Google et al. lose claim construction issue in HBAC case at CAFC

The outcome was adverse to Google, and the other defendants
[ YOUTUBE, LLC, ESPN, INC.,
YAHOO! INC., BRAVO MEDIA LLC, NBC
ENTERTAINMENT, UNIVERSAL TELEVISION
NETWORKS, CBS INTERACTIVE, INC., DISNEY
ONLINE, AMERICAN BROADCASTING
COMPANIES, INC., VEVO LLC, VIACOM
INTERNATIONAL INC., BLIP NETWORKS, INC ]:


HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. appeals from stipulated
final judgments of noninfringement entered by the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
following claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 6,002,393
(the “ ’393 patent”). Because the district court erred in
construing the term “head end system,” we vacate the
stipulated judgments of noninfringement and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



The CAFC noted that the district court judge Robinson had
erred:


In this case, the district court erred in construing the
term “head end system” to require a TV system that
“necessarily utilizes” a conventional television set or settop
box. First, the claims themselves nowhere indicate
that a “head end system” is limited to a TV system. To
the contrary, independent claims 55 and 56 specifically
add a TV limitation, reciting “a method for targeting TV
advertisements from a head end system.” ’393 patent
col. 19 ll. 29, 58. The district court’s construction thus
introduces avoidable redundancy into the language of the
claims. We have repeatedly emphasized that a “claim
construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the
claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Merck &
Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2005).



Extrinsic evidence is considered:


We thus look outside the specification of
the ’393 patent to discern the meaning of “head end
system” to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention. Contemporaneous technical dictionaries
demonstrate that, at the time of the invention, “head end”
was broadly understood as the origination point in a
communication system and was not limited to a conventional
TV or cable system. For example, a 1995 technical
dictionary defines “head end” as “[t]he originating point in
a communications system.” J.A. 923, The Computer
Glossary 177 (7th ed. 1995). It describes that in cable TV,
“the head end is where the cable company has its satellite
dish and TV antenna for receiving incoming programming.”
Id. It further states, though, that in the context of
“online services, the head end is the service company’s
computer system and databases.” Id. Another 1995
technical dictionary describes “headend” as a term that is
“becoming a general purpose term for describing source
nodes in the architecture of the information superhighway
that are responsible for storing and serving up the various
elements of content that users of the highway want.”
J.A. 928, Multimedia Technology from A to Z 77 (1995).
The dictionary continues, stating that “[a]s the superhighway
takes greater shape, headends will provide mass
storage of multimedia content . . . .” Id. Other contemporaneous
dictionaries demonstrate that a cable head end is
just one example of a head end system. See, e.g., J.A. 941,
Novell’s Complete Encyclopedia of Networking 437 (1995)
(“Head end: In a broadband network, the starting point
for transmissions to end users.



In THIS case, the CAFC found NO disavowal:


Appellees argue that the specification focuses on conventional
TV delivery systems, and therefore, the term
“head end system” should be so limited. While the specification
discloses and the figures depict a preferred embodiment
in which the invention is used in a conventional
TV system, the specification does not disclaim or disavow
the use of a “head end system” with the internet as a
video-content delivery system. In this respect, the specification
does no more than describe preferred embodiments,
and we have repeatedly “cautioned against limiting the
claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific
examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix
Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1328). As such, the specification
should not be used to limit the term “head end
system.” The district court thus erred in restricting the
construction of “head end system” to a conventional TV
system.




**
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-00428-SLR-SRF,
1:13-cv-00429-SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-00430-SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-
00433-SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-00436-SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-00437-
SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-00438-SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-00962-SLRSRF,
Judge Sue L. Robinson.


**Separately on 1 June 2016: