UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

SITO MOBILE R&D IP, LLC and SITO 

MOBILE, LTD. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

HULU, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00472 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

[CORRECTED VERSION] 

PLAINTIFFS SITO MOBILE R&D IP, LLC AND SITO MOBILE, LTD.’S 

OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 22
i 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction. ..................................................................................................................... 1

II. Technology background. ................................................................................................ 1

A. Early streaming systems. .................................................................................... 1

B. Present-day streaming systems.......................................................................... 2

III. The patents-in-suit. .......................................................................................................... 5

A. Problems with prior art streaming networks. .................................................. 5

B. The solution of the patents-in-suit. .................................................................... 6

IV. Disputed terms for construction. ................................................................................... 9

A. “request for media” (’887 patent, claims 39, 45, 68, 98; ’673 patent, 

claim 1; ’635 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, claims 1, 34) ................................... 9

B. “settlement record” (’887 patent, claims 39, 45, 68, 98) / “settlement” 

(’637 patent, claim 7; ’846 patent, claim 7) ...................................................... 10

C. “play script” (’673 patent, claim 1; ’635 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, 

claims 1, 34) ......................................................................................................... 13

D. “reservation identification” (’673 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, 

claims 1, 34; ’360 patent, claim 16) ................................................................... 16

E. “reservation” (’673 patent, claim 3) ................................................................. 17

F. “media clip” (’635 patent, claim 18; ’636 patent, claim 2) / “advertising 

media clip” (’673 patent, claim 5; ’635 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, 

claim 11; ‘846 patent, claims 2, 7, 8) ................................................................. 18

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 22
1 

I. Introduction. 

This case relates to how media (e.g., video) is streamed to digital devices (e.g., 

computers). SITO’s constructions stay true to the intrinsic evidence. Hulu, on the other 

hand, seeks to rewrite the claims. In particular, Hulu’s constructions limit terms to 

specific embodiments and, in some cases, Hulu ignores the plain and ordinary meaning 

of straightforward terms to do so. For the foregoing reasons, SITO’s constructions 

should be adopted and Hulu’s constructions should be rejected. 

II. Technology background. 

Media (e.g., video such as television programs or movies) can be streamed over 

communication networks such as the Internet. Streaming is described below in the 

context of a movie. 

Early streaming systems. 

In early streaming systems, a server would stream an entire movie to a viewer. 

The server controlled the streaming of the movie to the viewer’s device (e.g., computer). 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 3 of 22
2 

As shown above, a server would store each movie (e.g., The Goonies, Superman) 

as a single file. If a viewer wanted to watch a movie, the viewer could access a streaming 

website or use a computer application running on the viewer’s computer to stream the 

movie to the computer. After the viewer selected a movie to watch, the viewer’s 

computer would send a request (green arrow) for the movie to the server. Thereafter, 

the server streamed the movie to the computer (red arrow). 

Present-day streaming systems. 

More recently, streaming systems have changed. In such systems, a movie is 

broken up into segments, which are stored on one or more servers. The viewer’s device 

(e.g., computer), not the server, controls the streaming of the movie. This configuration 

provides a number of advantages including improved use of system resources and a 

better viewing experience. 

As shown above, before the movie is sent to a server(s), the movie is broken up 

into segments. 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 4 of 22
3 

As shown above, Server 1 and/or Server 2 store segments of each movie. Similar 

to earlier systems, if a viewer wants to watch a movie, the viewer accesses a streaming 

website or uses a computer application running on the viewer’s computer to stream the 

movie to the computer. But instead of first going directly to a server, the viewer’s 

computer contacts a file server (green arrow). The file server creates a file containing (1) 

a list of URLs associated with the segments of the movie and (2) additional information 

(not shown) that enables the computer to retrieve the segments. The file server sends 

the file to the computer (red arrow). 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 5 of 22
4 

The computer uses the information in the file to retrieve each segment. For 

example, as shown above, the first URL directs the viewer’s computer to retrieve 

Segment 1 of the movie from Server 2. The computer sends a request (green arrow) to 

Server 2, which streams Segment 1 of the movie to the computer (orange arrow). 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 6 of 22
5 

As shown above, the second URL directs the viewer’s computer to retrieve 

Segment 2 of the movie from Server 1. The computer sends a request (green arrow) to 

Server 1, which streams Segment 2 of the movie to the computer. This process repeats 

until all segments of the movie have been streamed to the viewer’s computer. Server 1 

or 2 can provide any of the segments of the movie. 

III. The patents-in-suit. 

The patents-in-suit1 pertain to a particular method for streaming media to enduser digital devices (e.g., computers, set top boxes or other digital appliances). ‘887 

patent, 1:39-47; 17:4-9. 

Problems with prior art streaming networks. 

The specification discusses early streaming systems that used “real time media 

streaming services to render media while it is streamed from the media’s server 

computer.” Id. at 1:57-59. The specification notes that real-time media streaming can be 

difficult to implement because real-time media applications are “resource intensive and 

lack sufficient state control models to ensure proper quality of service.” Id. at 1:65 – 2:3. 

According to the specification, there were numerous problems with then-existing 

systems: 

[C]urrent technologies treat each digital media stream as an individual 

session with little or no association to the viewer. Moreover, existing digital 

media streaming devices focus on the technical transmission and delivery 

of media, and place little control over the viewer management and media 

1 The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patents Nos. 8,825,887 (“’887 Patent”); 9,026,673 (“’673 

Patent”); 9,135,635 (“’635 Patent”); 9,135,636 (“’636 Patent”); 9,591,360 (“’360 Patent”); 

10,009,637 (“’637 Patent”); and 10,171,846 (“’846 Patent”). Because the patents-in-suit 

share the same specification, all citations in this section will reference the ’887 patent. 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 7 of 22
6 

content management. Finally, the current streaming video networks lack 

sufficient notions of network-wide and multi-level resource allocation and control, 

. . . . 

Id. at 2:26-37.2

The solution of the patents-in-suit. 

To overcome the problems with prior systems, the streaming system of the 

patents-in-suit breaks media up into segments and stores those segments on one or 

more servers. The system generates and sends a file, referred to as a play script, to a 

viewer’s device. The file contains media reference(s) (identifier(s) of media segment(s)) 

and other information necessary for streaming the media. The play script is used by the 

viewer’s device to retrieve the media segments. In this way, the viewer’s device, rather 

than the server, controls the streaming of media. 

As shown in Figure 1 below, the patents-in-suit disclose a streaming system 102 

(blue) for delivering media (e.g., video) to a viewer 118 or 120 (green). The media can 

include one or more media clips. Id. at 3:47-50. 

2 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 8 of 22
7 

The streaming system includes a managed media switch (MMS) 112 (orange) and 

real time switch management system (RTSMS) 106 (red). “The MMS 112 has 

communication devices, such as one or more stream casters and one or more media 

servers, that provide requested media to a viewer 118 or 120.” Id. at 14:63-66. 

The RTSMS receives a request from a viewer 118, 120 for media (e.g., a video 

such as a television show or movie). Id. at 9:61-65. Upon receiving a request for the 

media, the RTSMS generates a presentation for the requested media. Id. at 10:45-47. A 

play script is associated with a presentation; the play script identifies one or more 

media clips for the requested media. Id. at 10:6-12. Additionally, the play script may 

also include one or more advertisements, which may also be media clips. Id. The play 

script may contain URLs that the viewer 118, 120 can use to obtain the media clips. Id. at 

10:27-33. 

The play script is sent to the viewer 118, 120. The viewer 118, 120 obtains all of 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 9 of 22
8 

the media clips associated with the requested media and, if present, media clips 

associated with an advertisement(s) identified in the play script. In this way, and unlike 

the prior art systems, the viewer, not the server, controls the streaming of the requested 

media. In particular, using a URL in the play script, the viewer 118, 120 sends a request 

to the streaming system 102 for each media clip on the play script. Id. at 13:49-50. The 

streaming system returns the IP address of a server in the MMS that can provide the 

media clip. Id. at 13:51-57. Using the IP address, the viewer 118, 120 contacts the server, 

which then streams the media clip to the viewer 118, 120. Id. at 13:60-14:2. This process 

repeats for each media clip until the viewer 118, 120 receives all media clips making up 

the requested program. Id. 

For example, in the case of a 60-minute television program, the play script may 

include (1) a video clip #1 for a 20-minute portion of the television program, (2) a first 

advertisement, (3) a video clip #2 for the second 20 minutes of the television program, 

(4) a second advertisement, and (5) a video clip #3 for the final 20 minutes of the 

television program. The viewer 118, 120 can request each media clip/advertisement and 

play the media clips/advertisements in sequential order so that the television program 

with advertisements can be watched. Id. at 5:39-43. 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 10 of 22
9 

IV. Disputed terms for construction. 

“request for media” (’887 patent, claims 39, 45, 68, 98; ’673 patent, claim 

1; ’635 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, claims 1, 34) 

SITO’s Construction Hulu’s Construction 

Plain and ordinary meaning request to provide a particular audio, 

video, or other data, such as a particular 

television show or movie 

A request for media is just that — a request for media (e.g., video). Media can be 

live or on-demand (’887 patent, 3:42) and the specification provides a clear description 

of media: “Media may include audio, video, images, moving text messages such as 

stock ticker tapes, and other data. Media may include one or more media clips or a part 

of a media clip.” Id. at 3:47-50. No construction is necessary. The term should be given 

its plain and ordinary meaning. 

