NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY, THE GOLDMAN SACHS 

GROUP, INC., J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., 

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., GOLDMAN 

SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &

CLEARING, LP, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,

AND J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.

(formerly known as Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.),

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC. AND

CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND

HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC AND
2 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

BNY CONVERGEX EXECUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendants.

______________________ 

2013-1092

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6696, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF THE 

CITY OF CHICAGO, INC., NEW YORK 

MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. (agent of Nymex), 

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

BATS TRADING, INC., (also known as BATS Exchange, Inc.) 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE,

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., AND

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 3

NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PRICE REPORTING 

AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC., NYSE MKT, LLC 

(formerly known as NYSE Amex, LLC), AND

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION 

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2013-1093

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6697, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

BLOOMBERG L.P.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND
4 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1095

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6698, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF THE 

CITY OF CHICAGO, INC., NEW YORK 

MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. (agent of Nymex), 

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

BATS TRADING, INC., (also known as BATS Exchange, Inc.) 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE,

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., AND

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 5

NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PRICE REPORTING 

AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC., NYSE MKT, LLC 

(formerly known as NYSE Amex, LLC), AND

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION 

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2013-1097

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6699, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

BLOOMBERG L.P.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND
6 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1098

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6700, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY, THE GOLDMAN SACHS 

GROUP, INC., J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., 

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., GOLDMAN 

SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &

CLEARING, LP, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,

AND J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.

(formerly known as Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.),

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC. AND

CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND

HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 7

BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC, BNY 

CONVERGEX EXECUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC, THE 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANC OF 

AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC, MERRILL LYNCH & 

CO., INC., AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, 

FENNER & SMITH, INC.,

Defendants,

______________________ 

2013-1099

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6701, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF THE 

CITY OF CHICAGO, INC., NEW YORK 

MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC. (agent of Nymex), 

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

BATS TRADING, INC., (also known as BATS Exchange, Inc.) 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE,
8 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., AND

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PRICE REPORTING 

AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC., NYSE MKT, LLC 

(formerly known as NYSE Amex, LLC), AND

SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION 

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2013-1100

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6702, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND

BLOOMBERG L.P.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 9

FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1101

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6703, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MORGAN STANLEY, THE GOLDMAN SACHS 

GROUP, INC., J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., 

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., GOLDMAN 

SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS EXECUTION &

CLEARING, LP, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,

AND J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.

(formerly known as Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.),

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC. AND

CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND
10 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AND

HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

BNY CONVERGEX GROUP, LLC, BNY 

CONVERGEX EXECUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC, THE 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANC OF 

AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC, MERRILL LYNCH &

CO., INC., AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, 

FENNER & SMITH, INC.,

Defendants,

______________________ 

2013-1103

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 11-CV-6704, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest.

______________________ 

Decided: January 27, 2014

______________________ 

DIRK D. THOMAS, McKool Smith, P.C., of Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief 

were JOEL L. THOLLANDER, of Austin, Texas; ROBERT A.

COTE, BRETT E. COOPER, DANIEL J. MELMAN, LAURA A.

HANDLEY, and LAUREN L. FORNAROTTO, of New York, New 

York; and J. MICHAEL HENNIGAN and RODERICK G.

DORMAN, of Los Angeles, California. 

WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for all 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 11

defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were MARK 

G. MATUSCHAK, MONICA GREWAL, and KEVIN PRUSSIA, of 

Boston, Massachusetts; and GREGORY H. LANTIER, of 

Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees, Credit Suisse 

Holdings (USA) Inc., et al.; DANIEL A. DEVITO and STACEY 

L. COHEN, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, 

of New York, New York, JAMES J. ELACQUA, GARETH DE 

WALT, and MICHAEL D. SAUNDERS, Skadden, Arps, Slate, 

Meagher & Flom, LLP, of Palo Alto, California, for defendants-appellees, Morgan Stanley, et al.; ROY W.

