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
“heuristic,” Apple responded that it is “a rule of thumb . . . it’s a best guess of what the result is.”
Tr. at 32:4-8; see also id. at 35:3-5 (defining a “heuristic algorithm” as “an algorithm that is
designed to provide the best guess, based on the information, of what the user is looking for”). To
the extent the parties appear to disagree as to the scope of this claim term, the Court has a duty to
construe it. See O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361-62.
The term “heuristic algorithm” appears frequently throughout the claim terms and the
remainder of the specification. Claim 6 recites: “a plurality of heuristic modules configured to
search for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, wherein: each
heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined
heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area.” ’604 Patent 8:30-35. It is a bedrock
principle of claim construction that “‘[c]laims must be ‘interpreted with an eye toward giving effect
to all terms in the claim.’” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Applying that principle to claim 6, it is apparent that “heuristic module” and “heuristic algorithm”
correspond to different requirements. Thus, to the extent Apple implies that any search algorithm
employed within a respective area of search is heuristic simply by virtue of its association with a
corresponding “heuristic module,” the Court declines to adopt a construction of “heuristic
algorithm” that would render the “heuristic” modifier superfluous. See id.; Elekta Instrument S.A.
v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1305-07 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (refusing to adopt a claim
construction that would render claim language superfluous). In other words, a module is not
“heuristic” simply because it employs a “heuristic algorithm,” nor is an algorithm “heuristic”
simply because it is employed by a “heuristic module.”
However, the Court is still left with the task of construing “heuristic algorithm.” The
specification is not particularly illuminating in this regard. In the Detailed Description of the
Invention, the inventors describe their invention as “a universal interface in which user inputs are
received and provided to a plurality of separate heuristic algorithms to locate at least one item of
information.” ’604 Patent 3:26-29. The specification goes on to explain that an information
retrieval manager dispatches the user input to a plurality of plug-in modules, each of which has an
16
Case No.: 12-cv-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION