e.Digital
Flash-R™ patent portfolio e.Digital's Flash-R™ patent portfolio contains fundamental technology essential to the utilization of flash memory in today's large and growing portable electronic products market.
in response to
plankton's message
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DROPCAM, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-04922-JST
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT (PATENT
L.R. 4-3)
Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
Ctrm: 9
Hearing: August 3, 2015
Time: 2:00 p.m.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DROPCAM, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-04922-JST
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT (PATENT
L.R. 4-3)
Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
Ctrm: 9
Hearing: August 3, 2015
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3 and the Court’s February 5, 2015, Scheduling Order
(“Scheduling Order”) (Doc. No. 43), Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”)
and Defendant Dropcam, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Dropcam”) provide the following Joint Claim
Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement in the above-entitled matter for U.S. Patent Nos.
8,306,514 (“the ’514 patent”); 8,311,522 (“the ’522 patent”); 8,311,523 (“the ’523 patent”);
8,311,524 (“the ’524 patent”); 8,315,618 (“the ’618 patent”); and 8,315,619 (“the ’619 patent”)
(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
I. Agreed Upon Claim Constructions
The parties have agreed upon the following constructions for each of the claim terms and
phrases listed below.
II. Disputed Claim Constructions and Identification of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
The parties dispute the proper construction of certain claim terms. Below, Plaintiff and
Defendant set forth each of the disputed claim terms, each party’s proposed construction of each
disputed term, together with an identification of all references from the specification or
prosecution history that support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence
known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction or to
oppose any other party’s proposed construction.
Claim Term or
Phrase
Agreed Upon Construction
1. “b1e ing selectable to
provide”
“capable of being selected to provide”
2. “e2n vironment of the
communication device”
“surroundings of the communication device within the
detectable area of the communication device”
Claim Term or
Phrase
Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction and
Supporting Evidence
Defendant’s Proposed
Construction and
Supporting Evidence
1. “s1o cial signature” “raw or processed data and/or
other information based on
sensors”
“combination of optical sensor
data and acoustic sensor data
indicative of a type of activity”
(“Scheduling Order”) (Doc. No. 43), Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”)
and Defendant Dropcam, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Dropcam”) provide the following Joint Claim
Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement in the above-entitled matter for U.S. Patent Nos.
8,306,514 (“the ’514 patent”); 8,311,522 (“the ’522 patent”); 8,311,523 (“the ’523 patent”);
8,311,524 (“the ’524 patent”); 8,315,618 (“the ’618 patent”); and 8,315,619 (“the ’619 patent”)
(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
I. Agreed Upon Claim Constructions
The parties have agreed upon the following constructions for each of the claim terms and
phrases listed below.
II. Disputed Claim Constructions and Identification of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
The parties dispute the proper construction of certain claim terms. Below, Plaintiff and
Defendant set forth each of the disputed claim terms, each party’s proposed construction of each
disputed term, together with an identification of all references from the specification or
prosecution history that support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence
known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction or to
oppose any other party’s proposed construction.
Claim Term or
Phrase
Agreed Upon Construction
1. “b1e ing selectable to
provide”
“capable of being selected to provide”
2. “e2n vironment of the
communication device”
“surroundings of the communication device within the
detectable area of the communication device”
Claim Term or
Phrase
Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction and
Supporting Evidence
Defendant’s Proposed
Construction and
Supporting Evidence
1. “s1o cial signature” “raw or processed data and/or
other information based on
sensors”
“combination of optical sensor
data and acoustic sensor data
indicative of a type of activity”
Intrinsic Evidence:
Specifications1
Figures: 1, 2, 3
’522 Specification: Abstract;
1:29-58; 2:5-30; 2:66-3:7; 3:19-
60; 4:14-29; 4:65-5:6; 5:19-6:3;
6:19-24; 7:4-65; 9:5-11:6;
11:16-14:34; 14:46-53; 15:29-
57; 16:14-26; 17:51-18:18;
18:22-24; 18:44-19:33; 21:15-
44; 22:41-67
Claims
’522 patent: 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15,
17, 18, 22, 24
’514 patent: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14,
18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 34, 36
’523 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, 26
’524 patent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15,
16, 17
’618 patent: 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13,
15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24
’619 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31
Extrinsic Evidence:
The American Heritage
Dictionary (Fifth Ed. 2012)
(hereinafter referred to as
“AHD”) at pp. 217 (“data”), 435
Intrinsic Evidence:
Specification2
Figures: 1, 2, 3
’618 Specification: 9:23-29,
14:31-41, 14:63-66, 15:38-45,
15:45-51, 15:52-55, 16:15-24,
17:30-36, 18:54-60, Tables 1
and 2.
