Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. (38 F. Supp. 3d 589, 2014)

MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and counterclaim-defendants, Comcast Communications, LLC and related corporate entities (collectively “Com-cast”), brought this action against defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs, Sprint Communications Co., LP and related corporate entities (collectively “Sprint”), alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,885,870 (“the '870 patent”) and U.S. Patent 5,987,323 (“the '323 patent”). Sprint filed a Counterclaim alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,754,907 (“the '4,907 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,757,907 (“the '7,907 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,727,916 (“the '916 patent”). After a five-day pre-Markman and Markman hearing, the Court construes the disputed claim terms identified by the parties in each of the remaining patents-in-suit.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Comcast filed the instant patent-infringement suit on February 17, 2012 against Sprint, alleging infringement of four of its U.S. Patents. On May 14, 2012, Sprint filed an Answer and a Counterclaim, alleging infringement of seven of its U.S. Patents. On June 6, 2012, Com-cast filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement. Sprint filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaim on June 25, 2012.

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1, the parties submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart on October 4, 2013, setting forth their proposed constructions. Thereafter, on November 1, 2013, Comcast and Sprint each filed an Opening Claim Construction Brief, addressing the construction of the disputed terms in its own patents, and, on November 22, 2013, an Answering Claim Construction Brief, addressing the construction of the disputed terms in each other’s patents. Through the meet-and-confer and briefing process, the parties significantly narrowed the number of terms, claims, and patents in dispute.

On January 22, 23, and 24, 2014, the Court held the first part of a pre-Markman and Markman hearing, which included technology tutorials and oral argument on the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in Sprint’s '4,907, '7,907, and '916 patents and Comcast’s '323 and '870 patents. During that hearing, it became apparent that the parties’ initial Joint Claim Construction Chart was deficient.

At the conclusion of the third day of the Markman hearing on January 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order requiring that the parties submit an amended joint claim construction chart. In this Order, the parties were directed to include in that updated chart, inter alia, (1) a statement of the impact of each disputed claim term on the parties’ infringement and invalidity contentions in order to place claim construction in proper context, and (2) with respect to those terms as to which a party asserts that “the plain and ordinary meaning of the term should control,” a statement of “precisely what that ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ is in the form of a proposed alternative construction.” After submission of the Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart on February 14, 2014, the Court conducted the second part of the Markman hearing on February 24 and 25, 2014, at which it briefly returned to Sprint’s '916 patent to ask several followup questions, which had been left unanswered.

Finally, given the complexity of the issues presented in this case and by agreement of the parties, on March 20, 2014, the Court appointed Dr. A.J. Nichols as technical advisor to assist the Court by explaining, when requested, the relevant technology required for claim construction with respect to the patents-in-suit. His role has been limited to that contemplated by the Memorandum and Order dated April 1, 2014, as revised by the Order dated April 21, 2014, setting forth the authority for, and terms and conditions of, his appointment.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Construction of disputed patent claims is a question of law and is therefore the province of the court, not the jury. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 389-91, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). The Court is not bound by the proposed constructions presented and argued by the parties. See Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1359 n. 4 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (en banc).

In construing claim terms, a court may look to any “source[ ] available to the public that show[s] what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2004). “It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record....” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Id. There are three primary sources of “intrinsic evidence”: (1) the claims, (2) the specification, and (3) the prosecution history. The Court addresses each category of intrinsic evidence in turn.

First, a court must examine the language of the claims, as “[i]t is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a . patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d 1111 at 1115). “[W]ords of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’ ” Id. (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). In examining the claims of the patent, both “the context in which á term is used in the asserted claim” and “[o]ther claims of the patent in question” “provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. at 1314. “Differences among claims also can be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. For example, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Id. at 1315.

The second source of intrinsic evidence is the patent specification, which “contains a written description of the invention that must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995). “In light of the statutory directive that the inventor provide a ‘full’ and ‘exact’ description of the claimed invention, the specification necessarily informs the proper construction of the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. For example, the specification may reveal “a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess” or “an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.” Id. Not only is “[t]he specification ... always highly relevant to claim construction,” but “[u]sually, it is dispositive.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has described the specification as “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582); see also, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“The specification is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.”).