HARDIN, M. SCOTT FULLER, Locke Lord LLP, of Dallas, 

Texas, for defendants-appellees, HSBC Bank USA, et al.; 

JOHN M. DIMATTEO, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, of 

New York, New York, for defendant-appellee, Bloomberg 

L.P.; CONSTANCE S. HUTTNER and STEPHANIE L. DONAHUE, 

Vinson & Elkins, LLP, of New York, New York, DAVID J.

TOBIN, of Dallas, Texas, and SYED K. FAREED, of Austin, 

Texas, for defendant-appellee Thomson Reuters Corp.; 

BRIAN E. MORAN, Robinson & Cole, LLP, of Stamford 

Connecticut, for defendant-appellee, FactSet Research 

Systems Inc. and BENJAMIN W. HATTENBACH and ARKA D.

CHATTERJEE, Irell & Manella LLP, of Los Angeles, California, for defendant-appellee Interactive Data Corporation.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Realtime Data, LLC (“Realtime”) appeals from multiple decisions of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York, granting motions filed by 

several companies in the financial services industry (the 

“Defendants”) for summary judgment of (i) noninfringement of various claims of U.S. Patents 7,417,568 (the 

“’568 patent”), 7,714,747 (the “’747 patent”), and 7,777,651 

(the “’651 patent”), and (ii) invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 

112 of several claims of the ’651 and ’747 patents. See
12 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, No. 11 Civ. 6696, 

2012 WL 5835303 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012) (“Summary 

Judgment Opinion”); Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan 

Stanley, No. 11 Civ. 6696, 2012 WL 2545096 (S.D.N.Y. 

June 27, 2012) (“Written Description Opinion”). Additionally, Realtime appeals from the district court’s construction of certain claim terms and its decision to preclude 

Realtime from asserting infringement under the doctrine 

of equivalents. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, 875 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Claim Construction Opinion”); Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan 

Stanley, No. 11 Civ. 6696, 2012 WL 3158196 (S.D.N.Y. 

Aug. 2, 2012) (“DOE Opinion”). 

We conclude that the district court did not err in construing the disputed claim terms of the patents or in 

granting summary judgment of noninfringement of the 

appealed claims based on that construction. Additionally, 

the court did not err in granting summary judgment of 

invalidity of the appealed claims under § 112 or in precluding Realtime from asserting infringement under the 

doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

I. The ’568, ’651, and ’747 Patents

Realtime owns the ’568, ’651, and ’747 patents, which 

relate to compressing data for transmission. The patents 

disclose content-based compression, a process that uses 

specialized encoders to compress data based on the content of those data. E.g. ’747 patent col. 4 ll. 4–20. The 

data are received by a system in a data stream and processed in blocks. E.g. id. col. 8 ll. 1–9. If the compression 

system analyzes a data block and determines that the 

block is a specific data block type, i.e., it consists of a

specific type of content (such as text or video), then a 

content specific data encoder will be used to maximize the 

compression for that block of data, id. col. 4 ll. 27–34; 

otherwise a content-independent encoder will be used, id. 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 13

col. 4 ll. 21–26. After compression, the system appends a 

content type descriptor to indicate the encoder that was

used to compress the data block. Id. col. 8 ll. 52–53. This 

descriptor is needed to tell the system receiving the data

how to decompress it. Id. col. 15 ll. 20–31. 

’747 patent claim 14 is exemplary and is reproduced 

below: 

14. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks 

to create a compressed data packet in a data stream using 

a data compression processor, wherein multiple encoders 

applying a plurality of lossless compression techniques 

are applied to data blocks, the method comprising:

receiving a data block;

analyzing content of the data block to determine a 

data block type;

selecting one or more lossless encoders based on 

the data block type and a computer file, wherein the computer file indicates data block types 

and associated lossless encoders;

compressing the data block with a selected encoder utilizing content dependent data compression, if the data block type is recognized as 

associated with a lossless encoder utilizing 

content dependent data compression;

compressing the data block with a selected lossless encoder utilizing content independent data 

compression, if the data block type is not recognized as associated with a lossless encoder 

utilizing content dependent data compression; 

and

providing a descriptor for the compressed data 

packet in the data stream, wherein the descriptor indicates the one or more selected lossless encoders for the encoded data block.
14 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

’747 patent col. 27 l. 44–col. 28 l. 10.

