"The Court will therefore adopt a modified version of both parties’ proposed constructions, as follows:“an arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of ordered levels.” / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case 3:14-cv-04922-JST Document 78 Filed 11/30/15 Page 7 of 13 8 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 United States District Court Northern District of California ."
BRI=Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
I believe that's what we got from the Claims Construction—a broad and reasonable interpretation. Interestingly, Dropcam argued for a narrower interpretaion that would have applied the patent only in much more limited circumstances while EDIG argued for the broader meaning of social template which would allow it to be more widely applicable. Perhaps Edig's proposed construction was unreasonably broad, and Dropcam's unreasonably narrow. In any case, the judge seems to have come down in the middle with a construction that gives each party some but not all of what they wanted.
Will this satisfy the PTAB? I don't know, but am hopeful. A broader construction would make the claim more widely applicable, but could make it more vulnerable to Prior Art considerations. And a broader reading might be appealed as "unreasonable" for the very reasons such a reading was rejected in our Claims Construction.
In any case, I remain hopeful.