The third source of intrinsic evidence is the patent’s prosecution history, which consists of “the complete record of proceedings before the [Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ] and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Like the specification, the prosecution history may be useful in revealing either a special meaning assigned by the patentee to the term or a disclaimer clarifying what the claims do not cover. Id. That said, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is [typically] less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.

While the intrinsic record is most “significant ... in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language,” the Court also may examine extrinsic evidence during the claim-construction process. Id. (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed.Cir.2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. “Because dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology, [they] have been properly recognized as among the many tools that can assist the court in determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Further, “it is entirely proper for ... trial ... judges to consult these materials at any stage of a litigation, regardless of whether they have been offered by a party in evidence or not.” Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed.Cir.2002), overruled on other grounds by Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303.

Finally, there is no precise formula for how a court should weigh the different sources of evidence. Nor is “[t]he sequence of steps used by the judge in consulting various sources ... important.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324. Instead, “in weighing all the evidence bearing on claim construction, the court should keep in mind the flaws inherent in each type of evidence and assess that evidence accordingly.” Id. at 1319; see also id. at 1324 (“[W]hat matters is for the court to attach the appropriate weight to be assigned to those sources in light of the statutes and policies. that inform patent law”).

IV. '916 PATENT

Sprint’s '916 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Assisting User to Engage in a Microbrowser-Based Interaction Chat Session,” was filed on December 21, 2000 and issued on April 27, 2004. Described in general terms, the patented invention consists of “a method and system for assisting a user to engage in an interactive chat session on a wireless handheld device,” which eliminates unnecessary keystrokes and reduces the need to switch back and forth between multiple screens while chatting. '916 patent at 1:10-12.

The parties have asked the Court to construe six terms in the '916 patent: (1) “card,” (2) “choice card,” (3) “choice-items,” (4) “choice-item segment,” (5) “ac- ' tuator,” and (6) “scrolling.”

A. “card ”

The first term that the Court must construe is “card.” Although “card” is not found as a stand-alone term in the claims, the Court agrees with the parties that construction of the term is nonetheless appropriate to provide necessary context for the jury to understand the meaning of “choice card,” which does appear in the language of several of the claims. Cf. Advanced Fiber Techs. (AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2012) (noting that, “in those cases in which the correct construction of a claim term necessitates a derivative construction of a non-claim term, a court may perform the derivative construction in order to elucidate the claim’s meaning”).

Comcast proposes a two-part construction, defining “card” as “at least one tag that describes the layout of one display screen,” and “tag” as “an instruction of a markup language, such as WML or HDML.” Sprint asserts that “card” should be defined as “the layout of a display screen.” During oral argument, counsel clarified the issues in dispute. The parties are now in agreement that the term “card” refers to computer instructions called “tags,” which describe the layout of a display screen, rather than to the layout of the display screen itself. However, the parties’ positions diverge as to (1) whether the tags must be written in a markup language, see Tr. 2/26/14 at 85:23-24 (counsel for Sprint); id. at 87:8-11 (counsel for Sprint); id. at 87:20-24 (counsel for Sprint); and (2) whether “the jury need ... be • burdened with the interpretation step,” see Tr. 1/23/14 at 91:12-13 (counsel for Sprint); id. at 90:7-11 (counsel for Sprint). The Court addresses each dispute in turn.

First, the Court concludes that the tags must be encoded in a markup language. The specification defines “tags” when it states: “ ‘Tags’ are generally the instructions of the' markup language.” '916 patent at 2:26-27. The patentee’s uses of the verb “are” and of quotation marks around “tags” are classic hallmarks of a patentee’s lexicography. See Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed.Cir.2007); see also Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc., 684 F.Supp.2d 678, 688 (E.D.Va.2009) (“Significantly, the patentee’s intention to act as lexicographer is evidenced by two recognized indicators: (i) the use of quotation marks around the claim term and (ii) the patentee’s use of the word ‘are.’”). Because the patentee “has elected to be a lexicographer by ... explicitly] defining]” “tags” in the specification, “th[is] definition ... controls.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed.Cir.1998).