The Defendants all utilize systems incorporating a financial industry standard for transferring financial 

information called FAST. Summary Judgment Opinion, 

2012 WL 5835303, at *2. FAST transmits financial data 

in “messages,” which conform to pre-defined Templates. 

Id. at *3. Those Templates are not attached to a message. 

Id. FAST systems compress messages using a process 

known as “field encoding.” The system will analyze each 

field of a message and determine whether the field is: (1) 

a copy of the same value in the same field from a previous 

message; (2) an increment, i.e., the value in that message 

is one more than the value of the previous message; or (3) 

the default value of that field in the message Template. 

See CME Br. 15–16. By field encoding, some message 

fields may be removed, thus reducing the message size. 

Based on the result of the field encoding, the FAST system will generate a presence map (“PMAP”) that indicates 

whether a field in a message is present or not. J.A. 1813. 

After field encoding, transfer encoding is applied to the 

message to remove redundant information, further reducing the message size. J.A. 1812. The message is then 

sent with both a Template ID (to tell the receiving system 

what message Template to use) and the PMAP (to inform 

the system of the field encoding parameters). See Morgan 

Stanley Br. 22–23. 

II. District Court Proceedings

Realtime initially sued a variety of financial industry 

companies in the Eastern District of Texas, loosely categorized as stock exchanges, banks, and market data 

providers, alleging that the Defendants infringed its

patents by utilizing systems incorporating FAST. 

Realtime brought three suits, each against defendants in 

a similar line of business, alleging infringement of several 

patents including the ’568 patent. J.A. 4918–48. That 

suit was transferred to the Southern District of New York. 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 15

See DOE Opinion, 2012 WL 3158196, at *1. After the 

suits were transferred, the ’651 and ’747 patents issued 

and new actions for each patent were brought against 

members of each of the three defendant categories, totaling nine cases. Realtime Br. 5. These actions were consolidated with the three original cases for purposes of 

pretrial proceedings. See DOE Opinion, 2012 WL 

3158196, at *1. 

The district court construed several disputed claim 

terms, including: (1) “descriptor indicates” to mean 

“[r]ecognizable data that is appended to the encoded data 

for specifying [an encoder]”; (2) “data field/block type” to 

mean “[c]ategorization of the data in the field (or block) as 

one of [several types of data], or other data type”; and (3) 

“data stream” to mean “[o]ne or more blocks transmitted 

in sequence from an external source . . . .” Claim Construction Opinion, 875 F. Supp. 2d at 296. The court 

analyzed both the written description and the claims in 

construing the terms “descriptor indicates” and “data 

field/block type.” Id. at 295–96, 290–91. For construction 

of the term “data stream,” the court relied on statements

that Realtime made during reexamination of similar

related patents and in another litigation involving related 

patents. Id. at 287–88. 

The Defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity of several claims of the ’651 and ’747 patents for 

failure to meet the definiteness and written description 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 based on the recitation of 

“content dependent data decompression” in those claims. 

The court granted the motion as to nine claims of those 

patents, holding that the content of the originally compressed file was irrelevant for purposes of decompression. 

The court found that “[a]ll that matters [after content is 

compressed] is what encoder was used—not the method of 

its selection (i.e., not the content on which the encoder 

selection was based).” Written Description Opinion, 2012 

WL 2545096, at *8. In other words, “decompression has 
16 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

everything to do with the algorithm used at the front-end 

compression and nothing to do with the content on which 

the selection of that algorithm was based.” Id. Because 

the term itself could not be construed, the court found 

claims utilizing that term to be indefinite. Id. Additionally, because the written description of the ’651 and ’747 

patents did not provide guidance on “what is meant to be 

captured by content dependent data decompression that is 

distinct from content independent data decompression,”

the court found that claims reciting that limitation failed 

to satisfy the written description requirement. Id. 

