In re Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Patent Litigation, 091312 FEDFED, 2012-1022

Docket Nº:2012-1022
Opinion Judge:O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:IN RE REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, PATENT LITIGATION v. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION AND CSC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP AND REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (doing business as Remstream), Plaintiffs-Appellants, AND ABC INC., CBS CORPORATION, AND NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. (now known as NBCUniversal Media, LLC), Defendant
Attorney:Michael J. Bonella, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, of Radnor, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was PAUL B. MlLCETIC. Of counsel was JennaM. Pellecchia. David S. Benyacar, Kaye Scholer LLP, of New York, New York, for defendants-appellees Time Warner Cable, ...
Judge Panel:Before Rader Chief Judge, O'MALLEY, and Reyna, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 13, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

IN RE REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, PATENT LITIGATION

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP AND REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (doing business as Remstream), Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION AND CSC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

AND

ABC INC., CBS CORPORATION, AND NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. (now known as NBCUniversal Media, LLC), Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CENTURY-TCI CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS, LP, CENTURY-TCI CALIFORNIA, LP, CENTURY-TCI DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, CENTURY-TCI HOLDINGS, LLC, PARNASSOS COMMUNICATIONS, LP, PARNASSOS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY I, LLC, PARNASSOS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY II, LLC, PARNASSOSHOLDINGS, LLC, PARNASSOS, LP, AND WESTERN NY CABLEVISION, LP, Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING LLC AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

AND

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST OF FLORIDA/PENNSYLVANIA, LP, COMCAST OF PENNSYLVANIA II, LP, AND COMCAST OF PLANO, LP, Defendants-Appellees,

AND

COXCOM, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

AND

FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY AND FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

AND

SHARP CORPORATION AND SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees,

AND

TIME WARNER CABLE LLC, TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT-ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP, AND TIME WARNER NEW YORK CABLE LLC (known as Time Warner NY Cable LLC), Defendants-Appellees,

AND

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ADELPHIA CONSOLIDATION LLC, AMBIT MICROSYSTEMS, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., MOTOROLA, INC., NETGEAR, INC., SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INC., AND THOMSON, INC., Defendants.

No. 2012-1022

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

September 13, 2012

This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case no. 07-MD-1848, Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet.

Michael J. Bonella, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, of Radnor, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was PAUL B. MlLCETIC. Of counsel was JennaM. Pellecchia.

David S. Benyacar, Kaye Scholer LLP, of New York, New York, for defendants-appellees Time Warner Cable, LLC, et al., and EDWARD R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, for defendants-appellees ABC, Inc., et al., argued for all defendants-appellees. With them on the brief were DANIEL L. REISNER, Kaye Scholer, LLP, of New York, New York, for Time Warner Cable, LLC, et al.; TIMOTHY C. SAULSBURY, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, for ABC, Inc., et al.; Mark A. Perry, Josh A. Krevitt, and Benjamin Hershkowitz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, DC, for CSC Holdings, Inc., et al.; Kevin D. Hogg and John R. Labbe, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, for Charter Communications Operating LLC, et al.; MITCHELL G. STOCKWELL, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, for CoxCom, Inc.; JEFFREY B. PLIES, Dechert LLP, of Austin, Texas, and MARTIN J. BLACK, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Fox Broadcasting Company, et al.; RICHARD H. BROWN III, Day Pitney LLP, of Parsippany, New Jersey, for Sharp Corporation, et al.; and Brian L. Ferrall, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, California, for Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc., et al. Of counsel were Sarah J. Kalemeris, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, for Charter Communications Operating LLC, et al; and JONATHAN B. Tropp, Day Pitney LLP, of Stamford, Connecticut, for Sharp Corporation, et al.

Before Rader Chief Judge, O'MALLEY, and Reyna, Circuit Judges.

O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Rembrandt Technologies, LP and Rembrandt Technologies, LLC ("Rembrandt") appeal the district court's entry of judgment in favor of the above-captioned defendants ("Defendants"). After the district court construed the disputed terms of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5, 243, 627 (the "'627 patent"), and in light of the court's constructions, Rembrandt and the Defendants agreed upon a stipulation that disposed of all infringement claims relating to the '627 patent. Because we find that the district court correctly construed the term "signal point, " we affirm the district court's entry of judgment.

Background

I.

The '627 patent, issued to William Betts and Edward Zuranski on August 22, 1991, discloses an improvement to a system and method for transmitting digital data across high data rate communications networks. Rembrandt has accused the Defendants of infringing the '627 patent by providing services using certain cable modems, or receiving and transmitting digital broadcast signals, that comply with the Advanced Television Systems Committee Digital Television Standard.

Communications channels used in connection with the claimed invention carry digital data across large distances through the use of analog carrier waves. Characteristics of the carrier wave, such as phase, frequency, or amplitude, are modulated—or altered—such that the transmitted signal represents the digital data input to the system. As described in more detail below, blocks of bits—referred to as signal points—correspond to permissible combinations of carrier wave characteristics and are encoded at the transmitter for transmission on the carrier wave at successive intervals. The receiver demodulates and decodes the received analog signal such that the transmitted digital bits are recovered.

In the context of the claimed invention, each modulated characteristic represents a dimension of the transmitted signal point. To transmit a particular set of bits, one inputs those bits into a Quadrature Amplitude Modulation ("QAM") encoder which outputs values into a modulator. The modulator then generates a carrier wave with the characteristics specified by the encoder. The transmitter sends the wave to the receiver, where the process used to transmit the signal point is performed in reverse, interpreting the characteristics of the carrier wave and from those determining the sent bits:

Thus referring to FIG. 4, the line signal transmitted by the transmitter of FIG. 3 is received from the channel and applied to demodulator/equalizer 455 which, in conventional fashion—including an input from phase tracking loop 457—generates a stream of outputs on lead 456 representing the demodulator/equalizer's best approximation of the values of the I and Q components of the signal points of the transmitted interleaved signal point stream. These outputs are referred to herein as the "received signal points."

'627 patent col. 5 11. 48-57. Figure 2 of the '627 patent shows a representative signal constellation comprised of signal points, with the axes of the constellation representing characteristics (referred to as I and Q) of the analog waveform modulated by the transmitter, and the signal points on the constellation representing strings of Is and Os, or bits.

IMAGE OMITTED

The signal points shown in Figure 2, e.g. Ao, are considered to be two-dimensional, in reference to the two characteristics, I and Q, represented on the x and y axis. The parties dispute whether "signal point, " as used in the '627 patent refers only to two-dimensional signal points such as those shown in Figure 2, or may include signal points having only a single dimension.

Data transmission in the manner described is susceptible to noise bursts which may alter the carrier waves prior to receipt. "Due to distortion and other channel impairments that the demodulator/equalizer is not able to compensate for...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP