e.Digital

Disputed Claim Term e.Digital’s Proposed Construction Dropcam’s Proposed Construction Social hierarchy

P “an arrangement of persons, things, information and/or operations in a series oflevels”

D “ordered ranking of social groups defined within each social template”

e.Digital relies on The American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of a hierarchy as “[a]n arrangement of persons or things in a gradedseries,” ECF No. 50 at 14 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary, ECF No. 50-10 at 398).

e.Digital explains that the specifications also illustrate that, under the claimed inventions, the hierarchy may also include “the quantity, and type of delivery, of information made available to different persons.” Id.

Therefore, e.Digital rejects Dropcam’s limitation of the hierarchy to a ranking of “social groups,” as certain embodiments imagine that the social hierarchy could contain “social networking services or microblogs,” rather than just people. Id. (citing ’522 patent at 21:4-14 (“Such communication could be through text messages, emails, computer read messages sent to a voice line, and, where social networking service and/or microblog are set up, through networking service and microblog updates.”)).

The meaning of a word depends on the context in which it appears. E.g., Silvia P. Gennari, et al., “Context-Dependent Interpretation Of Words: Evidence For Interactive Neural Processes,” 35 Neuroimage 1278, 1278 (2007).

Here, the context is a patent about a “social hierarchy,” and e.Digital does not explain how the language of the claims supports the notion that a social hierarchy could contain “things” or “information.”

The social hierarchy is discussed throughout the claims as containing persons or social networking operations that are to be provided with communication, supporting the use of the modifier “social.” Indeed, adoption of e.Digital’s construction of “hierarchy” to include “information” or “things”would conflict with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “social.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (“the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning”) (citation and quotation omitted).

e.Digital does not address this argument in its reply brief, but maintains that the social hierarchy must include “operations, such as email, text, computerized voice message, social network update, Case 3:14-cv-04922-JST Document 78 Filed 11/30/15 Page 6 of 13 7 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 etc.” ECF No. 53 at 8.

The Court concludes that, while the claims support the inclusion of “persons” and “operations” within the social hierarchy, they do not support a construction of “social hierarchy” that would include “information” or “things.”

Dropcam also argues that the organization of the social hierarchy must be an “ordered ranking.” ECF No. 51 at 13. e.Digital acknowledges that in some cases “a social hierarchy can be an ordered ranking,” but argues that the claims’ use of the term is not limited to ordered rankings. ECF No. 53 at 7. e.Digital posits that, in cases where the levels are not an ordered ranking, “[w]hat sets the hierarchy levels apart . . . relates more to what and/or how information is provided to the various hierarchy levels and is not necessarily related to importance of the members of each hierarchy level – each level is simply ‘different.’” ECF No. 50 at 15.

But e.Digital’s own citation to the American Heritage Dictionary shows that hierarchies are typically understood as “graded,” consistent with the idea of the levels being ordered or ranked. Nothing in the intrinsic evidence supports abandoning this plain and ordinary meaning of the word hierarchy.

Finally, Dropcam’s proposed construction of “social hierarchy” reflects its position that the social template must define within it a social hierarchy. e.Digital responds that the social template does not necessarily define the social hierarchy within it. Rather, e.Digital explains that the social hierarchy is “associated with a social template so that, when a social template is ‘selected’ by the processor, the processor can make available the amount of information authorized by the user for the various members of the social hierarchy based on the selected social template.” Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted). The Court agrees with e.Digital that the claims do not require the social hierarchy to be“defined within each social template.”

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 .

=====================

With that, for the IPR, this is the term at issue to be scrutinized under claims construction by petitioner where the term levels is proposed to be constructed separately.

If the board comes to appreciate a common specification between all the patents, those that are scrutinized under IPR and those that are not ...we should receive a positive ruling....if claims construction comes into play.

doni