Opinion ID: 6215967
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim Construction of “repeat”

Text: The district court construed “repeat” to mean “generation of additional bits, where generation can include, for example, duplication or reuse of bits” (emphasis added). J. App’x 171. Broadcom and Apple argue that that construction is inconsistent with the claim language, the specification and the construction given by another judge in a different case. 3 Caltech argues in response that the plain claim language requiring repeating information bits does not require generating new, distinct bits and that the district court was correct in construing the term to not exclude the reuse of bits. We agree with Caltech. The district court correctly observed that the claims require repeating but do not specify how the repeating is to occur: “The claims simply require bits to be repeated, without limiting how specifically the duplicate bits are created or stored in the memory.” J. App’x 10. The specifications confirm that construction and describe two embodiments, neither of which require duplication of bits. The district court carefully and fully considered both the language of the claims and that of the written description and faithfully applied our precedent to reach the construction made during the trial and presented to the jury. We are not 3 Broadcom and Apple misplace reliance on the con- struction of the term “repeat” made on an undeveloped record in the context of a summary judgment motion. See California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2014). Case: 20-2222 Document: 63 Page: 15 Filed: 02/04/2022 THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE v. BROADCOM LIMITED 15 persuaded that the district court erred in construing the term “repeat” and, therefore, affirm the same.