The court also precluded Realtime from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to 

Realtime’s failure to comply with both: (1) the local rules 

of the Eastern District of Texas, requiring disclosure to 

the Defendants “not later than 10 days” prior to the case 

management conference whether Realtime was alleging 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; and (2)

the local rules of the Southern District of New York, 

requiring a similar disclosure within 14 days after appearing in an action. DOE Opinion, 2012 WL 3158196, at 

*1, *4. 

The Defendants also moved for summary judgment of 

noninfringement, which the district court granted, finding 

that the accused products did not meet the “descriptor 

indicates,” “data field/block type,” and “data stream” 

limitations of the remaining asserted patent claims. 

Summary Judgment Opinion, 2012 WL 5835303, at *19. 

Specifically, the court found that many of the accused 

products did not meet the “descriptor indicates” limitation 

because the Templates utilized in the FAST systems were

not “with” or “appended” to the encoded data, nor did the 

Template ID or PMAP, either alone or together, indicate 

the encoders that were used to compress the message. Id.

at *18–19. The court concluded that the accused products 

did not meet the “data field/block type” limitation because 

the values identified by Realtime in the PMAP—copy, 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 17

increment, and default—did not specify the type of data 

being encoded, only how the system should treat certain 

fields within the message. Id. at *15–16. The court held 

that the accused products did not meet the “data stream” 

limitation because none of the products received data for 

compression from an external source. Id. at *12. Finally, 

the court concluded that some accused decompression 

products did not meet an encoding requirement of claims 

95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent, which required 

selection of encoders based on analysis of the data blocks

during decompression. Id. at *13. 

In summary, the court granted summary judgment of 

noninfringement for all claims asserted in the litigation 

that were not found invalid under § 112. 

Realtime timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This appeal comes to us as nine separate appeals presented in one appellate brief and three appellee briefs 

from the three groups of defendants in related businesses. 

At oral argument, we heard from appellant’s counsel and 

three counsel for the appellee groups of defendants. 

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, drawing all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639 

F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is 

appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We address claim 

construction as a matter of law, which we review without 

deference. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 

1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). “Compliance with 

the written description requirement is a question of fact 
18 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

but is amenable to summary judgment in cases where no 

reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 

522 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

II. Claim Construction

Realtime first argues that the district court erred in 

its construction of three claim terms: “descriptor indicates,” “data field/block type,” and “data stream.” 

A. “Descriptor indicates”

Realtime argues that the term “descriptor indicates”

in claims 15 and 32 of the ’568 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 

14, and 19 of the ’747 patent; and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 

18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, 

and 112 of the ’651 patent, is defined in the written 

description as “any recognizable data token or descriptor 

that indicates which data encoding technique has been 

applied to the data.” E.g. ’747 patent col. 8 ll. 53–56. 

Realtime contends that the court added additional limitations, requiring that the indicator be appended to the 

encoded data for the purposes of specifying the encoder

used, limitations that are not required by the claim language or the written description of the patents. The 

Defendants respond that, in the patented system, the 

encoder is selected dynamically after determining the 

type of data being encoded, and therefore it must be 

appended to the data message to identify what type of 

encoding was used. 

We agree with the Defendants. Although the written 

description does define the “data compression type descriptor” as “any recognizable data token or descriptor 

that indicates which data encoding technique has been 

applied to the data,” ’747 patent col. 8 ll. 53–56, ’568 

patent col. 16 ll. 9–12, the preceding sentence also teaches

that “[a]n appropriate data compression type descriptor is 

appended [to the encoded data block].” ’747 patent col. 8 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 19

ll. 52–53; see also ’568 patent col. 16 ll. 6–9 (stating that 

the system “appends a corresponding compression type 

descriptor to each encoded data block . . . so as to indicate 

the type of compression format”). That requirement is

further highlighted by figure 3b of the ’747 patent, which 

shows an “append corresponding descriptor” step after a 

step requiring selection of an encoded data block with the 

greatest compression ratio. ’747 patent fig. 3b. Additionally, the claims require receiving a data packet and extracting from that packet the descriptors, which were 

previously selected based on an analysis of the content of 

the pre-encoded data blocks, highlighting that the descriptors must be sent with the block. E.g. id. col. 26 ll. 

24–31. The district court thus did not err in construing

the “descriptor indicates” term in claims 15 and 32 of the 

’568 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 of the ’747 

patent; and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 

29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 

patent, to mean “[r]ecognizable data that is appended to 

the encoded data for specifying [an encoder].” 

B. “Data field/block type”

Realtime argues that the “data field/block type” limitation in claims 15, 20, 22, and 32 of the ’568 patent;

claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 of the ’747 patent; and claims 

1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 

49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent, should be 

construed as any characteristic, attribute, or parameter of 

the data field or block that is used to select an appropriate 

encoder. Realtime contends that the district court narrowed the claim limitation to specific data types, and that 

such narrowing is specifically discouraged in the written 

description of the ’747 patent. The Defendants respond 

that the written description and the claim language 

support the construction of “data field/block type” as being 

one of several different types of data and that the examples included in the construction of the term are only 

exemplary and do not narrow the limitation. 
20 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

We also agree with the Defendants on this claim limitation. As the district court recognized, the construction 

urged by Realtime could encompass “any characteristic or 

any attribute of data.” Claim Construction Opinion, 875 

F. Supp. 2d at 290. The claims of the patents consistently 

use the terms “data field type” and “data block type” to 

refer to the content of the data. E.g. ’568 patent col. 23 ll. 

38–41 (requiring the claim to recognize a data field type 

and select an encoder based on that recognized data field 

type); id. col. 24 ll. 56–59 (disclosing that the method 

recognizes data field types within a data stream and 

selects encoders based on those recognized data field 

types); ’747 patent col. 27 ll. 50–51 (requiring method to 

analyze the content of a data block in order to determine a 

data block type). Although the written description of the 

’747 patent does discuss, as a limitation of the prior art, 

requiring a data field to be categorized into certain data

types, that prior art reference limited the data field to a 

small subset of possible data types. The district court, 

however, did not unnecessarily limit the types of data for 

the data field/block type by including the open-ended 

“other data type” in the construction of the term. 

The district court was correct in concluding that, 

based on the specifications of the patents, the “data 

field/block type” term in claims 15, 20, 22, and 32 of the 

’568 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 of the ’747 

patent; and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 

29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 

patent, must be tied to some analysis of the content of the 

data field or block and cannot simply encompass any

characteristic or attribute of data. The court thus did not 

err in construing the term to mean “[c]ategorization of the 

data in the field (or block) as one of ASCII, image data, 

multimedia data, signed and unsigned integers, pointers, 

or other data type.”
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 21

C. “Data stream”

Realtime next argues that the term “data stream” in 

claims 15, 20, 22, and 32 of the ’568 patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 

13, 14, and 19 of the ’747 patent; and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 

13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, 

and 112 of the ’651 patent, should be construed, consistent with the written description, as “one or more data 

blocks transmitted in sequence.” Realtime contends that 

the court improperly added the limitation, “from an 

external source whose characteristics are not controlled 

by the data encoder or decoder,” which is not inherent in 

the ordinary meaning of “data stream.” Realtime asserts 

that the court added this limitation based on declarations 

made in reexamination of a non-asserted patent, which

focused on the limitation “receiving” a data stream—a 

position that was rejected by the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office (“PTO”). 

The Defendants respond that the sworn statements in 

the related patent reexamination unequivocally show that 

a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand 

that the data stream limitation in the patents at issue 

here requires an external source. The Defendants 

acknowledge that the declarations were submitted during 

reexamination of Realtime’s U.S. Patent 7,161,506 (the 

“’506 patent”), but assert that the ’506 patent shares the 

same specification as the ’747 patent and is incorporated 

by reference in the ’568 and ’651 patents. 

