Order Granting Motion For Preliminary Injunction - United States ...

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
limitation is satisfied only if every heuristic module employs a different heuristic search algorithm
from the other modules. Id.
Apple, by contrast, rejects the notion that “each” in this context means “every.” Instead,
Apple argues that the term “each” must be read in reference to the preceding phrase, “a plurality of
heuristic modules,” such that the claim requires only that each of a plurality of heuristic modules
(i.e., at least two) uses a different heuristic algorithm. Under Apple’s proposed construction, the
limitation is satisfied so long as “each of at least two modules (i.e., a plurality) employs a different
algorithm, regardless of what additional ones do.” Pl.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. Prelim. Inj.
(“Reply”) at 2.
Applying the basic principles of claim construction described above to this disputed claim
term, the Court concludes that the claim language and specification support Apple’s proposed
construction, and that Samsung has pointed to no prosecution disclaimer or other evidence that
warrants a contrary construction. The claim language recites an apparatus comprising, among
other things, “a plurality of heuristic modules.” ’604 Patent 8:26-30. The term “plurality” means
“at least two.” ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see York
Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The term
means, simply ‘the state of being plural.’”). Claim 6 imposes a further limitation on the “plurality
of heuristic modules,” requiring that “each heuristic module . . . employs a different, predetermined
heuristic algorithm.” Id. 8:33-35. Thus, the claim language supports Apple’s argument that the
“each” requirement modifies “plurality of heuristic modules.” Consistent with Federal Circuit
precedent, “each” of “a plurality of heuristic modules” means “each of at least two modules,” not
“each of every module.” See ResQNet, 346 F.3d at 1382 (construing “each of a plurality of fields”
to mean “each of at least two fields,” not “every field”).
Furthermore, “comprising” indicates an open-ended transition term that “is well understood
to mean ‘including but not limited to.’” CIAS Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2007). The use of the term “comprising” in claim 6 signifies that the claim “‘does not
exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.’” Id. (quoting Georgia-Pacific Corp. v.
United States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Thus, the Court agrees with
12
Case No.: 12-cv-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION