Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180222_0000102.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:08:48+00:00

Document:
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Jackson, Matthew C. Acosta, Blake T. Dietrich, Christopher J. Rourk, Robert P. Latham, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Dallas, TX, David Folsom, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Texarkana, TX; Wasif Qureshi, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Houston, TX. Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; George I. Lee, Sean M. Sullivan, Rory P. Shea, J. Dan Smith, Michael P. Boyea, Cole B. Richter, Jae Y. Park, LEE SULLIVAN SHEA & SMITH LLP, Chicago, IL. Attorneys for Defendant.
Presently before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of U.S. Patent 7, 734, 850 (D.I. 177) and related briefing (D.I. 178, 227, 240); Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7, 995, 899 (D.I. 186) and related briefing (D.I. 190, 222, 243); Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 7, 995, 899 (D.I. 193) and related briefing (D.I. 194, 224, 248); and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 7, 987, 294 and No. Earlier Invention Date of U.S. Patent No. 7, 987, 294 (D.I. 191) and related briefing (D.I. 192, 223, 244). The Court held oral argument on all motions for summary judgment (D.I. 177, 186, 191, 193) on January 30, 2018. (D.I. 278) ("Tr."). The Court ordered, and the parties subsequently submitted, additional claim construction briefing. (Tr. 118:7-14; D.I. 280, 285, 291, 294). This Memorandum Opinion resolves the claim construction issues briefed by the parties, which underlie Defendant's summary judgment motions. The motions themselves remain pending.
"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). '"[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), qff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks omitted).
"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.... [Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314.
When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the court's construction is a determination of law. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The court may also make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19. Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history. Id.
"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
storing the de-archived data in a destination filesystem.
once the file boundary position has been reached, decompressing and de-archiving data after the stored file boundary position.
('850 patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
(ii) in response to the zone control signal, define respective corresponding device control signals, and provide those device control signals to the devices thereby to implement the operational change across the zone.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.