United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1574
TIVO, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION,
ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
ECHOSPHERE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
and ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC,
Defendants-Appellants.
Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Edward C. DuMont, Lauren
Fletcher, and Daniel S. Volchok. Of counsel on the brief were Morgan Chu, Laura W.
Brill, Andrei Iancu, and Alexander C.D. Giza, Irell & Manella, LLP, of Los Angeles,
California; and Herbert F. Schwartz, Ropes & Gray, LLP, New York, New York. Of
counsel were Christine W.S. Byrd, Perry M. Goldberg, and Brian E. Jones.
Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P, of
Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were Don O.
Burley, Andrew J. Vance, of Washington, DC; and Erik R. Puknys, of Palo Alto,
California. Of counsel on the brief were Harold McElhinny, Rachel Krevans, and Karl
J. Kramer, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, of San Francisco, California.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Judge David J. Folsom
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1574
TIVO, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION,
ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
ECHOSPHERE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
and ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
in case no. 2:04-CV-01, Judge David Folsom.
___________________________
DECIDED: January 31, 2008
___________________________
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and KEELEY, Chief
District Judge. *
BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
TiVo, Inc., owns a patent on technology that enables television users to “time-
shift” television signals, that is, to record a television program in digital format and
enable the user to replay, pause, fast forward, or reverse while the program is playing
*
Honorable Irene M. Keeley, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
on the user’s television set. The technology enables time shifting both for previously
recorded programs and for programs that are currently being recorded. In 2004, TiVo
sued the five appellants, collectively referred to as EchoStar, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that they had infringed various
claims of the patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 (“the ’389 patent”).
The claims of the ’389 patent that were asserted at trial included so-called
“hardware” claims (claims 1 and 32) and “software” claims (claims 31 and 61). Those
four claims are the only ones at issue in this appeal. The accused devices are two
types of EchoStar digital video recorders (“DVRs”), which the parties refer to as the
“50X” DVRs and the “Broadcom” DVRs. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found
that the 50X DVRs literally infringed the asserted hardware and software claims. The
jury found that the Broadcom DVRs literally infringed the asserted hardware claims and
infringed the asserted software claims under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury
awarded TiVo a total of $73,991,964 in damages ($32,663,906 in lost profits and
$41,328,058 in reasonable royalties). The district court entered judgment on the verdict
and issued a permanent injunction against EchoStar. On EchoStar’s motion, this court
granted a stay of the injunction pending appeal.
I
The accused DVRs and the DVRs described in the patent both receive television
signals and store data relating to the transmissions on a hard disk in Motion Picture
Expert Group (“MPEG”) format. An MPEG stream typically has interleaved audio and
video components. Both the accused devices and the devices described in the patent
can store the MPEG data and subsequently transform it for replay. The storage of the
2006-1574 2
television programs as MPEG data enables users to control the playback of programs,
including those that are currently being broadcast, with commands such as pause, fast
forward, and reverse.
Television programs are typically transmitted in one of three ways: “over the air”
from a ground-based transmitter for reception by a user’s television antenna; through a
cable; or by satellite. Over-the-air and cable transmissions can be used to broadcast
either analog or digital television, while satellite services typically broadcast digital
television only. The most common format for analog television signals in the United
States is the National Television Standards Committee (“NTSC”) standard. The
corresponding European broadcast standard for analog television signals is Phase
Alternating Line (“PAL”). Digital television standards include the Digital Satellite System
(“DSS”), Digital Broadcast Services (“DBS”), and Advanced Television Standards
Committee (“ATSC”).
Both analog and digitally encoded television programs that are transmitted over
the air are transmitted using high frequency analog carrier waves that are capable of
traveling long distances. The Federal Communications Commission has partitioned the
analog broadcast signal range into six-megahertz (“MHz”) bands for such
transmissions. A single six-MHz band can carry a single television channel in analog
form or several channels in digital form by interleaving (multiplexing) the signals
corresponding to the various channels in a digital format such as MPEG.
The two “hardware claims” at issue in this case relate to the process and
apparatus used to effect time shifting according to the invention. The two “software
claims” relate to the software process and apparatus used in the invention.
2006-1574 3
Claim 1 of the ’389 patent, the first of the two asserted hardware claims, provides
as follows:
A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of
multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
[1] accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV
signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to,
National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL
broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
[2] tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
[3] providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section
converts said specific program to an [sic] Moving Pictures Experts Group
(MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
[4] providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses
said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and
audio components;
[5] storing said video and audio components on a storage device;
[6] providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output
Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage
device;
[7] wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio
components into an MPEG stream;
[8] wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a
decoder;
[9] wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV
output signals;
[10] wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV
receiver; and
[11] accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control
commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG
stream.
Claim 32, the other asserted hardware claim, is similar, except that it claims an
apparatus rather than a process.
A
EchoStar’s accused DVRs receive analog and digital signals, but they conduct
time shifting only for digital satellite signals. EchoStar argues that the district court
2006-1574 4
committed legal error when it failed to construe the two hardware claims to require that
the subject devices be capable of time shifting analog as well as digital signals and
when the court failed to grant EchoStar’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on that
ground. EchoStar’s DVRs do not infringe, according to EchoStar, because they can
process only one type of digital television signal and are incapable of processing analog
television signals at all. In making that argument, EchoStar focuses on the first three
limitations of claims 1 and 32, each of which, according to EchoStar, makes clear that
the hardware claims do not apply to digital-only DVRs such as its accused devices.
1
EchoStar begins with the first limitation of the hardware claims, which recites the
step of “accepting . . . broadcast signals . . . based on a multitude of standards.”
EchoStar notes that in the “accepting” limitation the reference to “a multitude of
standards” is followed by the words “including but not limited to, National Television
Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmissions, DSS,
DBS, or ATSC.” Because some of those broadcast standards apply to analog signals
and some to digital signals, EchoStar contends that the “accepting” limitation requires
that the claimed DVR be capable of processing both types of signals. EchoStar does
not make clear how many different standards it believes the claimed device must be
capable of processing. In its reply brief it suggests at one point that the number must
be greater than three. At a minimum, however, EchoStar seems to contend that an
accused DVR cannot infringe the hardware claims if it is not capable of processing at
least one type of analog signal and at least one type of digital signal.