The specification broadly describes a request for media. A request for media can 

be (1) a request for a program, which includes the media (indirect request for media), or 

(2) a request for individual media or a list of media (direct request for media), which 

would include media clips. Id. at 9:63-67 (“The initial signaling from the viewer 118 or 

120 typically is a request for a program or programs. However, a simple request for an 

individual media or list of media may be honored in some embodiments.”); Id. at 3:47-50 

(“Media may include one or more media clips or a part of a media clip.”). 

Hulu improperly seeks to re-write the claim language — changing “request for” 

to “request to provide” and “media” to “particular audio, video, or other data, such as a 

particular television show or movie.” In doing so, Hulu seeks to limit the claims to an 

embodiment, while excluding other embodiments. For example, the specification 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 11 of 22
10 

describes a dynamically generated monthly financial (fund) program, which contains 

different media depending on who is watching the program. 

[A] person using a viewer may have money in funds A and B but not C or 

D . . . . The RTSMS 106 may use the rule set in the monthly fund program to 

dynamically place media clips that contain the A and B fund managers 

discussing recent performance, analysts discussing the outlook for the 

goals of the A and B funds, and advice customized for that investment 

level in the presentation. Whereas, if the person using the viewer has 

$50,000 in an IRA in fund C, the RTSMS 106 may use the rule set in the 

same monthly fund program to dynamically place media clips showing the C 

fund managers discussing recent performance, analysts discussing the 

outlook for the fund's goals, and a tax expert discussing the implications 

of IRA tax law changes that affect IRAs at that level in the presentation. 

‘887 patent, 11:22-37. In other words, the same monthly fund program would have 

different media depending on who requested the program. As such, the request for 

media would not be a request for a particular video (television show). Instead, it is a 

request to provide media that is part of the monthly fund program. For the foregoing 

reasons, Hulu’s construction should be rejected and the term “request for media” 

should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 

“settlement record” (’887 patent, claims 39, 45, 68, 98) / “settlement” (’637 

patent, claim 7; ’846 patent, claim 7) 

SITO’s Construction Hulu’s Construction 

Record to be used for revenue settlement billable event record to be used for 

revenue settlement 

The parties agree that a “settlement record”/ “settlement” is a record to be used 

for revenue settlement. The parties disagree on Hulu’s additional language requiring 

that the record be a “billable event” record, which is tied to a specific embodiment of a 

settlement record. 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 12 of 22
11 

The specification explains that revenue can be generated from media that is 

streamed. The revenue may be allocated between program publishers (media 

owner/creator), network operators (who delivered the content) and/or advertisers. ’887 

patent, 5:25-36; 7:50-60; 9:17-29. Information can be collected to create records that can 

be used to allocate revenue (revenue settlement). In particular, the specification states 

that a component of the streaming system, referred to as a real time switch management 

system (RTSMS), can collect logs and billing data from other components of the 

streaming system. Id. at 12:8-12. Logs are “a record of the events that have occurred and 

are viewable and auditable.” Id. The fact that the logs are “auditable” means that the logs 

are used for revenue settlement. As such, logs are one type of settlement record. The 

specification also states that the logs and billing data can be “collated” into a record, 

referred to as a message sequence detailed record (MSDR). Id. at 12:17-20. As such, an 

MSDR is another type of settlement record. SITO’s construction covers both types of 

records. 

Hulu, on the other hand, seeks to limit settlement records to MSDRs and, in 

particular, MSDRs that are “billable event” records. Indeed, Hulu’s construction — 

“billable event record to be used for revenue settlement” comes from the specification’s 

discussion of MSDRs: “The MSDR represents a billable event record that will be used for 

revenue settlement purposes.” Id. at 12:25-26. But Hulu’s limiting construction is wrong. 

First, as discussed above, the specification makes it clear that MSDRs are 

“collated” logs. But individual logs are also settlement records. And these logs are 

described simply as “records of [] events,” not “billable event” records. As such, not all 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 13 of 22
12 

settlement records are limited to “billable events” as Hulu’s construction requires. 

