Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 60 PageID #: 3425
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CA, INC. and AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE.
`LIMITED,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
` NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` Case No. 2:21-CV-00080-JRG-RSP
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On November 2, 2021, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`the disputed claim terms in in U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 (“the ’794 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,646,014 (“the ’014 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419 (“the ’419 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,402,098 (“the ’098 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,911,938 (“the ’938 Patent”). Having
`
`reviewed the arguments made by the Parties at the hearing and in their claim construction briefing
`
`(Dkt. Nos. 105, 112, 116) 1, having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made subsidiary
`
`factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim Construction
`
`Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`1 Citations to the Parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`1
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000001
`IPR2022-00322 (Netflix, Inc. v. CA, Inc.)
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 60 PageID #: 3426
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`APPLICABLE LAW .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ......................................................................... 13
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ................................................................... 14
`
`A. “receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a server
`from a client” ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`B. “maximizing” , “minimiz[es/ing]” , “substantially [minimizes]” ................... 21
`
`C. “when processed”............................................................................................ 30
`
`D. “processors operable to” and “processors . . . further operable to” ................ 34
`
`E. “transmission rate” .......................................................................................... 41
`
`F. “first time period” and “second time period” ................................................. 45
`
`G. “computing device” / “computing devices” .................................................... 48
`
`H. “the login information received from the first computing device” ................. 54
`
`I. “a third system”............................................................................................... 58
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000002
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 3 of 60 PageID #: 3427
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs CA, Inc. and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendant Netflix, Inc. infringes the Asserted Patents. Shortly before the start
`
`of the November 2, 2021 hearing, the Court provided the Parties with preliminary constructions
`
`with the aim of focusing the Parties’ arguments and facilitating discussion.
`
`The ’794 Patent, titled “Network Object Cache Engine,” issued on September 5, 2006, and
`
`was filed on June 8, 1998. The ’794 Patent generally relates to devices for caching objects
`
`transmitted using a computer network. ’794 Patent at 1:6–7. The Abstract of the ’794 Patent states:
`
`The invention provides a method and system for caching information objects
`transmitted using a computer network. A cache engine determines directly when
`and where to store those objects in a memory (such as RAM) and mass storage
`(such as one or more disk drives), so as to optimally write those objects to mass
`storage and later read them from mass storage, without having to maintain them
`persistently. The cache engine actively allocates those objects to memory or to disk,
`determines where on disk to store those objects, retrieves those objects in response
`to their network identifiers (such as their URLs), and determines which objects to
`remove from the cache so as to maintain sufficient operating space. The cache
`engine collects information to be written to disk in write episodes, so as to
`maximize efficiency when writing information to disk and so as to maximize
`efficiency when later reading that information from disk. The cache engine
`performs write episodes so as to atomically commit changes to disk during each
`write episode, so the cache engine does not fail in response to loss of power or
`storage, or other intermediate failure of portions of the cache. The cache engine
`also stores key system objects on each one of a plurality of disks, so as to maintain
`the cache holographic in the sense that loss of any subset of the disks merely
`decreases the amount of available cache. The cache engine also collects information
`to be deleted from disk in delete episodes, so as to maximize efficiency when
`deleting information from disk and so as to maximize efficiency when later writing
`to those areas having former deleted information. The cache engine responds to the
`addition or deletion of disks as the expansion or contraction of the amount of
`available cache.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’794 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed terms in italics):
`
`1. A method, including steps of:
`receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to
`a server from a client; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000003
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 4 of 60 PageID #: 3428
`
`maintaining said network objects in a cache memory in a cache
`engine, said cache engine connected via a network to the
`server and the client, said cache memory including mass
`storage;
`wherein said step of maintaining includes steps of recording said
`network objects in said cache memory and retrieving said
`network objects from said cache memory, so as to
`substantially minimizes a time required for retrieving said
`network objects from said mass storage.