Claims
’514 patent: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14,
18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 34, and
36.
’522 patent: 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 13,
15, 17, 18, 22, and 24.
’523 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, and 26.
’524 patent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10,
15, 16, and 17.
’618 patent: 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13,
15, 16, 20, 22, 23, and 24.
’619 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, and 31.
Extrinsic Evidence:
Sworn testimony of Dr. Earl
Sacerdoti.
Specifications1
Figures: 1, 2, 3
’522 Specification: Abstract;
1:29-58; 2:5-30; 2:66-3:7; 3:19-
60; 4:14-29; 4:65-5:6; 5:19-6:3;
6:19-24; 7:4-65; 9:5-11:6;
11:16-14:34; 14:46-53; 15:29-
57; 16:14-26; 17:51-18:18;
18:22-24; 18:44-19:33; 21:15-
44; 22:41-67
Claims
’522 patent: 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15,
17, 18, 22, 24
’514 patent: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14,
18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 34, 36
’523 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, 26
’524 patent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15,
16, 17
’618 patent: 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13,
15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24
’619 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31
Extrinsic Evidence:
The American Heritage
Dictionary (Fifth Ed. 2012)
(hereinafter referred to as
“AHD”) at pp. 217 (“data”), 435
Intrinsic Evidence:
Specification2
Figures: 1, 2, 3
’618 Specification: 9:23-29,
14:31-41, 14:63-66, 15:38-45,
15:45-51, 15:52-55, 16:15-24,
17:30-36, 18:54-60, Tables 1
and 2.
Claims
’514 patent: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14,
18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 34, and
36.
’522 patent: 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 13,
15, 17, 18, 22, and 24.
’523 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, and 26.
’524 patent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10,
15, 16, and 17.
’618 patent: 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13,
15, 16, 20, 22, 23, and 24.
’619 patent: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, and 31.
Extrinsic Evidence:
Sworn testimony of Dr. Earl
Sacerdoti.
1 The specifications of each of the Asserted Patents contain word-for-word identical
disclosures. For the sake of brevity and efficiency, Plaintiff cites specifically herein to the
specification of the parent ’522 patent. However, Plaintiff represents and hereby notifies the
Court and Defendant that Plaintiff intends to rely on the exact same disclosures contained in the
’514 patent, ’523 patent, ’524 patent, ’618 patent and ’619 patent, which specifications, again,
contain exactly the same disclosures as the specification of the ’522 patent.
2 All supporting patent citations identified by Defendant Dropcam herein reference the
specification of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,618. Dropcam reserves the right to rely upon
corresponding disclosures contained in the specifications of each of the Asserted Patents.
Dropcam similarly reserves the right to rely upon disclosures contained in the prosecution
histories of each of the Asserted Patents corresponding to the citations identified herein
disclosures. For the sake of brevity and efficiency, Plaintiff cites specifically herein to the
specification of the parent ’522 patent. However, Plaintiff represents and hereby notifies the
Court and Defendant that Plaintiff intends to rely on the exact same disclosures contained in the
’514 patent, ’523 patent, ’524 patent, ’618 patent and ’619 patent, which specifications, again,
contain exactly the same disclosures as the specification of the ’522 patent.
2 All supporting patent citations identified by Defendant Dropcam herein reference the
specification of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,618. Dropcam reserves the right to rely upon
corresponding disclosures contained in the specifications of each of the Asserted Patents.
Dropcam similarly reserves the right to rely upon disclosures contained in the prosecution
histories of each of the Asserted Patents corresponding to the citations identified herein
Please
login
to post a reply
sman998
City
ORANGE , CALIFORNIA
Rank
President
Activity Points
93979
Rating
Your Rating
Date Joined
12/02/2006
e.Digital
Symbol
EDIG
Exchange
OTCBB
Shares
293,680,000 approx 2016
Industry
Technology & Medical
Website