2006-1574 5
TiVo responds that EchoStar’s argument is based on an unduly restrictive
interpretation of the claim language. First, TiVo argues that the hardware claims require
only that the accused products “accept” television signals based upon a multitude of
standards, not that they “process” all such signals. Because EchoStar’s accused
devices accept analog television signals and forward them to the user’s television set
for real-time viewing, TiVo argues that those devices infringe the “accepting” limitation
even though they do not process the analog signals by converting them to MPEG
streams suitable for internal storage. Second, TiVo argues that EchoStar’s devices
process signals that are based on numerous standards, such as the MPEG2 Transport
standard, the MPEG2 video standard, and in most cases the MPEG1 audio standard.
For that reason, TiVo contends, EchoStar’s DVRs infringe the “accepting” limitation
even if that limitation is understood to require processing of the “accepted” signals.
EchoStar replies to TiVo’s characterization of the “accepting” limitation by saying,
first, that the claim language must be understood to link the “acceptance” and the
“processing” of signals, so that the signals that are accepted are also processed in
accordance with the other limitations of the invention. In support of that argument,
EchoStar points out that the “tuning” limitation, which sets forth the first step in the
processing operation, states that the tuning is performed on “said TV signals,” referring
generically to the signals first identified in the “accepting” limitation. The patent contains
no reference to signals that are simply passed through the DVR without the processing
described in the rest of the claim limitations.
EchoStar replies to TiVo’s second argument by contending that the reference in
the claims to the “multitude of standards” as including, but not limited to, “(NTSC)
2006-1574 6
broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DDS, DBS, or ATSC” is a reference to
broadcast standards, and that the “standards” limitation cannot be satisfied by reference
to data standards, such as the MPEG2 Transport, MPEG2 video, and MPEG1 audio
standards cited by TiVo.
While the language of the “accepting” limitation is not very precise, we agree with
the trial court that it does not require that a DVR be capable of time shifting both digital
and analog signals, as EchoStar argues. Even EchoStar does not contend that the
claimed DVR must be capable of processing signals transmitted under all of the listed
broadcast standards. Although the claim refers to the recited television signals as being
“based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to” the particular specified
standards, the use of the word “or” in the list of standards makes it clear that the claim
language does not require that the claimed device be capable of processing signals
based on all of the listed standards. The specification likewise demonstrates that the
claim language should not be given such a restrictive interpretation. At several points,
the specification refers to a DVR that accepts television input streams “in a multitude of
forms, for example, analog forms such as National Television Standards Committee
(NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms such as Digital Satellite System (DSS),
Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or Advanced Television Standards Committee
(ATSC).” ’389 patent, col. 2, ll. 4-10 (emphasis added); see also id., col. 3, ll. 32-37.
Nor is there anything in the specification to suggest that the claimed DVR must
be capable of time shifting at least one type of analog television signal as well as digital
signals. At various points, the specification describes how analog signals are
processed and then describes how digital signals are processed. The specification also
2006-1574 7
describes, as a “preferred embodiment” of the invention, a DVR that “takes television
streams in a multitude of forms,” including analog and digital and converts those signals
into “MPEG streams.” See id., col. 3, ll. 30-44. But nowhere does the specification
indicate that in all embodiments of the invention a single DVR must be capable of
processing and converting both analog and digital signals into such MPEG streams. In
fact, the specification contains one embodiment that seems to contemplate a DVR that
processes only digital signals. See id., col. 6, ll. 30-36. That embodiment is based on
Figure 7 of the patent, a schematic depiction of the Media Switch that is at the heart of
the invention. After describing how Figure 7 operates to process analog signals, the
specification adds the following: “If a digital TV signal is being processed instead, the
MPEG encoder is replaced with an MPEG2 Transport Demultiplexor, and the MPEG
audio encoder and VBI decoder are deleted.” Id., col. 6, ll. 30-33. Modified in that
fashion, the Media Switch would accept only digital signals. That digital-only
embodiment of the Media Switch therefore seems to contradict EchoStar’s contention
that the claims require that the DVR be capable of processing both analog and digital
transmissions.
Even after rejecting EchoStar’s main contention that the “accepting” limitation
requires that the claimed DVR accept both analog and digital transmissions, the
meaning of the “accepting” limitation is still not entirely clear. In particular, it is less than
clear what meaning should be assigned to the term “a multitude of standards” in the
“accepting” limitation. As to EchoStar’s argument that the claimed DVR must be
capable of processing signals based on some undetermined number of standards
greater than one, it seems unlikely that a claim drafter would use a term of such biblical
2006-1574 8
imprecision as “multitude” if that term were meant to have an important restrictive
function in the claim. On the other hand, if the drafter intended to require only that the
DVR be capable of processing signals based on “one or more” broadcast standards,
including but not limited to those referred to in the limitation, it is difficult to understand
why the drafter would not have used that very common (and clear) manner of
expressing the idea.
In the end, we conclude that the interpretation of the “accepting” limitation that is
least problematic is the one proposed by TiVo—that the reference to the “multitude of
standards” includes not only broadcast standards of the type set forth in the claim, but
also data standards of the type identified in the written description portion of the
specification. See ’389 patent, col. 3, ll. 38-43. On several occasions, the written
description refers to the broadcast standards as “forms,” and refers to the data
standards as “standards.” See id., col. 2, l. 5; col. 3, ll. 35, 38. While that choice of
terms may not be the product of careful and consistent usage, it at least reflects that the
patent did not use the term “standard” as a term of art restricted to broadcast standards.
In the absence of any more convincing interpretation of the “accepting” limitation, we
adopt that interpretation. Because the evidence at the trial showed that, interpreted in
that fashion, EchoStar’s devices were capable of accepting and processing television
signals based on numerous data standards, we hold that the jury’s verdict with respect
to the “accepting” limitation is supported by substantial evidence.
2
EchoStar next argues that because its DVRs process only digital signals and not
analog signals, they do not satisfy the second limitation of the asserted hardware
2006-1574 9
claims, which recites the step of “tuning said TV signals to a specific program.”
EchoStar explains that the six-MHz band used to transmit digital television signals
carries a multiplexed signal that contains data for multiple television programs. Thus,
unlike the case of analog transmissions, in which a single program is carried on a
particular segment of the broadcast band, EchoStar argues that tuning to a particular
six-MHz band does not constitute tuning “to a specific program.” The trial court rejected
that argument, holding that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘a specified
program’ to mean ‘a specified frequency range.’”