`
`
`The ’014 Patent, titled “Multistream Video Communication with Staggered Access
`
`Points,” issued on February 4, 2014, and was filed on May 24, 2013. The ’014 Patent generally
`
`relates to a system and method that provides reduced latency in a video signal processing system.
`
`’014 Patent at 1:63–65. The Abstract of the ’014 Patent states:
`
`A system and method that provide reduced latency in a video signal processing
`system. Various aspects of the present invention may comprise transmitting a first
`video information stream representative of a unit of video information. For
`example, the transmitted first video information stream may correspond to a video
`channel. A second video information stream representative of the unit of video
`information may be transmitted simultaneously with the first video information
`stream. The second video information stream may also, for example, correspond to
`the video channel. Various aspects of the present invention may comprise receiving
`a plurality of simultaneously transmitted video information streams. A video
`information stream of the plurality of received video information streams may be
`identified that, when processed, is expected to result in the lowest latency in
`presenting the unit of video information to the user. The identified video
`information stream may then be so processed.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’014 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed term in italics):
`
`1. A method in a video receiving system for receiving video
`information, the method comprising:
`receiving, by a receiver, a request by a user for a unit of video
`information;
`receiving, by the receiver, a plurality of video information
`streams, each of which represents the requested unit of
`video information;
`identifying, by the receiver, which of the plurality of video
`information streams, when processed, is expected to result
`in a lower latency in presenting the unit of video
`information; and
`
`
`
`4
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000004
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 5 of 60 PageID #: 3429
`
` processing, by the receiver, the identified video information
`stream to present the unit of video information.
`
`
`The ’419 Patent, titled “Dynamic Distributed Evaluator,” issued on February 18, 2014, and
`
`was filed on July 2, 2009. The ’419 Patent generally relates to distributed computing, and more
`
`specifically to a dynamic distributed evaluator. ’419 Patent at 1:5–7. The Abstract of the ’419
`
`Patent states:
`
`According to one embodiment a first node of a network communicates with a
`second node of the network. The first node tells the second node to perform an
`operation and how to perform the operation using computer code. Additionally, the
`first node tells the second node what to do with the result of the operation.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’419 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed terms in italics):
`
`1.An apparatus, comprising a first node of a network, the first
`node comprising:
`an interface operable to:
`communicate with a second node of the network; and one or more
`processors operable to:
`tell a plurality of nodes to perform an operation comprising a
`procedure of an application, the plurality of nodes
`comprising a second node and one or more additional
`nodes;
`instruct the plurality of nodes how to perform the operation using
`computer code; and
`tell the plurality of nodes what to do with a result of the operation,
`and
`wherein the one or more processors does not know which one of
`the plurality of nodes will perform the operation.
`
`
`The ’098 Patent, titled “Fast Channel Change,” issued on July 26, 2016, and was filed on
`
`February 25, 2014. The ’098 Patent generally relates to a system and method that provides reduced
`
`latency in a video signal processing system. ’098 Patent at 1:42–44. The Abstract of the ’098
`
`Patent states:
`
`A request for a unit of video information is received from a remote video receiver.
`An initial transmission rate for the unit of video information is determined based at
`least in part on a decoder model and a typical steady-state transmission rate for the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000005
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 6 of 60 PageID #: 3430
`
`unit of video information. The initial transmission rate is faster than the typical
`steady-state transmission rate. For a first time period after receiving the request, a
`first portion of the unit of video information is transmitted to the remote video
`receiver at the initial transmission rate. The first time period, the initial transmission
`rate, or both are determined so as not to overflow an input buffer that is based at
`least in part on the decoder model. For a second time period after the first time
`period, a second portion of the unit of video information is transmitted to the remote
`video receiver at the typical steady-state transmission rate.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’098 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed terms in italics):
`
`1.A method, including steps of:
`receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to
`a server from a client; and
`maintaining said network objects in a cache memory in a cache
`engine, said cache engine connected via a network to the
`server and the client, said cache memory including mass
`storage;
`wherein said step of maintaining includes steps of recording said
`network objects in said cache memory and retrieving said
`network objects from said cache memory, so as to
`substantially minimizes a time required for retrieving said
`network objects from said mass storage.
