/s/__________________

FERN M. SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 181 Filed 05/20/05 Page 7 of 7