Opinion ID: 2673152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arbitrator/Arbitrating

Text: InTouch challenges the district court’s construction of the ’030 patent term “arbitrating to control” as “determining which remote station has exclusive control of the robot,” and the ’357 patent claim term “arbitrator” as “a device that determines which user or station has exclusive control, or which user’s commands the robot should follow.” InTouch argues that the district court should have adopted its proposed construction for arbitrator as “a 3 InTouch does not challenge the construction of the ’962 patent claim terms. See Appellant Br. 14. 18 INTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. VGO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. device that allows exclusive control of the mobile robot by one of the remote stations.” Appellant Br. 42–43 (emphasis omitted). According to InTouch, an “arbitrator” requires only that it control access among multiple remote users. InTouch points to the written description, which it says discloses a queue-based arbitration system which simply allows access based on the timing of access requests, requiring no “decision” or “determination.” VGo asserts that the district court correctly construed claim 79 because the claim itself recites that an arbitrator can control access to the robot. We agree with VGo. Like the district court, we find InTouch’s proposed construction “inaccurate and too narrow.” The term “‘[a]llows’ does not properly describe the role of the arbitrator and the arbitration system in resolving the control of the robot.” Claim Construction Order at 6, ECF No. 199. Claim 79 of the ’357 patent states “an arbitrator that can control access to said mobile robot by said first and second remote stations,” and claim 1 of the ’030 patent states “arbitrating to control access to the robot by either the first remote station or the second remote station.” ’357 Patent col. 2 ll. 55–56 (ex parte reexamination certificate); ’030 Patent col. 6 ll. 33–34. The claim language itself requires that the arbitrator control access to the robot by remote terminals. The written description explains that the arbitrator needs to “resolve access requests from the various users,” not simply allow access. ’357 Patent col. 6 ll. 54–55. It also provides that Tables 1 and 2 “show how the mechanisms resolve access requests from the various users.” Id. Table 2 shows a grid disclosing how requests are “resolved” based on competing requests between a current user and a requesting user. Id. Table 2. Based on this context, it is clear that, for the arbitrator to control access, it needs the capability to consider and resolve access requests from and among multiple users. Consequently, we find that the district court properly construed the terms “arbitra- INTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. VGO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 19 tor/arbitrating” to require a determination of which user has the right to exclusive control or which user’s command to follow. Indeed, the written description confirms that this “determination” requires the consideration of competing requests between multiple users. InTouch’s reference to a queue-based system does not alter our view. Even under a queue-based system, an arbitrator still “determines” which user has exclusive control between two competing requests. The described queue-based system does not simply allow access to the robot; nor does it simply deny access to a competing request. It considers a request from at least a second user, and places that user into a queue. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in construing the terms “arbitrator” and “arbitrating” to require a determination of which user among multiple users has exclusive control of the robot. 4