The language of the “tuning” limitation is not by its terms limited to locating a
place on the broadcast band that carries only a single program. That is, nothing about
the phrase “tuning . . . to a specific program” excludes tuning to the six-MHz portion of
the band that carries the specific program of interest, even if a further process, such as
demultiplexing, is required to extract the data corresponding to that program from the
band to which the DVR has been tuned. If a program is contained within a channel that
contains multiple, multiplexed programs, then tuning to a program that is contained
within the channel is accomplished by tuning to that channel.
Significantly, the specification of the ’389 patent describes an embodiment in
which the DVR “tunes . . . to a particular program” by tuning to the particular six-MHz
band that contains the multiplexed digital signal that includes the program of interest. At
that point tuning is complete. The device then extracts the program from the signal that
was carried on the six-MHz band by demultiplexing and generating an MPEG stream.
’389 patent, col. 3, ll. 46-49 (“The Input Section 101 tunes the channel to a particular
program, extracts a specific MPEG program out of it, and feeds it to the rest of the
2006-1574 10
system.”). Thus, the specification clearly uses the term “tunes” to refer to the selection
of the six-MHz portion of the band where the multiplexed signal containing the particular
program (along with others) is being transmitted. We therefore hold that the district
court correctly interpreted the phrase “tuning . . . to a specific program” to include tuning
to a specified frequency range that contains the program in question, whether or not
that program is the only one contained within a signal transmitted in that specified
frequency range. With the “tuning” limitation construed in that fashion, the evidence is
clearly sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that EchoStar’s devices infringed that
limitation.
3
EchoStar next contends that the term “converts,” as used in the third limitation of
the hardware claims, provides a further indication that the claimed DVRs must be
capable of processing analog signals, rather than just digital signals as the EchoStar
devices do. That limitation requires that the claimed device “convert[] said specific
program to an [MPEG] formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation.” The
trial court regarded that language as sufficiently clear that it was not necessary to use
additional or different language to explain the phrase to the jury. EchoStar argues that
the specification uses the term “converts” to refer to the process of encoding a non-
MPEG analog program into MPEG format and not to refer to the process of
transforming an MPEG signal into an internally storable format. EchoStar supports its
argument by pointing out that the specification uses a different term, extraction, to refer
to the process of transforming an MPEG signal that is carried on a broadcast
transmission to an internally storable format. ’389 patent, col. 2, ll. 10-14. EchoStar
2006-1574 11
therefore concludes that the term “converts” does not encompass transforming MPEG
data from a satellite signal that already contains MPEG-encoded data. For that reason,
EchoStar argues that its 50X and Broadcom DVRs, which process only satellite
transmissions that already contain MPEG-encoded data, do not satisfy the “converts”
limitation and therefore are not covered by the hardware claims.
TiVo argues that EchoStar’s interpretation of the “converts” limitation is at odds
with portions of the specification that describe the process of extracting MPEG streams
from incoming digital signals containing MPEG data, such as satellite or ATSC
transmissions. See ’389 patent, col. 3, ll. 46-49. The specification makes clear that if
the input signal does not contain MPEG-formatted data, the data is recoded in MPEG
format and stored in a digital MPEG format that is suitable for internal transfer and
manipulation. If the input signal already contains MPEG-formatted data, as in the case
of incoming satellite transmissions, the incoming data is still converted to the internally
transferable and manipulable MPEG format. Whether or not the input stream already
contains MPEG-encoded data, it is converted to a “uniform, purely digital MPEG format
that is suitable for internal transfer and manipulation.” The benefit of the uniformity of
these streams is that the system does not need to be concerned with “how the signal
was obtained.” ’389 patent, col. 3, ll. 46-52. Because the invention disclosed in the
specification and recited in the claims “converts” the signal to which the device has
tuned into an MPEG formatted stream “for internal transfer and manipulation,” we hold
that the process of converting a digital signal to an MPEG stream is within the scope of
the “converts” limitation.
2006-1574 12
Both the 50X and Broadcom DVRs, even if they do not need to convert signals
from an analog format to MPEG, must accept satellite transmissions and convert them
into a form suitable for internal transfer and manipulation. With the “converts” limitation
construed to cover converting a digital signal to an MPEG stream suitable for internal
transfer and manipulation, the evidence supports the jury’s verdict that all of the
EchoStar DVRs satisfy that limitation. We therefore reject EchoStar’s contention that
the “converts” limitation, the “accepting” limitation, and the “tuning” limitation all indicate
that the DVRs of the invention must be capable of processing analog as well as digital
signals.
B
EchoStar devotes substantial attention to the fourth limitation of the hardware
claims, which requires that the MPEG stream be “separated into its video and audio
components.” The trial court regarded that claim language as self-explanatory and
therefore did not provide a separate interpretation of that language in the instructions to
the jury. EchoStar urges this court to construe the term to require that the interleaved
MPEG stream be copied into two distinct memory buffers, one for the audio portion of
the stream and another for the video portion of the stream. We agree with EchoStar
that the written description portion of the specification discloses such an embodiment.
See, e.g., ’389 patent, col. 4, ll. 23-32. The more difficult question is whether that
embodiment represents the limits of the claims’ scope.
TiVo argues that physical separation of the audio and video data is not
necessary, that logical separation is all that is required, and that indexing of the data
achieves logical separation. Under that interpretation, a device would satisfy the
2006-1574 13
“separation” limitation for literal infringement even if the audio and video streams were
not copied to separate buffers but were maintained in a single interleaved buffer, as
long as the separate audio and video components were indexed with pointers to the
components’ locations in the interleaved buffer.
The specification states that “[t]he invention parses the . . . MPEG stream and
separates it into its video and audio components. It then stores the components into
temporary buffers.” ’389 patent, col. 2, ll. 15-17. In that passage, the specification
clearly refers to the separation aspect of the “invention” and not merely one
embodiment of a broader invention. As this court recently held, “[w]hen a patent thus
describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the
scope of the invention.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d
1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In the same context, the specification states that the audio and video
components are stored in temporary buffers. Although TiVo does not address that
statement in the specification directly, it appears to argue that the statement that the
“invention . . . separates [the MPEG stream] into its video and audio components” refers
to logical indexing. However, there is no textual basis from which to conclude that the
reference to “storing the components in temporary buffers” encompasses logical
separation or indexing, and TiVo does not provide any explanation of how the language
of the specification can be understood to do so.