`
`The ’938 Patent, titled “Method and System for a Networked Self-Configuring
`
`Communication Device Utilizing User Preference Information,” issued on February 2, 2021, and
`
`was filed on March 30, 2020. The ’938 Patent generally relates to a method and system for a
`
`networked self-configuring communication device utilizing user preference information. ’938
`
`Patent at 1:59–61. The Abstract of the ’938 Patent states:
`
`A first electronic device may enable generation, updating, and/or storage of user
`configuration information. The user configuration information may comprise
`information pertaining to device configuration and/or operational preferences
`specific to the device user and/or various use settings, connectivity, and/or use of
`available resources. The generation, updating, and/or storage of the user
`configuration information may be performed manually and/or automatically, and
`may be performed directly within the first electronic device and/or via networked
`devices, which may communicatively coupled to the first electronic device. A
`second electronic device may be enabled to be communicatively coupled to the first
`electronic device and/or the networked devices. The second electronic device may
`then be enabled to download existing user configuration information from the first
`
`
`
`6
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000006
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 7 of 60 PageID #: 3431
`
`electronic device and/or the networked device, and the downloaded user
`configuration may be utilized to configure the second electronic device.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’938 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed terms in italics):
`
`1. A system comprising:
`a plurality of computing devices connected via one or more
`networks, wherein the system is configured to receive login
`information corresponding to a first user; identify the first
`user based on
`the
`login
`information; retrieve user
`configuration information corresponding to the first user;
`control provision of a media content streaming service to a first
`computing device of the plurality of computing devices
`based on the user configuration information corresponding
`to the first user;
`update the user configuration information corresponding to the
`first user based on the provision of the media content
`streaming service to the first computing device;
`receive login information corresponding to the first user from a
`second computing device of the plurality of computing
`devices;
`identify the first user based on the login information received
`from the second computing device;
`retrieve
`the
`updated
`user
`configuration
`corresponding to the first user; and
`control provision of the media content streaming service to the
`second computing device based on the updated user
`configuration information corresponding to the first user.
`
`information
`
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`II.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which 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.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
`
`considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; 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 Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d
`
`
`
`7
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000007
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 8 of 60 PageID #: 3432
`
`1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
`
`term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure
`
`Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted)
`
`(“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant
`
`community at the relevant time.”) cert. granted, judgment vacated, 135 S. Ct. 1846 (2015).
`
`“The claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`“[I]n all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)) overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because
`
`claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim
`
`terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim
`
`adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does 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. (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he
`
`specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
`
`
`
`8
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000008
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 9 of 60 PageID #: 3433
`
`it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms,
`
`give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
`
`disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id.
`
`The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
`
`the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. But,
`
`“‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim
`
`language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally
`
`be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988));
`
`see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred
`
`embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims
`
`absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so
`
`limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
`
`and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic
`
`
`
`9
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000009
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 10 of 60 PageID #: 3434
`
`Alts., Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution history
`
`may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic
`
`record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad
`
`or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are not helpful to a court. Id. Extrinsic evidence is “less reliable
`
`than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The
`
`Supreme Court has explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
`
`In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for
`example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during
`the relevant time period. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`“evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman,
`and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015).
`
`B.
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either
`
`
`
`10
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000010
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 11 of 60 PageID #: 3435
`
`in the specification or during prosecution.”2 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the
`
`plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding
`
`lexicography or disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366
`
`(“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a
`
`claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`C. Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA)
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence,
`
`
`2 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the
`general rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to
`cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000011
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 12 of 60 PageID #: 3436
`
`must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). If it does not, the claim fails §
`
`112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid as indefinite. Id. at 901. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined
`
`from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application for the patent
`
`was filed. Id. at 911. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any claim in suit
`
`to comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. BASF Corp. v. Johnson
`
`Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in
`
`effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent
`
`provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783
`
`F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when a subjective term is
`
`used in a claim, “a court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some standard
`
`for measuring the scope of the [term].” Ernie Ball, Inc. v. Earvana, LLC, 502 F. App’x 971, 980
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The standard “must provide objective boundaries for those of
`
`skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`D. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`Where a claim limitation is expressed in “means plus function” language and does not
`
`recite definite structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6 mandates that “such a claim limitation ‘be construed to cover the corresponding structure
`
`. . . described in the specification and equivalents thereof.’” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6).
