IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASTYLER DIVISIONMIRROR WORLDS, LLCPlaintiffvs.APPLE, INC.Defendant§§§§§ CASE NO. 6:08 CV 88§§§§MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERThis Memorandum Opinion and Order construes the disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos.6,006,227 (the “’227 Patent”), 6,638,313 (the “’313 Patent”), 6,725,427 (the “’427 Patent”),6,768,999 (the “’999 Patent”), and 6,613,101 (the “’101 Patent”). The Court further GRANTS inpart and DENIES in part Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidityfor Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 (Docket No. 156).BACKGROUNDThe ’227 Patent issued on December 21, 1999, the ’313 Patent on October 28, 2003, and the’427 Patent on April 20, 2004, all to Eric Freeman and Davis Gelernter. The ’227, ’313, and ’427Patents disclose a document stream operating system and method where: (1) documents are storedin one or more chronologically ordered streams; (2) the location and nature of file storage istransparent to the user; (3) information is organized as needed instead of at the time the documentis created; (4) sophisticated logic is provided for summarizing a large group of related documentsat the time a user wants a concise overview; and (5) archiving is automatic. ’227, ’313, & ’427Case 6:08-cv-00088-LED Document 302 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 40Patents, at [57]. The documents can include text, pictures, animations, software programs, or anyother type of data. Id.The ’999 Patent issued on July 27, 2004 to Randy Prager and Peter Sparago. The ’999 Patentdiscloses a computer program product and method that operate an enterprise information systemcomprising at least one server and multiple personal computers communicating with each other andthe server. ’999 Patent, at [57]. The program product and method create object models that havea consistent structure regarding diverse types of information assets that come from diverse softwareand display browse cards about the information assets in a time-ordered stream, together with glanceviews related to the document object models. Id. The glance views are displayed essentially in realtime in response to passing a cursor over respective browse cards on the display. Id.The ’101 Patent issued on September 2, 2003 to Richard Mander, Daniel Rose, GittaSalomon, Yin Yin Wong, Timothy Oren, Susan Booker, and Stephanie Houde. The ’101 Patentdiscloses a method and apparatus for organizing information in a computer filing system. ’101Patent, at [57]. The method and apparatus include creating of a pile comprising a collection ofdocuments, displaying a graphical representation of the pile, and browsing the pile by pointing acursor at a particular item to reveal an indicia for the particular item. Id. The filing system canautomatically divide a pile into subpiles based on the content of each document in the pile and, atthe user’s request, can automatically file away documents into existing piles in the computer systembased on of a similarity match between the content of the document and the content of existing piles. Id. The filing system can also create a pile from a sample document by using the internalrepresentation of the document as the internal representation of the new pile. Id. The computer2Case 6:08-cv-00088-LED Document 302 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 40filing system provides various interfaces in connection with piles to the user of the system to providefeedback and other information to the user. Id.Mirror Worlds, LLC (“Mirror Worlds”) alleges that Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) infringes Claims1, 5, 6, 9–13, 15, 20, 25–27, and 29 of the ’227 Patent, Claims 1–3 of the ’313 Patent, Claims 1, 7,8, 16, 25, 32, and 34 of the ’427 Patent, and Claim 1 of the ’999 Patent. Apple alleges that MirrorWorlds Technologies, Inc. (“MWT”) infringes Claims 1–12 of the ’101 Patent.1APPLICABLE LAW“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention towhich the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s intrinsicevidence to define the patented invention’s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, thespecification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3dat 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one ofordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particularclaim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be very Claim 13 of the ’227 Patent, Claim 1 of the ’313 Patent, Claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ’427 Patent, Claim 1 of1the ’999 Patent, and Claim 5 of the ’101 Patent are reproduced in Appendix A. Each of the disputed, definite termsappears in one or more of these claims.3Case 6:08-cv-00088-LED Document 302 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 40instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaningbecause claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences amongthe claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when adependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claimdoes not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15. “[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quotingMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]hespecification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;it is the single best guide to the meaning
View Full Document
Unlocking...