The specification’s discussion of Figure 3 adds force to EchoStar’s argument
regarding the “separated” limitation. The specification explains that the video and audio
segments of the incoming MPEG stream “must be separated and recombined to create
2006-1574 14
separate video and audio streams or buffers. This is necessary because separate
decoders are used to convert MPEG elements back into audio or video analog
components.” ’389 patent, col. 4, ll. 25-29. Because the statement refers to separate
streams and buffers, and not logical separation or indexing, the most natural
interpretation of that passage is that the audio and video elements are separated into
different buffers, not simply logically indexed according to the type of data carried by
each element.
TiVo’s effort to discount the passage of the specification discussing Figure 3 is
unconvincing. TiVo first argues that Figure 3 represents only a preferred embodiment.
The detailed description of the invention makes clear that some of the depicted
embodiments (such as those in Figure 1 and Figure 2) are merely preferred
embodiments. The specification, however, does not characterize Figure 3 as
representing only a preferred embodiment. In fact, the discussion of Figure 3 suggests
the contrary, as it states that the incoming interleaved video and audio segments “must
be separated and recombined to create separate video and audio streams or buffers.”
The specification further states that the recited separation is “necessary” because of the
use of separate decoders to convert the MPEG elements back into audio and video
analog components. ’389 patent, col. 4, ll. 25-29. Even if the separation of video and
audio components into separate streams were regarded as representing only a
preferred embodiment, that passage at minimum rebuts TiVo’s assertion that “physical
cleaving of digital data . . . makes no sense in the context of a computer-based
invention.”
2006-1574 15
TiVo’s second argument regarding the specification’s treatment of Figure 3 is that
it relates “to the output stage, when appropriate components must ultimately be placed
into distinct streams or buffers for decoding.” Again, there is no textual basis for that
characterization. The discussion of Figure 3 is not limited to the output stage, but
instead refers generally to the processing of data that is interleaved in “the incoming
MPEG stream.” ’389 patent, col. 4, line 23. Moreover, TiVo’s strained interpretation of
Figure 3 is at odds with the specification’s discussion of Figure 4, in which the
specification describes the Media Switch at the heart of the invention as operating on
separate “video buffers” and “audio buffers.” Id., col. 5, ll. 8-9, 26-27.
With respect to Figure 6, which depicts the Media Switch separating data into
four buffers—a video buffer, an audio buffer, a private data buffer, and an event buffer—
TiVo argues in its brief that the accompanying text in the specification shows that “the
patent focuses on the logical segmentation and cataloguing of data into an event table
to help avoid unnecessary physical data transfers.” While TiVo is correct that the
specification describes a process of logical cataloguing or indexing of data, Figure 6 and
the portion of the specification that describes it make clear that the logical processes
described by TiVo occur after the data is separated into distinct audio and video buffers.
That is, after the parser in the Media Switch separates the video, audio, and private
event data packets and stores them in separate buffers, the parser generates “event”
data that identifies the storage location of each of the data packets. That “event data” is
stored separately in an “event” buffer. ’389 patent, col. 5, ll. 8-27. The program logic
reads accumulated events in the event buffer and generates a sequence of “logical
segments” that correspond to the parsed MPEG segments. The logical segments
2006-1574 16
contain information including the address and type of the corresponding MPEG
segment, the length of the segment, and the time stamp for that segment. Those logical
segments are then stored in a separate buffer known as the Packetized Elementary
Stream (“PES”) buffer. Id., col. 5, ll. 33-58.
The patent explains that using logical segments in the PES buffer means that
“the data associated with the logical segments need not be present in the buffer itself.”
’389 patent, col. 5, line 66, through col. 6, line 1. The use of the logical segments “has
the effect of gathering components of the stream, whether they be in the video, audio or
private data circular buffers, into a single linear buffer of stream data on the storage
medium.” Id., col. 6, ll. 2-7. Thus, the stream data can be efficiently managed without
the need for the computer’s central processing unit to copy the underlying data. Id., col.
6, ll. 7-15. In sum, TiVo is correct that the specification describes the process of
indexing data. Both the specification and the text of claims 1 and 32 make clear,
however, that indexing occurs after, and in addition to, the separation of the incoming
data into distinct video and audio buffers.
Pointing to dependent claims 8 through 11, TiVo contends that those claims
recite “the additional steps specifying the use of distinct video and audio buffers” and
thus support its contention that the independent claims do not require separation of the
audio and video components of the incoming signal. The dependent claims, however,
recite in detail the processing steps that occur after the separation of the video and
audio components, such as placing the video and audio components in separate
circular buffers, posting events in a circular event buffer indicating the location of the
video or audio component in the video or audio buffer, and generating a buffer
2006-1574 17
containing logical segments that point to the buffer location where corresponding video
and audio components have been placed. While those details go beyond the recitations
of the independent claims, they do not obviate the requirement of the independent
claims that the MPEG stream be “separated into its video and audio components.” In
fact, the dependent claims underscore that the initial separation is separation into
distinct buffers, not merely logical indexing.
Finally, TiVo argues that Figure 7 and the discussion of Figure 7 in the
specification support its construction of the “is separated” limitation. Figure 7 depicts
the Media Switch and its relationship to other components of the invention. Although
the specification’s discussion of Figure 7 is unclear in at least one respect, 1 the
specification unambiguously describes the parser in the Media Switch as detecting “the
beginning of all of the important events in a video or audio stream.” ’389 patent, col. 6,
ll. 39-40. That description supports EchoStar’s contention that the video and audio
components processed by the Media Switch are separated at the time of processing.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the term “is separated,” as used in the claims,
denotes copying the audio and video components into separate buffers, not mere
“logical separation” by way of indexing.
1
The specification at one point refers to the Media Switch outputting “streams
to the MPEG video decoder 715 and a separate audio decoder 717.” ’389 patent, col.
6, ll. 63-65, which suggests separate video and audio streams. Shortly thereafter,
however, the specification refers to the “decoded audio output from the MPEG decoder”
being “digitally mixed 718 with the separate audio signal.” Id., col. 7, ll. 1-3. Neither
party has offered an explanation for why there is “audio output” from what was
previously described as a “video decoder” and was distinguished from a “separate audio
decoder.” In the absence of any explanation by the parties for these seemingly
inconsistent references, we draw no inferences from that passage of the specification.