Second, the specification states that an “MSDR can be used for billing records and other 

settlement purposes.” Id. at 22:51-53. As such, revenue settlement does not require the 

use of MSDRs. Third, the specification states that the MSDR can be used to determine 

credits, not only billing: “The RTSMS 106 can use the MSDR with rules identified in an 

order to determine bills and credits to be appropriated to various entities.” Id. at 12:59-

62; see also id. at 11:44-46 (“The RTSMS 106 also may be configured to bill or credit

entities according to order rules and/or the statistical information.”); 9:17-21 (“The 

ESRP 104 also enables a media owner and/or a publishing agent of the owner . . . to 

generate the settlement rules that define who will be billed or credited when media is 

transmitted to a viewer or another device and the terms of the bill or credit.”). 

Finally, Hulu’s use of the language “billable event” injects ambiguity in the claim 

term. With Hulu’s construction inserted into the claim, the claims read as follows: 

“producing at least one [billable event record to be used for revenue settlement] reflecting a 

sharing of the at least the percentage of revenue generated by streaming the at least the 

portion of the requested media.” See e.g., id. at 51:19-21. In this context, the use of 

“billable event” implies that the entity producing the settlement record is the same

entity that is doing the billing. This is inconsistent with the specification, which states 

that billing records can be provided to any billing entity: “The MSDR then can be used 

to provide billing records to billing entities according to billing rules . . . .” Id. at 20:60-62. As 

such, the entity that produces the settlement record does not necessarily have to be the 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 14 of 22
13 

same entity that is doing the billing. For the foregoing reasons, Hulu’s construction 

should be rejected and SITO’s construction should be adopted. 

“play script” (’673 patent, claim 1; ’635 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, 

claims 1, 34) 

SITO’s Construction Hulu’s Construction 

a file containing one or more media 

references and other information used by 

a communication device to obtain media 

a list customized for the communication 

device containing one or more media 

references and instructions executable by 

the communication device 

A communication device (e.g., computer) uses a play script to obtain one or more 

media clips that make up, e.g., a television show, movie, etc. so that the communication 

device can play the media clips. A play script is a file and it contains (1) one or more 

media references, which identify the media clip(s)/advertisement(s) and (2) other 

information used by the communication device to obtain the media clip(s)/ 

advertisement(s). 

As shown in the table below, the claims of the patents-in-suit describe the types 

of information contained in the play script. 

’673 patent 

claims 1, 7, 14, 19, 34 

’635 patent, 

claims 1, 25, 49 

’636 patent 

claims 1, 18, 34, 52, 58 

play script, comprising: 

(i) an identification of the at 

least one portion of the 

requested media, 

(ii) an identification of the at 

least one other media, 

(iii) a reservation identification 

associated with the request for 

media, 

(iv) at least one universal 

resource locator (URL) 

play script, comprising: 

(i) at least one identification of 

the at least one portion of the 

requested media, 

(ii) an indication that an 

advertising media clip is to be 

streamed to the communication 

device, 

(iii) at least one universal 

resource locator (URL) 

associated with the 

play script, comprising: 

(i) at least one identification 

of the at least one portion of 

the requested media; 

(ii) a reservation 

identification associated 

with the request for media, 

(iii) at least one universal 

resource locator (URL) 

associated with the at least 

one identification of the at 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 15 of 22
14 

associated with at least one of 

the identification of the at least 

one portion of the requested 

media and the identification of 

the at least one other media . . . 

(v) one or more instructions for 

use by the communication 

device together with the at least 

one URL and the reservation 

identification to enable the at 

least one communication 

device to obtain the at least one 

portion of the requested media 

and the at least one other 

media 

identification of the at least one 

portion of the requested media . 

. .

(iv) one or more instructions for 

use by the communication 

device together with the at least 

one URL to cause 

the at least one portion of the 

requested media to be streamed 

to the communication device 

least one portion of the 

requested media. . . 

(iv) one or more 

instructions for use by the 

communication 

device together with the at 

least one URL and the 

reservation identification to 

enable the communication 

device to obtain the at least 

one portion of the requested 

media 

Hulu’s construction not only seeks to limit the claims to an embodiment of the 

invention, but it is inaccurate and, thus, fails to capture the meaning of a play script. 

First, a play script is not just a list. Instead, a play script contains, among other 

things (and as shown in the chart above), a list of media references: “The play script 

contains a list of one or more media references for the presentation . . . .” ’673 patent, 8:59-60. 

Second, the play script does not have to be “customized for the communication 

device.” As discussed above, the play script is associated with a presentation. The 

specification specifically states that “the presentation typically is customized for an 

individual viewing session . . . .” Id. at 8:24-25. In other words, the presentation and its 

play script are not always customized for a communication device. Indeed, the 

specification distinguishes between (1) play scripts and (2) customized play scripts that 

are generated for customized presentations. See id. at 24:40-45 (“The reservation 

generator 208 creates a play script for the viewer and transmits the play script to the 

viewer. The reservation generator 208 creates a customized play script for each customized 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 16 of 22
15 

presentation, including a play script for the media clips in the presentation and the 

reservation identification.”). 

And, there are numerous embodiments that do not describe play scripts as being 

customized. See, e.g., id. at 20:9-11 (“In another example, the viewer 120 requests media 

and receives a play script from the RTSMS 106 for viewing a presentation. The 

presentation has three media clips.”); 21:54-57 (In another example, the viewer 120 

requests access to media. The RTSMS 106 returns a play script to the viewer 120. The play 

script identifies two media clips, in addition to the reservation identification and the 

NRP identification.”). 

Notably, the concept of customization is included in some claims, but not others. 

For example, claim 34 of the ’673 patent specifically recites that the “play script” is 

generated based on “attributes of the communication device.” ’673 patent, 56:5-12. 

Claim 1 of the ’635 patent has no such limitation regarding a play script. Hulu is 

improperly seeking to rewrite the claims to inject the concept of customization into all 

of the claims reciting “play script,” even where the patentees specifically chose to omit 

that concept. Moreover, when discussing customization, the specification refers to a 

“customized play script.” ’673 patent, 10:6-8, 20-21, 27-28; 19:5-10; 24:42-43. The use of 

the adjective “customized” before the term “play script” demonstrates that a play script 

is not, by its nature, customized. 

Finally, Hulu’s language “instructions executable by the communication device” 

is wrong. Though “instructions” may be included in a play script, there is nothing 

requiring that all play scripts include “instructions.” As shown in the table above, 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 17 of 22
16 

where the patentees wanted to include instructions in a play script, they recited it in the 

claims: “one or more instructions for use by the communication device.” Hulu language is 

also an improper attempt to change what the claims say about instructions. Whereas 

Hulu’s construction requires instruction to be “executable by the communication 

device,” the plain language in the claim merely requires that the instructions be used by 

the communication device. For the foregoing reasons, Hulu’s construction should be 

rejected and SITO’s construction should be adopted. 

“reservation identification” (’673 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, claims 1, 

34; ’360 patent, claim 16) 

SITO’s Construction Hulu’s Construction 

Plain and ordinary meaning 

Identification of a reservation 

designator uniquely identifying a 

reservation (as that term is construed) 

A “reservation identification” is just that — an identification of a reservation. The 

parties dispute the meaning of the term “reservation,” which SITO addresses directly 

below, and so presumably, the Court will define “reservation.” And the term 

“identification” has no special meaning in the patents-in-suit and, thus, should be given 

its plain and ordinary meaning. As such, no construction of “reservation identification” 

is necessary; it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 

Once again, Hulu seeks to limit the claims to an embodiment. Indeed, the 

disclosure in the specification regarding a reservation identification being “unique” 

refers to this as an embodiment: “In one embodiment, a separate URL identifies each name 

on a play script for a presentation, and the reservation has a unique reservation 

identification that is located in each URL.” ’673 patent, 10:28-31. Even then, the use of the 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 18 of 22
17 

adjective “unique” before the term “reservation identification” demonstrates that a 

“reservation identification” is not, by its nature, uniquely identifying a reservation. For 

the foregoing reasons, Hulu’s construction should be rejected and the term should be 

given its plain and ordinary meaning. 

“reservation” (’673 patent, claim 3) 

SITO’s Construction Hulu’s Construction 

arrangement regarding reserved 

resources of a streaming system 

a set of instructions uniquely identifying 

the communication device and the play 

script, and reserving system resources for 

streaming the requested media 

Both parties agree that a reservation involves reserved resources. This is because 

the specification states that “[a] reservation is a feature that enables the streaming system 

102 to reserve system resources, such as switches, processors, or media, either now or in 

the future, to ensure a quality media experience.” ’673patent, 10:33-37. As such, a 

reservation is simply an arrangement regarding such reserved resources.3 SITO’s 

construction captures this disclosure from the specification. 

