Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-205-LY |
| Parties | AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, PLAINTIFF, v. CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC.; CUMULUS MEDIA, INC.; AND UNIVISION INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC. DEFENDANTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Before the court are the parties' Joint Claim Construction Statement filed January 4, 2013 (Clerk's Doc. No. 84); Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC's Opening Claim Construction Brief filed January 18, 2013 (Clerk's Doc. No. 89); Defendants Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., Cumulus Media, Inc., and Univision Interactive Media, Inc.'s Opening Claim Construction Brief filed January 18, 2013 (Clerk's Doc. No. 90); Defendants' Reply Claim Construction Brief filed February 8, 2013 (Clerk's Doc. No. 93); Plaintiff's Reply Claim Construction Brief filed February 8, 2013 (Clerk's Doc. No. 94); and the parties' claim-construction presentations.
The court held a claim-construction hearing on February 22, 2013. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). After considering the patent and its prosecution history, the parties' claim-construction briefs, the applicable law regarding claim construction, and argument of counsel, the court now renders its order with regard to claim construction.
The court renders this memorandum opinion and order to construe the claims of the patent-in-suit in this cause, U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379 ("the '379 patent"). Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC ("Affinity") asserts claims against Defendants1 Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., Cumulus Media, Inc., and Univision Interactive Media, Inc. for infringement of the '379 Patent. Clear Channel, by counterclaim, seeks declaratory judgments of both noninfringement and invalidity of the '379 Patent. The asserted patent generally relates to systems and methods for wirelessly communicating selective broadcast information to an electronic device.
Determining infringement is atwo-step process. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 976 (). First, the meaning and scope of the relevant claims must be ascertained. Id. Second, the properly construed claims must be compared to the accused device. Id. Step one, claim construction, is the current issue before the court.
The court construes patent claims without the aid of a jury. See Markman 52 F.3d at 979. The "words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWE Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Id. at 1313. The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemedto have read the claim term in the context of the entire patent. Id. Therefore, to ascertain the meaning of claims, courts must look to the claims, the specification, and the patent's prosecution history. Id. at 1314-17; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979.
Claim language guides the court's construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. "[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because "terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent." Id. Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
Claims must also be read "in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted). In the specification, a patentee may define a term to have a meaning that differs from the meaning that the term would otherwise possess. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In such cases, the patentee's lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also reveal a patentee's intent to disclaim or disavow claim scope. Id. Such intentions are dispositive for claim construction. Id. Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because it demonstrates how the inventor understood the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. A patentee may serve as his own lexicographer and define a disputed term in prosecuting a patent.Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2004). Similarly, distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art during prosecution indicates what the claims do not cover. Spectrum Int'l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed.Cir.1988). The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer precludes patentees from recapturing specific meanings that were previously disclaimed during prosecution. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2003). Disclaimers of claim scope must be clear and unambiguous. Middleton, Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Although "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language," the court may rely on extrinsic evidence to "shed useful light on the relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help the court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid the court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but "conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful." Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms." Id. Extrinsic evidence may be useful when considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence, id. at 1319, but it cannot "alter a claim construction dictated by a proper analysis of the intrinsic evidence." On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A. Disputed Terms
The parties dispute the construction of five terms.2 The following table summarizes the parties' proposed constructions of the disputed terms.
Affinity's Proposed Construction
Clear Channel's Proposed
(Claim 1)
[No construction necessary]
Or, if construed:
(Claim 14)
(Claim 5)
[No construction necessary]
Or, if construed:
(Claim 21)
[No construction necessary]
Or, if construed:
The parties' only dispute over this term centers on whether the nontransitory memory described in the claim must be located in the cellular telephone device or not. Clear Channel argues that the claims and specification require that the memory must be in the telephone device; Affinity counters that there is no support to so limit the claim. Primarily, Affinity asserts that no construction is necessary. However, Affinity also concedes that if construction is required, most of Clear Channel's proposal is acceptable, with the exception of the "in the wireless cellular telephone device that stores" clause.
Clear Channel first argues that the claim must be read as being divided into two separate clauses referencing first "a network based resource" and second a "a...
To continue reading
Request your trial