Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 4996
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 1 of 7 Page|D #: 4996
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`
`CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`: Civ. Act. No. O4—l436—JJF—LPS
`
`MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC
`
`INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`
`:
`
`CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`: Civ. Act. No. 06-403-JJF-LPS
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
`et al.,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`CONSULTANTS,
`INC.,
`
`;
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`; Civ. Act. No. 06-404-JJF—LPS
`
`PALM,
`
`INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 1 of 7 Page|D #: 4996
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`
`CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`: Civ. Act. No. O4—l436—JJF—LPS
`
`MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC
`
`INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`
`:
`
`CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`: Civ. Act. No. 06-403-JJF-LPS
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
`et al.,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`CONSULTANTS,
`INC.,
`
`;
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`; Civ. Act. No. 06-404-JJF—LPS
`
`PALM,
`
`INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 4997
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 2 of 7 Page|D #: 4997
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`
`CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`: Civ. Act. No. O8-37l—JJF-LPS
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD.,
`
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY :
`
`CONSULTANTS,
`
`INC.,
`
`'
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`; Civ. Act. No. O8-373—JJF—LPS
`
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Objections to
`
`Magistrate Judge Stark’s Report And Recommendation Regarding
`
`Claim Construction (D.I. 599 in Civ. Act. No. O4—1436—JJF—LPS;
`
`D.I. 319 in Civ. Act. No. O6—403—JJF—LPS; D.I. 369 in Civ. Act.
`
`No. O6—404—JJF—LPS; D.I. 257 in O8—371—JJF—LPS; D.I. 177 in Civ.
`
`Act. No. O8—373—JJF—LPS).
`
`For the reasons discussed,
`
`the Court
`
`will overrule the Objections and adopt Magistrate Judge Stark’s
`
`Report and Recommendation (D.I. 531 in Civ. Act. No. O4—1436—JJF-
`
`LPS; D.I.
`
`299 in Civ. Act. No. O6—403—JJF—LPS; D.I. 334 in Civ.
`
`Act. No. O6—404—JJF—LPS; D.I. 229 in O8—371—JJF—LPS; D.I. 163 in
`
`Civ. Act. NO. 08-373-JJF-LPS).
`
`
`
`Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 4998
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 3 of 7 Page|D #: 4998
`
`I .
`
`PARTIES ’ CONTENT IONS
`
`Defendants contend that Magistrate Judge Stark failed to
`
`properly consider new extrinsic evidence from the reexamination
`
`proceedings in considering the claim terms in dispute.
`
`In this
`
`regard, Defendants contend that Magistrate Judge Stark should
`
`have given deference to the PTO’s broadest reasonable claim
`
`construction, because the PTO allowed the claims to emerge from
`
`the reexamination proceedings without amendment.
`
`In particular,
`
`Defendants object to the following terms defined by Magistrate
`
`Judge Stark in the Report and Recommendation:
`
`different data formats;” various terms using the word
`
`“plurality of
`\\'
`image;”
`
`“electronic camera” and “digital camera”; “storage device,”
`\\
`digital memory” and memory element;” and several terms which
`
`Defendants contend should be construed as means plus function
`
`terms. Defendants also contend that the steps of certain method
`
`claims must be performed in a particular order.
`
`In addition,
`
`Defendants contend that Magistrate Judge Stark failed to consider
`
`and rule upon several claim construction terms presented in
`
`Defendants’ briefs, specifically “digital electronic information
`
`signals,” “digital electronic signal,” “digital image signal,”
`
`and “digital data information signals.”
`
`In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ objections
`
`reiterate arguments that have already been rejected by this Court
`
`on more than one occasion. Plaintiff contends that Magistrate
`
`
`
`Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4999
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 4 of 7 Page|D #: 4999
`
`Judge Stark properly considered the PTO’s claim construction
`
`opinions but,
`
`in accordance with Federal Circuit precedent,
`
`properly concluded that the PTO’s opinions do not limit or trump
`
`the Court's claim construction. Plaintiff also contends that
`
`Defendants’ proposed claim constructions are inconsistent with
`
`the preferred embodiment and specifications of the patents in
`
`suit.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`72(b)(3),
`
`the Court may accept, reject, or modify the
`
`recommendations of the magistrate judge.
`
`The court may also
`
`receive further evidence or return the matter to the magistrate
`
`judge with instructions for proceeding. Objections to the
`
`magistrate judge's conclusions with regard to the legal issue of
`
`claim construction are reviewed dg ngvg.
`
`28 U.S.C. §
`
`636(b)(l)(C).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court has reviewed the objections raised by Defendants
`
`and concludes that Magistrate Judge Stark did not err in his
`
`claim construction decisions.
`
`In reaching this conclusion,
`
`the
`
`Court notes that it has considered and rejected many of
`
`Defendants’ arguments in the context of previous litigation
`
`concerning the patents-in—suit.
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Property
`
`Consultants,
`
`Inc. v. Canon, Inc., 2004 WL 1941340 (D. Del. Aug.
`
`
`
`Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5000
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 5 of 7 Page|D #: 5000
`
`31, 2004); St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants,
`
`Inc. V.
`
`Sony Corporation, 2002 WL 31051605 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2002).
`
`However, as Magistrate Judge Stark properly noted,
`
`these
`
`constructions are not dispositive here because several Defendants
`
`were clearly not parties to the prior actions.
`
`Nevertheless,
`
`the Court is not persuaded that its previous
`
`constructions are erroneous, and in the Court's view, Magistrate
`
`Judge Stark’s proposed constructions for all the terms,
`
`regardless of whether they were considered previously by the
`
`Court, are consistent with the plain language of the claims and
`
`the specifications of the patents—in—suit. Further,
`
`the Court
`
`cannot conclude that Magistrate Judge Stark erred in his
`
`consideration of the PTO’s statements during claim construction.
`
`Magistrate Judge Stark gave the PTO's statements due
`
`consideration, but correctly noted that they are not dispositive
`
`with regard to the Court's claim construction which must be
`
`rendered ge novo.
`
`As for the claim terms which Defendants contend that
`
`Magistrate Judge Stark failed to consider,
`
`the Court notes that
`
`these terms are related to the term “image,” and Defendants’
`
`construction concerns for these terms implicate the issue of
`
`whether an image can comprise full motion video. Plaintiff did
`
`not propose constructions for these terms, and the Court notes
`
`that Magistrate Judge Stark adopted Plaintiff's contention that
`
`
`
`Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 5001
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 6 of 7 Page|D #: 5001
`
`the term “image
`
`does not require construction. Specifically,
`
`II
`
`the Magistrate Judge stated, “I agree with St. Clair that no
`
`construction is necessary, and certainly not a construction that
`If
`
`would limit the claims to ‘still pictures.’
`
`(Report
`
`&
`
`Recommendation at 20). Given Magistrate Judge Stark’s conclusion
`
`regarding the construction of the term “image,” which the Court
`
`adopts,
`
`the Court is not persuaded that these additional terms
`
`require construction.
`
`In sum,
`
`the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stark’s
`
`conclusions and fully adopts the rationale set forth in his
`
`Report and Recommendation. Accordingly,
`
`the Court will overrule
`
`Defendants’ Objections and adopt Magistrate Judge Stark’s Report
`
`and Recommendation on claim construction.
`
`NOW THEREFORE,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
`
`l.
`
`Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Stark’s
`
`Report And Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction (D.I. 599
`
`in Civ. Act. No. O4—l436—JJF—LPS; D.I. 319 in Civ. Act. No. 06-
`
`403—JJF—LPS; D.I. 369 in Civ. Act. No. O6—404—JJF—LPS; D.I. 257
`
`in O8—37l—JJF—LPS; D.I. 177 in Civ. Act. No. O8—373—JJF—LPS) are
`
`OVERRULED.
`
`2. Magistrate Judge Stark’s Report and Recommendation
`
`Regarding Claim Construction (D.I. 531 in Civ. Act. No. 04-1436-
`
`JJF~LPS; D.I.
`
`299 in Civ. Act. No. 06-403-JJF-LPS; D.I. 334 in
`
`
`
`Case 1:08-cv-00373-LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 5002
`Case l:O8—cv—OO373—LPS Document 230 Filed 02/24/10 Page 7 of 7 Page|D #: 5002
`
`Civ. Act. No. O6—404-JJF—LPS; D.I. 229 in O8-371-JJF—LPS; D.I.
`
`163 in Civ. Act. No. O8-373—JJF—LPS)
`
`is ADOPTED.
`
`February
`
`DATE
`
`£1
`
`, 2010
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
