Opinion ID: 807368
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: a frame server in communication with

Text: a plurality of home interface controllers each assigned to one of a plurality of proc- esses running in said frame server for in- teractive service, said processes receiving data communications from the subscribers 15 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION associated with their respective assigned home interface controllers, said frame server generating interactive pages re- sponsive to the data communications and supplying the interactive pages to the subscriber televisions associated with the assigned home interface controllers in digitally encoded television signals over the information service distribution net- work. ’582 patent claim 5 (emphasis added). The district court, after analyzing the prosecution history and finding disclaimer, construed “individually assignable processors” to mean “processors that are capable of being assigned on a one-to-one basis to a home interface controller.” J.A. 23335 (emphasis added). Neither Verizon nor ActiveVideo challenges the district court’s construction. Verizon argues that the district court erred in denying Verizon’s JMOL of non-infringement because the FiOSTV headend processors are not assigned on a one-to-one basis to a home interface controller (e.g., STB). That is, Verizon argues that FiOS-TV does not infringe because each FiOS-TV headend processor is always able to communicate with multiple STBs; there is no capability to individually assign a single processor to a single STB. Verizon notes that ActiveVideo distinguished a singleprocessor prior art system for lacking a processor that can be individually assigned to a subscriber. If the prior art system lacks individual assignment, argues Verizon, then so does FiOS-TV because its processors are shared in the same manner as the single processor in the prior art. ActiveVideo argues that substantial evidence shows FiOS-TV has headend processors that are capable of being assigned one-to-one. ActiveVideo argues that assignment ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION 16 is different than “using”; using can be done by multiple people even though the assignment of a processor to STB is one-to-one based on each individual request. Even if the claims require a processor to be “used” one-to-one by a home interface controller, ActiveVideo contends that FiOS-TV still infringes because when the FiOS-TV system first starts, the first subscriber is “assigned” a processor and that processor is used one-to-one by that first subscriber. We disagree. ActiveVideo’s attempt to distinguish between “assigning one-to-one” and “using one-to-one” lacks merit. The district court’s unchallenged construction requires that a single headend processor and single STB be assigned on a one-to-one basis—a single processor to a single STB. Separating the assignment of the processor to the STB from the usage of the processor by the STB ignores the “one-to-one” requirement of the district court’s construction as well as the additional claim language that requires these individually assignable processors be in “assignable data communication with an assigned home interface controller and in television communication over the network.” The claim language specifies that processors are “assignable” with respect to data and television communication and thus clearly includes “usage” of the processor by an STB. ActiveVideo’s “system startup” argument also lacks merit. The district court concluded that the plain and ordinary meaning of “assign” is “to set aside for a particular purpose.” J.A 223. ActiveVideo does not challenge this construction. In this case, the “particular purpose” for assignment is set forth expressly in the claim: “data communication with an assigned home interface controller” and “television communication . . . with the subscriber television associated with the assigned home interface controller.” The record evidence fails to estab17 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION lish—at system startup or otherwise—that the accused FiOS-TV processors are “set aside” for communication on a one-to-one basis with a home interface controller. Indeed, ActiveVideo’s expert testified that except for “assignment,” FiOS-TV processors are used by more than one STB. See, e.g., J.A. 3811 (“The assignment itself is done on a one-to-one basis.”); J.A. 3865 (“Using can be done by multiple people. . . . [A]nd the assignment is done on a one-to-one basis. Once each assignment takes place, [the processor] then can be used by more than one and is routinely used by more than one . . . .”). The testimony of ActiveVideo’s expert, that the FiOSTV processors are routinely “used by more than one [STB],” shows that they are not set aside for data and television communication with a home interface controller on a one-to-one basis. This testimony is consistent with ActiveVideo’s understanding expressed during prosecution that a prior art processor was not “individually assignable” where numerous subscribers may be in communication with that processor. See J.A. 94796. Although a first subscriber may use only one FiOS-TV processor for a brief period of time at system startup, that processor has not been set aside for communication with the subscriber on a one-to-one basis because a second subscriber may begin sharing that FiOS-TV processor at any instant. We conclude that the record does not contain substantial evidence that the accused FiOS-TV processors are assigned on a one-to-one basis, and therefore we reverse the district court’s denial of Verizon’s JMOL of non-infringement of the ’582 patent. D. “superimposing” – ’214 patent The “superimposing” limitation is recited in claim 9 of the Verizon ’214 patent. The ’214 patent generally discloses a two-dimensional method of channel surfing ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION 18 having anchor channels oriented on a vertical axis and channels related to the anchor channels (multiplex channels) oriented on a horizontal axis. Additionally, superimposed on the display of an anchor channel are two indications: one identifying the anchor channel as an anchor channel and another indicating the existence of associated multiplex channels. For example, ABC could be an anchor channel (vertical axis), with ABC News, ABC Sports, ABC Movies, etc. as