Although the court’s original claim construction order issued almost 18 months ago, the order explaining the rationale underlying the court’s constructions did not issue until October 9, 2014.
The parties submitted 16 claim construction disputes for resolution by the court. Two days after the Markman hearing, held on April 17, 2013, the court issued a summary construction order and explained that a more complete order would follow providing the court’s reasoning. Next, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Akamai, Judge Grewal allowed Apple to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to Emblaze’s asserted method claims, which was granted in part. On July 11, 2014, a jury returned a verdict of no infringement on all remaining counts.
This order provides the court’s claim construction analysis. Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., No. 1-1079 (N.D. Cal. October 9, 2014). The patent at issue claims methods and apparatuses that allow “transmission of live audio and video to multiple devices” without requiring “devoted streaming servers” and permitting adjustment to “different bandwidths” where necessary.
In general, the court adopted its own constructions rather than adopting one or the other party’s proposal verbatim. This is approach is consistent with Magistrate Judge Grewal’s close reading of the intrinsic evidence in order to arrive at the most accurate construction. For example, on one occasion, the court looked to a portion of the specification that had not been cited by either party, but which the court found to be “especially helpful.”