2006-1574 18
EchoStar concedes that its 50X DVRs separate the video and audio streams
into distinct buffers. Therefore, the 50X DVRs satisfy the “is separated” limitation.
TiVo’s expert testified that the Broadcom DVRs logically separate the video and audio
streams by creating a frame index table that indexes or stores pointers to the video
data. TiVo does not appear to contest EchoStar’s contention that the Broadcom DVRs
do not separate the two streams of data into distinct buffers. Because we construe the
term “is separated” to require separation into distinct buffers and not to encompass
mere logical separation, as performed by the Broadcom DVRs, we agree with EchoStar
that the evidence at trial does not show that the Broadcom DVRs satisfy the “is
separated” limitation of the hardware claims.
C
EchoStar next contends that its 50X DVRs do not satisfy the seventh limitation of
the hardware claims, which provides: “wherein said Output Section assembles said
video and audio components into an MPEG stream.” EchoStar argues that the
“assembles” limitation covers only the assembly of audio and video components into a
single, interleaved MPEG stream. TiVo argues that the “assembles” limitation also
covers the assembly of each component, audio and video, into its own separate stream.
Because EchoStar does not dispute that the Broadcom DVRs satisfy the “assembles”
limitation, even under its construction, the dispute over the “assembles” limitation
applies only to EchoStar’s 50X DVRs.
TiVo agrees that the 50X DVRs do not assemble audio and video components
into a single interleaved MPEG stream, but instead assemble the audio and video
streams into two separate MPEG streams. Nonetheless, TiVo argues that the 50X
2006-1574 19
DVRs satisfy the “assembles” limitation because the reference to “an MPEG stream”
must be interpreted to mean “one or more MPEG streams.”
As a general rule, the words “a” or “an” in a patent claim carry the meaning of
“one or more.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., No. 2007-1262, slip op. at 7
(Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2008). That is particularly true when those words are used in
combination with the open-ended antecedent “comprising.” See, e.g., Abtox, Inc. v.
Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, the question whether
“a” or “an” is treated as singular or plural depends heavily on the context of its use. See
Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 432 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The general rule
does not apply when the context clearly evidences that the usage is limited to the
singular. Baldwin Graphic, slip op. at 10.
Unlike the case in Baldwin Graphic, where the claims and the written description
could be read to encompass either a singular or plural interpretation of “a” or “an,” the
claims and written description in this case make clear that the singular meaning applies.
The pertinent claim language refers to “assembl[ing] said video and audio components
into an MPEG stream,” which in context clearly indicates that two separate components
are assembled into a single stream, not that the video components are assembled into
one stream and the audio components into a second stream. Earlier limitations in the
claims refer to converting specific programs into an MPEG stream, parsing that MPEG
stream and separating it “into its video and audio components.” Later limitations refer to
sending the reassembled MPEG stream to a decoder and converting it into TV output
signals. Those steps clearly describe the separation of a single stream into two
components and then reassembly of the components into a single stream for
2006-1574 20
conversion into television signals. Moreover, although the open-ended term
“comprising” is used to refer generally to the limitations of the hardware claims, the
“assembles” limitation itself does not contain that term. Rather, the claim language
simply refers to the assembly of two components into “an MPEG stream.”
The corresponding explanation in the specification refers to separating the
MPEG stream into video and audio components, which are then “reassembled into an
MPEG stream.” ’389 patent, col. 2, ll. 15-29. That language describes the process of
separating one stream into two sets of components and then reassembling the two sets
of components into a single stream. In particular, when discussing the term
“assembles,” the specification states that “when the program is requested for display,
the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and
reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. The decoder converts
the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV
receiver.” ’389 patent, Abstract; id., col. 2, ll. 27-32. The specification also provides
that the “MPEG stream has interleaved video . . . and audio . . . segments.” Id., col. 4,
ll. 23-26. That language, like the claim language, describes the MPEG stream that is
“reassembled” as a single MPEG stream, not two different streams. The concept of
reassembly indicates that the MPEG stream is restored to an earlier state, which in this
case would be the state in which it was initially received by the system, as a single
stream of data. Accordingly, we agree with EchoStar that the claim would be
interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art to require the reassembly of the audio
and video components into a single interleaved stream.
2006-1574 21
TiVo argues that the “assembles” issue presents a question as to the sufficiency
of the evidence and that TiVo’s evidence of “assembly” has not been shown to be
insufficient. But the evidence cited by TiVo did not establish infringement under the
narrower test for satisfying the “assembles” limitation that we have adopted. Rather,
TiVo simply argues that the evidence showed that EchoStar’s devices assemble video
and audio components into separate streams or buffers.
For example, TiVo contends that EchoStar’s 50X DVRs infringe the “assembles”
limitation when performing a function referred to as “trickplay,” which involves fast-
forwarding or rewinding a television program. The evidence at trial, however, showed
that trickplay involves only video data and does not result in the assembling of video
and audio components into a single stream of data. TiVo’s evidence therefore does not
show that EchoStar’s 50X DVRs satisfy the “assembles” limitation, as properly
construed.
Because we hold that the term “assembles,” as used in the hardware claims,
requires interleaved assembly of the audio and video components, and because the
evidence at trial did not show that the 50X DVRs perform interleaved assembly, we
necessarily conclude that the 50X DVRs do not literally infringe the “assembles”
limitation of the hardware claims. Inasmuch as the Broadcom DVRs do not satisfy the
“is separated” limitation and the 50X DVRs do not satisfy the “assembles” limitation, we
must reverse the portion of the judgment upholding the jury’s verdict that EchoStar’s
DVRs literally infringe the hardware claims.
2006-1574 22
D
At several points, TiVo argues that even if this court were to overturn the jury’s
verdict of literal infringement, there would still be ample evidence of infringement under
the doctrine of equivalents. There are two problems with upholding the judgment on the
hardware claims on that basis. First, the jury was told that if it found literal infringement
it should not make a determination as to whether there was infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents, so there was no verdict on the issue of equivalents with regard
to the hardware claims. Second, we have construed two of the claim limitations more
restrictively than the trial court’s instructions permitted. For that reason, even if the jury
had reached a verdict with respect to the doctrine of equivalents we could not sustain
that verdict merely upon finding that substantial evidence supported it. At this juncture,
we could uphold the judgment on the basis of the doctrine of equivalents only if we were
to conclude that no reasonable jury, given proper instructions, could reach any verdict
other than to find infringement by equivalents. The parties, however, have not briefed
that issue in any detail, and we therefore do not address it. More generally, we do not
decide what further proceedings, if any, are appropriate in the district court regarding
the equivalents issue. Instead, we leave that issue for the district court to resolve in the
event that, on remand, TiVo decides to continue to pursue the hardware claims in light
of this decision.