Courts look to both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in 

construing claim terms, focusing first on the intrinsic 

record. Nazomi Comm., Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 

F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Intrinsic evidence 

includes the claims and the written description. However, 

additional statements made by the patentee during 

prosecution can prove useful in determining how the 

patentee understood and explained the invention to the 

PTO. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. 
22 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

Cir. 2005) (en banc). Statements made during reexamination can prove useful in determining the meaning of the 

claims. See 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 

687 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (considering statements made during reexamination as intrinsic evidence 

for purposes of claim construction). In connection with 

patents that are part of an extended family of patents, a 

patentee’s disclaimers made during prosecution are 

“relevant” both as a statement made with regard to the 

patent at issue and with regard to related or “sibling” 

patents. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 

F.3d 1340, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

The written description of the ’747 patent describes a 

“data stream comprising one or more data blocks[] input 

into the data compression system . . . .” ’747 patent col. 8 

ll. 3–5. However, the declarations made by Realtime’s 

expert, Dr. Modestino, during reexamination of the ’506 

patent also dealt with the meaning of “data stream.” The 

’506 patent shares the same written description as the 

’747 patent. Claim Construction Opinion, 875 F. Supp. 2d 

at 287. Dr. Modestino declared that “data stream” meant 

“a continuous stream of data blocks.” J.A. 970. Dr. 

Modestino then stated that the “’506 specification makes 

it clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the use of 

the term ‘data stream’ was intended by the inventor to 

convey a continuous stream of data elements received 

from or transmitted.” Id. While discussing the term 

“receiving a data stream,” Dr. Modestino stated that one 

of ordinary skill would “imply a stream of data transmitted from a source (whose characteristics are therefore not 

controlled by the data compression system) and received 

at the input of a system or device.” Id. at 971. Dr. 

Modestino described the process of “receiving a data 

stream” from an external source as a “passive one requiring no control over the characteristics of the received data 

stream by the receiver” and that the written description of 

the ’506 patent “would lead one of ordinary skill in the art 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 23

to conclude that the inventor teaches a passive process of 

receiving the data stream without initiation by the receiver . . . or any participation in controlling that stream.” Id.

(emphasis added). 

Dr. Modestino concluded that “[i]t should be understood that the passive process of receiving a data stream 

[from an external source] as practiced in the ’506 patent is 

quite different from the active process of retrieving, or 

fetching, a block of data from a storage device internal to 

a computer system using standard storage device access 

techniques,” id. (emphasis added), and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would distinguish this active process 

of retrieving a data block from an internal storage device 

as fundamentally different from the passive process of 

receiving a data stream as recited in independent claims 

1, 69 and 86 of the ’506 patent,” id. at 972 (emphasis 

added). 

Although Dr. Modestino’s declaration dealt, in part,

with a narrower term “receiving a data stream,” the 

declaration makes clear that a person of ordinary skill 

would understand that a data stream as disclosed in the 

written description of the ’747 patent means a data 

stream received from an external source. Given this 

distinction advanced by Realtime’s own expert in the 

reexamination, the district court did not err by including 

the external source requirement in the construction of 

“data stream” in claims 15, 20, 22, and 32 of the ’568 

patent; claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19 of the ’747 patent; 

and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 

35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent. 

III. Infringement

Realtime argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 15, 

20, 22, and 32 of the ’568 patent; claims 14 and 19 of the 

’747 patent; and claims 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 

35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent, by
24 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

the accused systems because aspects of the Defendants’ 

FAST systems meet the “descriptor indicates,” “data 

field/block type,” and “data stream” limitations as construed by the court. Realtime also contends that the 

district court erred by granting summary judgment of 

noninfringement based on the court’s requirement that 

certain decoding methods in the ’651 patent require the 

selection of both an encoder and a decoder. 