`
`Accordingly, when faced with means-plus-function limitations, courts “must turn to the written
`
`
`
`12
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000012
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 13 of 60 PageID #: 3437
`
`description of the patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the
`
`[limitations].” Id.
`
`Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple steps. “The first step in
`
`construing [a means-plus-function] limitation is a determination of the function of the means-plus-
`
`function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). Once a court has determined the limitation’s function, “the next step is to
`
`determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id.
`
`A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or
`
`prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”
`
`Id. Moreover, the focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a structure
`
`is capable of performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is
`
`“clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Id.
`
`
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`The Parties agreed to the construction of the following term in their P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim
`
`Construction Charts.
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“a process”
`(’419 Patent, Claim 7)
`
`“. . . upon expiration of a timer,”
`(’419 Patent, Claim 15)
`
`“access points”
`(’014 Patent, Claims 3, 10)
`
`Agreed Construction
`“a process”
`
`
`“. . . upon expiration of a timer.” 3
`
`“points at which decoding (or further processing)
`of a video stream may conveniently begin”
`
`
`3 At the claim construction Hearing, the Parties informed the Court that the Joint Claim
`Construction Chart for this term included a typographical error. The above construction, which
`uses “of,” is the construction the Parties intended to include in the Joint Claim Construction Charts.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000013
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 14 of 60 PageID #: 3438
`
`Dkt. No. 118 at 1. In view of the Parties’ agreement on the proper construction of the identified
`
`terms, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`The Parties’ dispute the meaning and scope of twelve terms or phrases in the Asserted
`
`Patents. Each dispute is addressed below.
`
`
`
`A. “receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a
`server from a client”
`
`Disputed Term
`“receiving a set of
`network objects in
`response to a first
`request to a server from
`a client”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`“receiving a set of network
`objects at the cache engine in
`response to a first request to a
`server from a client”
`and
`Ordering required (the
`“receiving a set of network
`objects. . .” step must be
`performed before other asserted
`claim steps)
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`The Parties dispute two issues.4 First, whether the “receiving a set of network objects”
`
`limitation in Claims 1, 9, and 17 occurs “at the cache engine,” as Defendant proposes. Second, the
`
`Parties dispute whether the “receiving a set of network objects” step must occur before the step of
`
`“maintaining said network objects in a cache memory in a cache engine,” as Defendant proposes.
`
`Regarding the first issue, Plaintiff contends that the specification details several ways that a cache
`
`engine can operate, including reactively or proactively. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s
`
`
`4 The Parties’ arguments for this disputed phrase can be found in Plaintiff’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 105 at 9-12) (citing ’794 Patent at 5:20‒52); Defendant’s Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 112 at 17-22) (citing ’794 Patent at 3:42–51, 5:26–42; Dkt.
`No. 112-3 at 6, 8, 10, 11); and Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 116 at 4-6)
`(citing ’794 Patent at 5:29–31, 5:40–42; Dkt. No. 112-3 at 6).
`
`
`
`14
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1029, Page 000014
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP Document 164 Filed 11/16/21 Page 15 of 60 PageID #: 3439
`
`construction reads a preferred embodiment out of the claims. Plaintiff further argues that the claims
`
`do not require that the “receiving” must always be done “at the cache engine.”
`
`Regarding the second issue, Plaintiff argues that nothing in the claim language requires
`
`that a cache engine must hold off storing network objects in cache until a client device requests
`
`them. Plaintiff further contends that