II
With respect to claims 31 and 61, the so-called “software claims,” EchoStar
argues that its DVRs do not satisfy several of the claim limitations and that the jury’s
verdict of infringement must be reversed.
2006-1574 23
Claim 31 of the ’389 patent is the first of the two software claims. It provides as
follows:
A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data,
comprising the steps of:
[1] providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data
source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and
audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video
and audio data;
[2] providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts
video and audio data from said physical data source;
[3] providing a transform object, wherein said transform object
stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device;
[4] wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform
object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills
said buffer with said streams;
[5] wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by
said transform object;
[6] providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data
stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a
video and audio decoder;
[7] wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals
and sends said signals to a display;
[8] wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said
transform object;
[9] providing a control object, wherein said control object receives
commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast
data through the system; and
[10] wherein said control object sends flow command events to said
source, transform, and sink objects.
Claim 61, the second of the two asserted software claims, is similar, except that it
recites an apparatus rather than a process.
2006-1574 24
A
As a matter of claim construction, EchoStar challenges the district court’s
definition of the term “object.” That word is used in the claim terms “source object,”
“transform object,” “sink object,” and “control object.”
EchoStar’s expert stated in his declaration that the term “object,” as used in the
computer arts, means “an item written in an object-oriented computer programming
language (for example, C++) that is an instance of a class from which it inherits
properties, and that includes both data and all procedures that operate on the data.”
Based on that declaration, EchoStar urged the court to define the term “object” as
meaning an item written with an object-oriented computer programming method such as
C++ “that encapsulates data and the procedures necessary to operate on that data and
can inherit properties from a class or another object.”
TiVo’s expert offered a broader definition for the term “object,” referring to it as
“a software term that describes a collection of data or operations.” He explained that
“objects” can contain both data and operations, but that they may contain only data or
only operations. He added that the term “object” does not imply the use of an object-
oriented computer language, and that objects and object-oriented techniques can be
used in many programming languages. As support for its proposed definition, TiVo
cited a technical dictionary, which gave “a collection of data and operations” as one of
the definitions of the term “object.” IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
Standard Terms 752 (7th ed. 2000).
After assessing the competing expert declarations and the evidence to which the
parties directed the court’s attention, the district court accepted as the proper definition
2006-1574 25
of “object” the definition offered by TiVo, i.e., “a collection of data and operations.” The
court concluded that TiVo’s definition represented the plain meaning of the term “object”
to one of ordinary skill in the art. The court also concluded that persons of ordinary skill
in the art would “readily understand the meaning of ‘source object’ upon a reading of the
claim language and its context in the specification.” Based on both intrinsic and
extrinsic evidence, the court concluded that “in accordance with its ordinary meaning”
the term “source object” means “a collection of data and operations that (1) extracts
video and audio data from a physical data source, (2) obtains a buffer [memory where
data can be temporarily stored for transfer] from a transform object, (3) converts video
data into data streams, and (4) fills the buffer [memory where data can be temporarily
stored for transfer] with the streams.” Additionally, the court defined “transform object”
to mean “a collection of data and operations that transforms the form of the data upon
which it operates”; it defined “sink object” to mean “a collection of data and operations
that (1) obtains data stream buffers [memory where data can be temporarily stored for
transfer] from a transform object and (2) outputs the streams to a video and audio
decoder”; and it defined “control object” as “a collection of data and operations that
receives commands from a user that control the flow of broadcast data.”
On appeal, EchoStar argues that the district court erred in failing to construe the
term “object” to require the use of object-oriented software. EchoStar points out that the
patent describes how three conceptual components that are featured in the software
claims—source object, transform object, and sink object—work in the context of
software written in the C++ programming language, which employs an “object-based
2006-1574 26
approach” that collects together logical operations and software elements that perform
those operations.
We discern no error in the district court’s claim construction. While the patent
specification includes an embodiment showing the use of “a C++ class hierarchy
derivation of the program logic,” ’389 patent, col. 8, ll. 9-10, and uses terms
characteristic of object-oriented programming in connection with that example, neither
the written description nor the claims anywhere state or imply that the invention must
use object-oriented programming in general, or C++ in particular. Without more, the
use of an example that employs object-oriented programming is not sufficient to require
that the claims be limited to embodiments using C++ or a similar programming
language. Moreover, while EchoStar criticizes the court for using an alternative
definition in a technical dictionary as the basis for its definition of the term “object,” TiVo
offered evidence other than the dictionary that supported that definition—in particular,
its expert’s declaration—and the district court concluded that persons of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that term according to its ordinary meaning, which accorded
with TiVo’s definition.
Importantly, the term “object” was not used by itself in the claims, but rather as
part of the terms “source object,” “transform object,” “sink object,” and “control object.”
The district court defined each of those terms by reference to the functions performed
by the collection of data and operations, and aside from its contention that the claims
should be read to require object-oriented programming, EchoStar does not object to
those definitions. Because the intrinsic evidence did not limit the scope of the software
claims in the manner that EchoStar urges, and because the district court’s construction
2006-1574 27
of each of the claim terms was soundly based on the extrinsic evidence proffered by
TiVo, we find no error in the court’s decision not to limit the software claims to
embodiments employing object-oriented programming such as C++. 2
B
We next address EchoStar’s argument that the jury’s finding of infringement is
not supported by substantial evidence even under the district court’s construction of the
critical language of the software claims. EchoStar argues that in order to be a
“collection” of data and operations, all data and operations that constitute the
“collection” must be grouped together within the software code or perhaps within a
single file. The word “collection,” however, brings with it no such requirement of co-
location. TiVo’s expert explained that the EchoStar software at issue constitutes “a
collection of data and operations” because the relevant subroutines are part of the same
program and are “able to interact and get access to the data they need to.” He testified
that because the EchoStar software allows the subroutines to “come together to achieve
2
As noted, the district court based its construction of the software claims on its
conclusion as to what the critical claim terms would mean to a person of skill in the art.
That conclusion in turn was largely based on the court’s assessment of extrinsic
evidence. Although we have characterized claim construction as a question of law even
when it involves competing presentations of extrinsic evidence, Cybor Corp. v. FAS
Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), we recognize that there is
substantial force to the proposition that such a conclusion is indistinguishable in any
significant respect from a conventional finding of fact, to which we typically accord
deference. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Rousel, Inc., 469 F.3d 1039, 1041 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (Michel, C.J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1043
(Newman, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1044 (Rader, J.,
dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1045 (Gajarsa, J., concurring in
denial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1046 (Moore, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing
en banc). Applying our governing non-deferential standard of review, we uphold the
district court’s conclusion in this case. If we were to treat that ruling as a finding of fact,
we would uphold the district court’s ruling a fortiori in light of the more deferential “clear
error” standard applicable to factual findings.
2006-1574 28
a particular function in each case, and . . . share data,” they constitute “a collection of
data and operation[s].” EchoStar offers nothing other than its own expert’s testimony to
rebut TiVo’s expert on this issue. Particularly in light of the absence of any objective
support for the testimony of EchoStar’s expert that a “collection” of data and operations
must appear in the same subroutine or subdirectory within the software code, we cannot
agree with EchoStar that the jury’s verdict was unsupported by substantial evidence.
EchoStar also argues that its DVRs do not satisfy the portion of the “source
object” limitation that requires the source object to “extract[] video and audio data from
said physical data source.” EchoStar argues in part that TiVo and its expert, Dr. Jerry
Gibson, addressed this limitation with respect to only one model of EchoStar’s DVRs.
While it is true that Dr. Gibson testified in detail with respect to only one type of device,
there is nothing improper about an expert testifying in detail about a particular device
and then stating that the same analysis applies to other allegedly infringing devices that
operate similarly, without discussing each type of device in detail. Dr. Gibson testified
that the other models of EchoStar’s DVRs operate similarly with respect to the “source
object” limitation, and EchoStar’s own expert, Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, also discussed the
various models of EchoStar DVRs collectively and made no relevant distinction among
them with respect to this limitation. Furthermore, Dr. Rhyne specifically stated that the
50X DVRs use the same hardware push to a temporary memory buffer as is used in the
device that was analyzed by Dr. Gibson, and in its brief EchoStar points to no distinction
among the DVRs that would require separate analysis. We therefore analyze all of the
DVRs together with respect to the “source object” limitation.
2006-1574 29
EchoStar argues that its DVRs do not contain software that extracts data.
Instead, it contends that its devices use a “hardware push” to move data from the
physical data source to a temporary data buffer. EchoStar also argues that its
Broadcom devices push the data to a temporary buffer and not to the Broadcom chip.
Finally, EchoStar argues that, for its Broadcom DVRs, the “Ioctl” command identified by
TiVo’s expert cannot “extract[] video and audio data from said physical data source”
because it does not extract data from any circuitry on the Broadcom chip, but instead
extracts data from the temporary data buffer that is connected to the Broadcom chip.
As an initial matter, software alone cannot extract data from a physical device; it
can only control hardware that extracts data. Therefore, when a device “extracts video
and audio data from [a] physical data source,” it is necessarily the case that certain
hardware operations are performed. For that reason, the hardware/software distinction
made by EchoStar is unhelpful. What matters is whether the operations performed by
the interaction of software and hardware in the accused DVRs, taken as a whole, are
covered by the claim term. In order to assess EchoStar’s argument, we must determine
whether the evidence was sufficient to show that the particular process employed in
EchoStar’s accused devices is covered by the “extracting” limitation. That is, we must
determine whether the process of pushing data from the physical data source to a
temporary data storage buffer and then extracting the data from the temporary data
storage buffer, all under the general control of the DVR software, constitutes a process
that is fairly described as “extract[ing] video and audio data from said physical data
source,” as recited in the software claims.
2006-1574 30
After consideration of the parties’ arguments and the evidence to which the
parties have drawn our attention, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from
which the jury could find that the “extracting” limitation was satisfied. In particular, it was
reasonable for the jury to find that the two-part process of moving data from the physical
data source to the source object, as practiced in the EchoStar devices, constitutes
extraction by the source object of video and audio data from the physical data source,
as those terms are used in the “extracts” limitation of the software claims. In particular,
the jury could have rejected the argument made by EchoStar, based on the testimony of
its experts, that data is not extracted from the physical data source because it is
extracted from the temporary data storage buffer that is next to, but separate from, the
chip that the experts characterized as constituting the physical data source.
EchoStar points out that TiVo’s expert, Dr. Gibson, did not refer to the temporary
data storage buffer in the course of his general characterization of the components of
the physical data source in the EchoStar DVRs. Instead, he stated that “the physical
data source is on the Broadcom chip,” and he identified a number of circuits on that chip
on which the physical data source “relies.” In that context, he did not specifically state
that the temporary data storage buffer to which the data was pushed was part of the
physical data source or part of the Broadcom chip. EchoStar’s experts, Drs. Rhyne and
Johnson, testified that the data is “pushed” out of the elements on the Broadcom chip to
the temporary data storage buffer adjoining, but separate from, the Broadcom chip.
Even though EchoStar does not contest that the data is extracted from the temporary
data storage buffer, it contends that the temporary storage buffer is not part of the
physical data source and therefore that the data is not extracted from the physical data
2006-1574 31
source. Dr. Gibson also testified, however, that the Ioctl command extracts the video
and audio data from the “physical data source.” Under EchoStar’s reasoning, his two
statements, made one after the other, are in conflict. Even assuming a conflict in his
testimony, however, the jury was entitled to weigh the evidence and find that Dr.
Gibson’s failure to specifically identify the temporary data storage buffer as part of the
physical data source is outweighed by his much clearer statement that the Ioctl
command extracts data from the physical data source, which necessarily includes the
adjoining temporary data storage buffer.