multiplex channels (horizontal axis) associated with anchor channel ABC. See ’214 patent figs. 1 and 2. Independent claim 9 of the ’214 patent reads: A method of providing channel selection, comprising: providing a set of channels; displaying a first anchor channel from the set of channels when selected; providing a first indication that the first anchor channel is an anchor channel; superimposing the first indication over the display of the first anchor channel; including with the first indication a sec- ond indication, wherein the second indica- tion is included when there is at least one multiplex channel associated with the first anchor channel; receiving a first command to select from the second indication a first multiplex channel of the at least one multiplex channel associated with the first anchor channel; displaying the first multiplex channel; providing for the selection of a second an- 19 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION chor channel from the set of channels through the use of a second command of a different type than the first command; and performing at least one of: switching between multiplex channels associated with an anchor channel from the set of channels using com- mands of the same type as the first command; switching between anchor channels from the set of channels using com- mands of the same type as the second command; and switching from a multiplex channel associated with one anchor channel from the set of channels to a different anchor channel from the set of chan- nels through a command of the same type as the second command. ’214 patent claim 9 (emphasis added). ActiveVideo, citing O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), argues that the district court erred in declining to construe “superimposing the first indication over the display of the first anchor channel” and “including with the first indication a second indication” in asserted claim 9. ActiveVideo argues that the first and second indications must be overlayed on the displayed anchor channel and that they must be distinct from the content of the anchor channel. ActiveVideo argues that its system does not infringe under its “correct” construction because the indications (channel labels) in its system are broadcast as ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION 20 part of the “underlying content” of the anchor channel and are thus not superimposed. Verizon argues that the district court resolved the dispute between the parties and satisfied O2 Micro by declining to adopt ActiveVideo’s construction and giving the terms their plain and ordinary meaning. Verizon contends that ActiveVideo’s construction is confusing, unhelpful, adds no clarity to the claim language itself, and is erroneous to the extent it attempts to narrow the claims by adding “overlay” and “distinct” limitations. Verizon also argues that even under ActiveVideo’s construction, ActiveVideo’s products infringe because its proposed construction places no limitation on how or where the indication is generated, as opposed to how it is displayed to the viewer. The district court did not err in concluding that these terms have plain meanings that do not require additional construction. ActiveVideo’s proposed construction erroneously reads limitations into the claims and the district court properly rejected that construction and resolved the dispute between the parties. See O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1363. It was up to the jury to determine from the evidence presented at trial whether the ActiveVideo system satisfied the plain and ordinary meaning of the “superimposing” limitations. We affirm the district court’s denial of ActiveVideo’s JMOL of non-infringement for the ’214 patent. E. “video still image” – ’542 patent The “video still image” limitation is recited in asserted claim 1 of the ’542 patent. The ’542 patent generally discloses a method of delivering advertising over an interactive video system where an advertisement is presented in a menu and supplementary information 21 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION about the advertisement is provided upon viewer selection. See ’542 patent figs. 4, 8, and 9. Claim 1 of the ’542 patent reads: A method of delivering advertising through a head end facility of an interactive video distribution system, said method comprising the steps of: transmitting an advertisement to an in- teractive video subscriber unit in connec- tion with an interactive video program; receiving, at said head end facility over a return path, a request to register said ad- vertisement in a menu; generating an entry for said advertise- ment in said menu; communicating to said subscriber unit, said menu in a video still image; obtaining, at said head end facility over said return path, a selection request for said entry; and providing to said subscriber unit, in re- sponse to said selection request, supple- mentary advertising information associated with said advertisement. ’542 patent claim 1 (emphasis added). ActiveVideo argues that the district court misconstrued “video still image” as “an image which is not in motion.” ActiveVideo argues that the district court should have instead construed the term to mean a “static image for display on a television that is not part of a full motion video.” Under this construction, ActiveVideo argues that its system does not infringe because the accused “video still image[s]” in its system are actually full motion ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION 22 MPEG videos that display a series of identical frames so that the full motion video appears still. We hold that the district court correctly construed the term “video still image.” The district court’s construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and is also consistent with the specification, which explains that “nothing prevents the principles described herein from being applied to an interactive video distribution system that is Motion Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) compliant.” ’542 patent col.14 ll.57-60. Further, ActiveVideo’s proposed construction erroneously imports a limitation into the claim and ignores the word “video.” ActiveVideo disputes only the district court’s construction and does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of ActiveVideo’s JMOL of non-infringement for the ’542 patent.