Also highly instructive is the patentee’s statement that “[t]he conversation choice card may be encoded in a markup language such as WML or HDML, for instance. But other markup languages and other ‘non-cards’ constructs may be used instead.” '916 patent at 4:56-59. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the juxtaposition between the description of a “choice card ... encoded in a markup language” and the statement that “ ‘non-cards’ constructs may be used instead” to mean that cards are encoded in markup languages. The permissive word “may” in the first sentence does not alter this conclusion. Applying conventional rules of grammar, the reader can infer from the absence of a comma between “markup language” and “such as” that the patentee used the term “such as” in a restrictive manner to convey that a choice card may be encoded in a markup language of this type. See, e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style § 6.27 (16th ed.2010) (explaining that “such as,” when not set off by commas, introduces a restrictive clause (e.g., ‘Words such as matutinal and onomatopoetic are best to be avoided in everyday speech.”)). Thus, this sentence in no way implies that a card may be used in the absence of a markup language.

The Court next turns to the parties’ second dispute, which pertains not to the meaning of the term “card,” but how it should be presented to the jury. During the Markman hearing, counsel for Sprint repeatedly argued that Sprint’s construction is superior to Comcast’s because of its potential to facilitate juror comprehension. See, e.g., Tr. 1/23/14 at 90:7-11 (counsel for Sprint); id. at 93:12-15 (counsel for Sprint). Specifically, counsel for Sprint stated that, while “technically, it might be right,” Comcast’s “tag construction ... will do nothing but introduce confusion” because “if the [jury is] told that a card is instructions,” when a card is shown to the jurors, “they’re going to be looking for instructions,” not how those instructions are interpreted to generate the display. Id. at 87:9-11, 90:9-11 (counsel for Sprint). Sprint’s proposal, he further explained, “skips the confusing interpretation [step and] ... go[es] straight to the concept that ... tags are interpreted to create a display.” See id. at 93:12-15 (counsel for Sprint).

The Court declines to read the choice-card limitation out of the claims on the ground advanced by Sprint. The claims that use the term “choice card” do not define a display screen, but, rather, inter alia, “a choice card defining [a] user interface.” See, e.g., '916 patent at 14:13-14. Sprint cannot rewrite and broaden these claims under the guise of simplifying their language for the jury. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., No. 07-cv-06222, 2010 WL 4774774, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 16, 2010) (“The court fails to see why such a construction would be confusing to the jury, particularly since it would clarify a limitation of the claimed invention that the parties agree exists.”).

For these reasons, the Court adopts Comcast’s proposed construction and construes “card” as “at least one tag that describes the layout of the display screen” and “tag” as “an instruction of a markup language, such as WML or HDML.”

B. “choice card ”

The parties also disagree as to the meaning of “choice card,” which is included in claims 7, 16, 22, and 23 of the '916 patent. For example, claim 23 recites:

A method of assisting a user to engage in an interactive chat session via.a device coupled with a telecommunications network, the device having a display screen and at least one actuator, the method comprising:

(a) serollably displaying a display block of a choice card on the display screen such that only a portion of the display block is viewable on the display screen at a given time, the display block of the choice card comprising:

(1) at least one history-of-communication segment having a history-of-communications between the first device and at least one remote entity; and

(2) at least one choice-item segment having a plurality of choice-items each (i) selectable by the user through actuation of the at least one actuator and (ii) defining an action item related to the interactive chat session;

(b) in response to an indication from the user, scrolling some of the choice-items into view on the display screen while scrolling some of the communications out of view.

'916 patent at 16:7-28 (emphasis added).

Comcast contends that the specification defines a “choice card” as “a card that has at least one title segment and at least one choice-item segment.” Sprint rejects Comcast’s proposal, arguing that a choice card with a title segment is only one embodiment of the choice card that is claimed. See, e.g., Tr. 1/23/14 at 94:7-9 (counsel for Sprint); id. at 94:19-20 (counsel for Sprint); id. at 95:19-22 (counsel for Sprint). Sprint asserts that “choice card” requires no construction; but if construction is necessary, the Court should define “choice card” as “a display screen that includes at least one history-of-communieations segment and at least one choice-item segment.”