Realtime first argues that the Defendants’ accused 

FAST systems meet the “descriptor indicates” limitation 

by appending both a PMAP and Template ID to the 

message for purposes of specifying the encoders used to 

encode that message. However, the FAST system PMAP 

and Template IDs do not indicate which encoders have 

been utilized to encode; the Template itself contains that 

information. Summary Judgment Opinion, 2012 WL 

5835303, at *8. The Template is not sent with the message; a set of Templates are known in advance to the 

FAST systems. Id. at *8. The Template is thus not 

“appended to the encoded data for specifying” an encoder, 

and the accused systems cannot infringe the claims of the 

patents requiring this. 

Realtime further argues that the encoding techniques 

in the PMAP, which determine whether certain fields of 

the message are a copy, increment, or default value, 

meets the data field/block type limitation. Realtime 

asserts that by categorizing each data field as one of these 

three possible types, the encoding techniques in the 

PMAP act as content categorization as construed by the 

district court. However, those values do not relate to the 

content of the message, only to whether certain values in 

the message can be skipped, incremented, or set to their 

default value. Summary Judgment Opinion, 2012 WL 

5835303, at *15. This process does not analyze the content of the data block for categorization as one of several 

different data types, as required by the “data field/block 

type” claim construction, but simply looks to see whether 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 25

certain fields in the Template can be encoded to minimize 

the size of the message. Id. at *15. The accused systems 

thus cannot infringe the claims requiring a “data 

field/block type” limitation. 

Realtime next argues that the accused products submit one or more data blocks from an external source, such 

as a market server, to the data encoder. The Defendants 

respond that the evidence at trial showed that the encoding is performed only on data from other components 

within the accused system and not from an external 

source. The Defendants’ argument is supported by the 

evidence before the district court, which described it as 

“one sided” in showing that the accused products received 

data from internal sources, id. at *11, and the district 

court thus did not err in concluding that the accused 

systems did not meet the “data stream” limitation. 

Additionally, Realtime argues that the district court 

erred by concluding that claims 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the 

’651 patent require the selection of both an encoder and a 

decoder in those “method for decoding” claims. Realtime 

asserts that although the ’651 patent teaches both encoding and decoding systems, the claims do not require one 

system to perform both functions. The Defendants respond that Realtime stipulated to a construction that 

requires selection of an encoder based on an analysis of 

the data blocks at trial and that they cannot now change 

that construction on appeal. 

We agree with the Defendants. The decoding claims 

disclose the limitation “wherein the lossless encoders are 

selected based on analysis of content of the data blocks” 

’651 patent col. 31 ll. 36–37, col. 33 ll. 10–11. The parties

stipulated that this limitation means that “the system (or 

method) selects the lossless encoders based on an analysis 

of content of the data blocks (or data fields).” J.A. 5341, 

5334. According to the stipulated claim construction, 

these decoding claims thus require the selection of an 
26 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

encoder. Realtime cannot now change the construction 

that it had agreed to in the district court. Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 717 F.3d 1255, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). The district court thus did not err in granting the 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 

patent. 

In conclusion, we agree with the Defendants in all respects concerning the district court’s holding of noninfringement. The district court thus did not err in 

granting summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 

15, 20, 22, and 32 of the ’568 patent; claims 14 and 19 of 

the ’747 patent; and claims 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 

34, 35, 43, 47, 49, 95, 97, 108, and 112 of the ’651 patent. 

IV. Validity

Realtime next contends that the district court erred in 

concluding that claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 of the ’747 patent 

and claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 12 of the ’651 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.1 To support its position, 

Realtime asserts that content-dependent decompression 

means that the decoders simply correspond to those used 

for content-dependent compression, i.e., contentdependent decompression decompresses data encoded 

with a content-dependent compressor. 

The Defendants respond that the written description 

describes decompression as checking the descriptor to 

determine whether it is “null,” meaning the data were not 

compressed, or “not null,” meaning that the descriptor 

1 Paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with 

newly designated § 112(a) when § 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took 

effect on September 16, 2012. Because this case was filed 

before that date, we will refer to the pre-AIA version of 

§ 112. 