Based on evidence that the Broadcom chip and the temporary data storage
buffer operate together in the process of moving data from the physical data source, it
was reasonable for the jury to find that the temporary data buffer was simply an
extension of the physical data source where data was stored pending its extraction for
further processing. From that evidence, the jury could permissibly find that the “Ioctl”
command, the relevant portion of the source object in the EchoStar DVRs, extracts
video and audio data from the physical data source. As there is substantial evidence
that the required data and operations are performed by the accused DVRs, and
because we agree that the pertinent data and operations do not need to be housed
within a particular file or grouping of lines of code, the EchoStar DVRs satisfy the
“extracting” limitation. We therefore uphold the jury’s verdict that the EchoStar DVRs
infringe the software claims of the ’389 patent.
III
EchoStar argues that TiVo made “grossly misleading, if not false, [statements]” in
its argument to the jury and that those statements were so prejudicial that they require
2006-1574 32
that EchoStar be granted a new trial. EchoStar contends that TiVo’s counsel told the
jury that EchoStar never sought a written opinion, and that the reason it did not do so
was that any independent lawyer would have said that the EchoStar devices infringed.
TiVo responds that its lawyer’s remarks about the failure to seek a written opinion
applied only to a particular law firm, the Bozicevic firm, and that there was nothing false
or misleading about the comments when viewed in that context.
In discussing EchoStar’s interactions with the lawyers from the Bozicevic firm,
TiVo’s counsel argued to the jury that the evidence showed that for two years EchoStar
had failed to give the lawyers the technical information they needed to provide a written
opinion on infringement and that “if [EchoStar] gave the lawyers, the independent
lawyers, the technical information, . . . they would say that there is infringement.”
EchoStar argues that it did not pursue a written infringement opinion from the Bozicevic
firm because its own internal investigation satisfied it that there was no infringement and
because it was engaged in negotiating a business deal with TiVo that made the issue of
possible infringement less important. Moreover, EchoStar points out that after TiVo filed
suit, EchoStar sought and obtained two formal opinions of noninfringement from another
outside law firm. Nonetheless, EchoStar argues, TiVo took unfair advantage of the
district court’s refusal to admit the outside law firm’s opinions by suggesting to the jury
that EchoStar had avoided obtaining an infringement opinion, even though TiVo’s
counsel knew that EchoStar had sought and obtained written advice regarding
infringement from another firm.
In context, we think it was clear that the statements by TiVo’s counsel were
directed only to the Bozicevic firm and that the district court was correct to conclude that
2006-1574 33
counsel’s comments did not deny EchoStar a fair trial. Counsel’s comments about the
failure to obtain an opinion on the issue of infringement were made with respect to the
lawyers referred to immediately before that comment during counsel’s argument, that is,
the lawyers from the Bozicevic firm. The trial court agreed that the statements were
directed to the Bozicevic law firm. Moreover, the court cautioned the jury several times
that lawyers’ statements are not evidence. The trial judge, who was present during the
argument and could assess the accuracy and impact of the statements, was in a far
better position than we are to determine how those statements would have been
understood by the jury and whether they were unfairly prejudicial to EchoStar’s defense.
In any event, as TiVo points out, the disputed argument bore only on the issue of
willfulness. Because the trial court declined to enhance damages or award attorney
fees to TiVo, the dispute over willfulness is moot.
EchoStar insists that the trial court’s treatment of the issue of willfulness,
including the court’s failure to strike counsel’s argument about the Bozicevic firm, or at
least to admit evidence regarding EchoStar’s other steps to obtain legal opinions
regarding infringement, unfairly prejudiced EchoStar’s defense. So far as is revealed by
a review of the cold record, however, we conclude that the transcript does not support
EchoStar’s claim of prejudice. The statements made by counsel did not imply that
EchoStar never sought a written opinion or that any reasonable lawyer would say that
there is infringement, as EchoStar urges. In addition, and importantly, the statements
related to the issue of willfulness and did not directly affect the issues of infringement
and invalidity that ended up affecting the trial court’s judgment. In the end, despite
EchoStar’s vigorous urging on this point, we are not persuaded that counsel’s conduct
2006-1574 34
was both improper and so prejudicial that we must override the trial judge’s exercise of
discretion with respect to the supervision of the trial proceedings and direct that a new
trial be held.
IV
EchoStar next argues that the district court improperly limited the testimony of its
expert, Dr. Nathaniel Polish, on the issue of the asserted invalidity of the ’389 patent.
EchoStar wanted Dr. Polish to be allowed to state that the infringement analysis
provided by TiVo’s expert Dr. Gibson, if accepted, would compel a finding of invalidity.
The trial court allowed Dr. Polish to give his opinion as to validity based on the court’s
construction of the claim terms, but it refused to allow him to testify about how Dr.
Gibson’s infringement analysis would affect the issue of invalidity. The district court
explained its ruling by stating that “Dr. Polish’s testimony should be limited to the
Court’s claim construction and the prior art, not the criticism of Dr. Gibson’s report or
previous testimony.”
We agree with TiVo that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in the way
he ruled on the proper scope of Dr. Polish’s testimony. An expert must “[compare] the
construed claims to the prior art.” Helifix, Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Dr. Polish was allowed to testify regarding how the prior art related to
the claims as construed. He was prohibited from testifying about how the prior art
related to “Dr. Gibson’s view of the claims.” Dr. Polish was free to testify about whether
the prior art practiced the claimed invention. In light of the court’s construction of the
asserted claims, EchoStar was not denied the benefit of Dr. Polish’s testimony on the
issue of invalidity. The court’s ruling therefore did not deprive EchoStar of any evidence
2006-1574 35
it was entitled to introduce; at the same time, the court’s ruling avoided possible jury
confusion by ensuring that the invalidity inquiry focused on the relationship between the
prior art and the claims, as construed by the court. We hold that the trial court’s
handling of Dr. Polish’s testimony did not prejudice EchoStar’s right to a fair trial.
V
In sum, because of a failure of proof of literal infringement, we reverse the
judgment of infringement of the hardware claims with respect to all of the accused
devices. We remand for any further proceedings that may be necessary with respect to
those claims. We affirm the judgment of infringement of the software claims with
respect to all of the accused devices. Because the damages calculation at trial was not
predicated on the infringement of particular claims, and because we have upheld the
jury’s verdict that all of the accused devices infringe the software claims, we affirm the
damages award entered by the district court.
The district court’s injunction was stayed during the course of these proceedings.
The stay that was issued pending appeal will dissolve when this appeal becomes final.
At that time, the district court can make a determination as to the additional damages, if
any, that TiVo has sustained while the stay of the permanent injunction has been in
effect.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
2006-1574 36