The Court agrees with Comcast that the specification explicitly defines the term “choice card” as containing two elements: (1) “a title segment” and (2) “a list of selectable options” (i.e., a “choice-item segment”). See '916 patent at 3:42^14 (“Like the entry card, the choice card has a title segment, which usually identifies the subject matter of the card. The choice card, however, has a list of selectable options instead of a text-entry segment.”). Again, because the “patentee [has] explicitly define[d the] claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.” Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2009).

Further, the Court rejects Sprint’s argument that Figure 6-A in the specification illustrates “an example of an embodiment that does not ... display a title segment,” see Tr. 1/23/14 at 96:8-10 (counsel for Sprint). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the title segment of the choice card shown in Figure 6-A is the part of the drawing in which the history of communications is displayed. See, e.g., '916 patent at 4:49-52 (“The choice card may conveniently, [sic] include, as its title segment, a history-of-communications, and conveniently include, as its choice-items, a number of functional choices related to the chat session.”); id. at 8:61-64 (“[T]he title segment of the text-entry card may be set as a history-of-communications and the text-entry segment may be set as a response-entry field.” (citations omitted)). Thus, contrary to Sprint’s contention, Comcast’s proposed construction does not exclude an embodiment disclosed in the specification.

Finally, the Court rejects Sprint’s argument that the danger of confusing the jury outweighs the utility of construction. During the Markman hearing, counsel for Sprint argued that if the Court instructs the jury that a “choice card” must have a title segment, jurors will be confused if that title segment is used to display a history of communications instead of a subject heading. Jurors can easily grasp, however, that, while a title segment is “usually [used to] identify] the subject matter of the choice card,” see id. at 3:42, it also can be used to display a history of communications.

For the stated reasons, the Court construes “choice card” as “a card that has at least one title segment and at least one choice-item segment.”

C. “choice-items ” and “choice-item segment ”

Next, the Court must construe the terms “choice-items” and “choice-item segment,” which are contained in claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 16, 22 and 23 (supra at 600-01) of the '916 patent. For example, claim 1 states:

A user interface for providing an interactive chat session on a wireless handheld device, the wireless handheld device having a display screen and at least one actuator, the user interface comprising:

(a) a display block including:

(1) at least one history-of-communications segment displayed on the display screen, the at least one history-of-communications segment having communications between the wireless handheld device and at least one remote entity; and

(2) at least one choice-item segment displayed on the display screen, the at least one choice-item segment having a plurality of choice-items each (i) selectable by a user through actuation of the at least one actuator and (ii) defining an action item related to the chat session;

wherein only a portion of the display block is viewable on the display screen at any given time; and

(b) a mechanism to allow the user to scroll through the display block to move some of the choice-items into view on the display screen while moving some of the communications out of view.

'916 patent at 13:44-65 (emphasis added).

In arguing that both “choice-items” and “choice-item segments” are necessarily elements of a “choice card,” Comcast asserts that “[t]he progression and interrelationship of these terms—‘choice-items’ to ‘choice-item segment’ to ‘choice card’—is laid out plainly in the specification and should be reflected in the constructions of the terms, regardless whether all of three of them are expressly included in a given claim.” Comcast’s Answering Claim Construction Br. at 26. Sprint contends that “a ‘choice card’ is merely one embodiment of the present invention disclosed by the specification and recited by only some of the asserted claims.” Sprint’s Opening Claim Construction Br. at 24.

The Court agrees with Sprint and concludes that neither a “choice-item” nor a “choice-item segment” must be contained in a “choice card.” First, Sprint’s position is buttressed by the differences between the patent claims. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. This doctrine stems from “the common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope.” Sea-change Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2005).

Applying the doctrine of claim differentiation to Sprint’s '916 patent, the plain language of claim 1 does not require a “choice card,” but only a “user interface comprising,” inter alia, “a display block,” which “include[es, in relevant part] ... at least one history-of-communications segment” and “at least one choice-item segment ... having a plurality of choice-items.” '916 patent at 13:48-56. Claim 1 is followed by dependent claim 7, which requires that “a choice card defines the user interface.” Id. at 14:13-14. Because the only distinction between claim 1 and claim 7 is the inclusion of a choice card, Sprint is entitled to a presumption that this limitation is not found in claim 1, the independent claim from which claim 7 depends. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed.Cir.2004).

Although Comcast correctly notes that the doctrine of claim differentiation only creates a rebuttable presumption, this presumption is at its strongest “when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim.” SunRace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003). Moreover, unlike the case of the markup-language limitation, Com-cast has produced no persuasive evidence to rebut this presumption, nor can the Court find any in the specification. Rather, it is clear from the intrinsic evidence that the discussion of a choice card in the specification merely reflects the fact that “[o]ne of the best ways to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention is to provide an example of how to practice the invention in a particular case.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

In the “Summary” section of the patent, the patentee consistently described the use of a “choice card” as an “exemplary embodiment of the present invention,” see, e.g., '916 patent at 4:47-48; see also id. at 6:32-34, and explained that, in defining the claimed user interface, “ ‘non-cards’ constructs may be used instead.” Id. at 4:58-59; see also id. at 7:40-42 (“Of course other markup languages are possible and those skilled in the art will appreciate that other arrangements may be used instead.”). The absence of a specific embodiment describing a non-card construct does not prevent the “user interface” recited in claim 1 from being afforded its plain and ordinary meaning at the relevant time. Because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that both card and non-card constructs could define this user interface, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of that claim term.

Finally, the prosecution history supports Sprint’s construction. “Statements about a claim term made by an examiner during prosecution of an application may be evidence of how one of skill in the art understood the term at the time the application was filed.” Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005). In his reasons for acceptance, the examiner distinguished between those claims that do require a choice card and those that do not. Comcast’s Answering Claim Construction Br., Ex. Z, at 2 (“The features combined in independent claims 1 (user interface), 14 (method), 24 (user interface bringing out the choice card having the display, and 25 (method bunging out the choice card having the display), all amended, are not set forth in the prior art of record.” (emphasis added))). By differentiating between the claims with a choice-card limitation (claims 24 and 25) and those without (claims 1 and 14), the examiner’s statements reveal that he did not interpret the limitation of a choice card to be implicitly incorporated into every claim. The examiner’s interpretation therefore is in accord with the interpretation of the Court.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that neither a “choice-item” nor a “choice-item segment” must be included in a choice card. Because the Court rejects Com-cast’s construction and because Sprint’s construction provides no additional insight into the meaning to either term, the Court concludes that further construction is unnecessary. See 02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2008) (noting that “[c]laim construction ‘is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy’ ” (quoting U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1997))). Thus, “choice-items” and “choice-item segment” are assigned their plain and ordinary meanings.

D. “actuator ”

The parties also are unable to agree on a construction of “actuator.” “Actuator” is found in claims 1 (supra at 602), 13, 22, and 23 (supra at 600-01) of the '916 patent. For example, claim 1 requires, inter alia, that the “display block include[es] ... at least one choice-item segment having a plurality of choice-items each (i) selectable by a user through actuation of ... at least one actuator and (ii) defining an action item related to the chat session.” '916 patent at 13:48-59 (emphasis added).

Comcast argues that the Court should construe “actuator” as “a mechanical device for triggering an action,” while Sprint proposes “a mechanism for triggering an action.” The crux of the dispute is whether an actuator must be “mechanical” or whether it may take the form of a non-mechanical device, such as certain types of touchscreens. The Court agrees with Sprint that the claimed actuator need not be mechanical.

■ The primary support for Comcast’s argument that an “actuator” must be mechanical is its assertion that “the only thing that’s specifically referred to as ... actuator[s] in the patent, are ... two [soft-key] buttons.” Tr. 1/23/14 at 138:6-8 (counsel for Comcast). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, “ha[s] expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. Further, the specification expressly refers to other methods for selecting choice-items. For example, the specification states that a user may select a choice-item (1) by choosing a number assigned to the choice-item on a “numeric character-entry device” or (2) by “us[ing] scroll keys” to highlight the preferred choice-item and, then, “pressing] an ‘OK’ softkey ... or engaging] in another designated actuator to select the highlighted item.” See '916 patent at 8:8-13, 10:7-12 (citations omitted). Although silent as to what forms the “another designated actuator” might take, the specification states that “[t]he character-entry device may be [inter alia ] ... a touch interface, a touch interface with handwriting recognition, a touch interface with virtual character-entry, or a voice recognition system.” Id. at 8:8-13; see also id. at 1:39-47. Because Comcast’s proposed construction improperly excludes these non-mechanical embodiments, it must be rejected absent “highly persuasive evidentiary support” to the contrary. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.