 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 27

corresponds to a decoder. The Defendants contend that

the limitation lacks written description support under 

§ 112, ¶ 1 because there is no mention of content-based or 

content-dependent decompression in the written description of the ’651 and ’747 patents. 

We agree with the Defendants that the ’651 and ’747 

patents lack adequate written description of the “content 

dependent data decompression” limitation. The written 

description is a statutory requirement set forth in 35 

U.S.C. § 112. The written description “must clearly allow 

persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the 

inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. 

v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en 

banc) (citation and quotations omitted). The test is 

whether the disclosure “conveys to those skilled in the art 

that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject 

matter as of the filing date.” Id. 

As the district court found, the written descriptions of 

the ’651 and ’747 patents do not contain any definition of 

“content dependent data decompression.” Written Description Opinion, 2012 WL 2545096, at *8. The written 

description describes the process of data decompression as 

determining “whether the data compression type descriptor is null” (meaning that the content is not compressed), or not null meaning that “the corresponding

decoder or decoders” matching the compression type 

descriptor used to encode the data are selected to decode 

the data block. ’747 patent col. 15 ll. 11–25; ’651 patent 

col. 17 ll. 10–28 (describing the process of extracting the 

data compression type descriptor to determine the decoders to use). The written descriptions of the ’651 and ’747 

patents do not disclose decompression whereby an analysis of the content of an encoded block is used to determine 

the decoders for purposes of decompression. Further, in 

both the ’747 and ’651 patents, the term “content dependent data decompression” only appears in the claims

themselves, which contain limited language and no de-
28 REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

scriptive content and hence fail to show that Realtime 

invented or had possession of content-based or contentdependent data decompression. In briefing and oral 

argument, Realtime has further failed to point to any

definition of “content dependent data decompression” in 

the written description. 

Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that 

claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 of the ’747 patent and claims 1, 4, 6, 

7, and 12 of the ’651 patent were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. As all the 

asserted claims have been found on review to be either 

not infringed or invalid for lack of adequate written 

description, we do not need to review the district court’s 

holding of invalidity for indefiniteness. 

V. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

Realtime finally argues that the district court abused 

its discretion in precluding Realtime from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, applying its 

local rules in doing so. We affirm the district court in its 

decision concerning the doctrine of equivalents. As a 

general matter, we “defer[] to the district court when 

interpreting and enforcing local rules so as not to frustrate local attempts to manage patent cases according to 

prescribed guidelines.” Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 

289 F.3d 761, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Particularly in reviewing the district court’s exercise of discretion, we 

determine whether: “(1) the decision was clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision was based 

on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) the court’s findings 

were clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no 

evidence upon which the court rationally could have based 

its decision.” In re Cambridge Biotech Corp., 186 F.3d 

1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Realtime argues that the Defendants would not be

prejudiced by Realtime’s assertion of infringement under 

the doctrine of equivalents. The Defendants respond that 
REALTIME DATA, LLC v. MORGAN STANLEY 29

they would suffer prejudice because the assertions of 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents were made 

over two years after the case was originally filed and after 

fact discovery had closed. 

We agree with the Defendants on this point. The district court was well within its discretion to preclude 

Realtime from asserting infringement under the doctrine 

of equivalents. In asserting its allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents two and a half 

years into the litigation, Realtime failed to comply with 

the local rules of both the Eastern District of Texas and 

the Southern District of New York, which require complete infringement assertions within 10 and 14 days, 

respectively. Additionally, because Realtime asserted 

such contentions after fact discovery had closed, the 

Defendants were prejudiced from developing adequate 

discovery and developing theories of noninfringement 

under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court thus 

did not abuse its discretion by precluding Realtime from 

asserting infringement allegations under the doctrine of 

equivalents.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the various decisions of the 

district court concerning noninfringement and invalidity, 

as well as on the doctrine of equivalents, are

AFFIRMED