Once again, Hulu attempts to narrowly construe the claim language. First, 

contrary to Hulu’s construction, and as the quoted disclosure above shows, the 

specification does not describe a reservation as a “set of instructions.” Second, Hulu’s 

language “uniquely identifying the communication device and the play script” is taken 

from the specification’s description of Figure 1: “The reservation uniquely identifies the 

3 A “reservation” is “[t]he act of reserving; a keeping back or withholding. [] Something 

that is kept back or withheld. . . [a]n arrangement for securing accommodations in 

advance.” Ex. 1 at p. 4 (The American Heritage College Dictionary 1160 (3d Ed. 1997)). 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 19 of 22
18 

viewer 118 or 120 and the customized play script.” ’673 patent, 10:27-28. This passage, 

however, does not describe what a reservation is but, rather, describes features of an 

exemplary reservation. Indeed, Figure 1 is described as “an embodiment” of the present 

invention. Id. at 2:41-42 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a streaming system in accordance 

with an embodiment of the present invention.”). Finally, Hulu’s construction is 

inconsistent with the claims. In particular, Hulu’s construction recites “a set of 

instructions uniquely identifying . . . the play script” (one play script). But claims 3, 9 and 

16 of the ’673 patent, on the other hand, recite “[generate/generating] a reservation 

associated with the at least one play script” – i.e., a reservation may be associated with more 

than one play script. For the foregoing reasons, Hulu’s construction should be rejected 

and SITO’s construction should be adopted. 

“media clip” (’635 patent, claim 18; ’636 patent, claim 2) / “advertising 

media clip” (’673 patent, claim 5; ’635 patent, claim 1; ’636 patent, claim 

11; ‘846 patent, claims 2, 7, 8) 

Term SITO’s Construction Hulu’s Construction 

“media clip” Plain and ordinary meaning complete media items, 

such as a complete movie 

or advertisement 

“advertising media clip” Plain and ordinary meaning a complete advertisement 

A “media clip” or “advertising media clip” is simply a clip of media and should 

be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The specification recites that media (e.g., a 

video) can be made up of multiple media clips. 

Media may include audio, video, images, moving text messages such as 

stock ticker tapes, and other data. Media may include one or more media clips 

or a part of a media clip. 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 20 of 22
19 

‘673 patent, 3:47-50. In other words, a “media clip” can be a portion of a video.4

Hulu’s construction seeks to improperly limit “media clip” and “advertising 

media clip” to an embodiment – a complete media item/advertisement (e.g., a complete 

movie or complete advertisement). In doing so, Hulu seeks to exclude a media clip being 

a portion/segment (less than all) of a movie or advertisement. First, Hulu’s construction 

is inconsistent with the above-quoted specification excerpt. Hulu ignores the “or more” 

language in the excerpt, which covers media (e.g., a video) being made up of more than 

one media clip (i.e., multiple media clips). Logically, if, for example, a video (movie) can 

be made up of multiple media clips, then a media clip is necessarily a segment (less 

than all) of that video (movie). Second, Hulu’s construction is inconsistent with the 

language in the patent claims. Consistent with the specification, the patent claims state 

that the media (e.g., a video) can include multiple media clips: “the [requested] media

comprises one or more media clips.” See e.g., ’635 patent, claims 9, 32, 56; ’636 patent, 

claims 2, 19, 53. For the foregoing reasons, Hulu’s constructions should be rejected and 

the “media clip” terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. 

4 A “media clip” being a portion of video is consistent with the ordinary meaning of 

“clip”: “A short extract from a film or videotape.” Ex. 1 at p. 3 (The American Heritage 

College Dictionary 263 (3d Ed. 1997)). 

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 21 of 22
20 

Dated: December 23, 2020 /s/ Raymond W. Mort, III

Raymond W. Mort, III 

Texas State Bar No. 00791308 

THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC 

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel/Fax: 512-865-7950 

Of Counsel: 

Ronald M. Daignault (pro hac vice) 

Chandran B. Iyer (pro hac vice) 

Jason S. Charkow (pro hac vice) 

Stephanie Mandir (pro hac vice) 

rdaignault@goldbergsegalla.com 

cbiyer@goldbergsegalla.com 

jcharkow@goldbergsegalla.com 

smandir@ goldbergsegalla.com 

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 

711 Third Avenue, Suite 1900 

New York, New York 10017 

Telephone: (646) 292-8700 

Attorneys for SITO MOBILE R&D IP, LLC and 

SITO MOBILE, LTD.

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/23/20 Page 22 of 22