The two dictionaries cited by Comcast in support of its construction cannot fill this evidentiary void. Even assuming that Comcast’s dictionary evidence necessarily equates an actuator to a mechanical device, other dictionary definitions contain no such limitation. See, e.g., Alan Freedman, McGraw Hill Computer Desktop Encyclopedia 11 (9th Cir.2001) (defining “actuator” as “[a] mechanism that causes a device to be turned on or off, adjusted or moved.”); Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 14 (2d revised and updated ed.2000) (defining “actuator” as “a person or thing that actuates” or “a servomechanism that supplies and transmits a measured amount of energy for the operation of another mechanism,” and defining “actuator” as “to incite or move into action; impel; motivate” or “to put into action”); The Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 22 (2002) (defining “actuator,” as, inter alia, “any of the various electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic mechanisms by means of which something is moved or controlled indirectly instead of-by hand”). In light of the intrinsic evidence supporting a construction of “actuator” that is not limited to a “mechanical device,” these broader dictionary definitions are consistent with the use of the term in the specification.

Accordingly, Court defines “actuator” to mean “a mechanism for triggering an action.”

E. “scrolling ”

The final term that the Court must construe in Sprint’s '916 patent is “scrolling.” Some form of the verb “to scroll” is found in claims 1 (supra at 602), 13, 22, and 23 {supra at 600-01) of the '916 patent. For example, claim 1 states, in relevant part, that the claimed user interface comprises, inter alia, “a mechanism to allow the user to scroll through the display block to move some of the choice-items into view on the display screen while moving some of the communications out of view during prosecution.” '916 patent at 13:62-65 (emphasis f added).

Comcast argues that, of the '916 patent application, the applicant disclaimed the “selection of a choice-item to view additional choice-items” from the scope of the term “scrolling.” Sprint asserts that the Court should not read this negative limitation into the claim language. Further, Sprint argues that the term needs no construction or should be defined according to its “ordinary meaning”: “causing some of the choice-items to move into view on the display screen while causing some of the communications to move out of view.”

The Court starts from the premise that, while “generally not favored,” “negative limitations, which describe the invention in terms of what it is not rather than what it is, are ... permissible when they are justified by clear disavowal or disclaimer.” Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc., No. 11-cv-1285, 2012 WL 3234282, at *15 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 6, 2012). Thus, “[i]f [an] applicant unequivocally disavows claim scope [during prosecution], the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer applies even if the disclaimer results in a negative claim limitation.” RFID Tracker, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 342 Fed.Appx. 628, 630 (Fed.Cir.2009). One way that the applicant may disavow claim scope is “by clearly characterizing the invention in a way to try to overcome rejections based on prior art.” Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2008).

During prosecution, the examiner rejected the '916 patent application as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,519,771 (“Zenith”). In response to the examiner’s objection, the “[a]pplieant acknowledge^] that Zenith discloses a user interface that contains chat dialogue and choice-items,” but further explained:

Zenith also discloses that a user can scroll through the chat dialog. Applicant submits, however, that Zenith does not disclose that the user can scroll through a display block to move choice-items into view on the display screen while moving some of the chat dialogue out of view. Instead for a user to view additional choice items, the user would have to select a choice item, which would cause the device to display another set of choice items in the place of the choice-items previously displayed. (Col. 6, line 9-11). The selection of a choice-item to view additional choice-items is functionally different from scrolling through the display block to move choice-items and communications cooperatively into and out of view, as presently claimed.

Applicant submits that Zenith does not disclose scrolling through the display block, in the manner presently claimed.

Comcast’s Answering Claim Construction Br., Ex. Y, at 9-10 (emphasis added).

After carefully scrutinizing the prosecution history, the Court agrees with Com-cast that the patentee disclaimed the “selection of a choice-item to view additional choice-items” from the scope of the term “scrolling” in order to “to try to overcome [a] rejection! ] based on prior art.” Computer Docking Station, 519 F.3d at 1375. Indeed, during the Markman hearing, counsel for Sprint agreed “that the patentee drew a fundamental distinction between ... the Zenith patent and the scrolling that [the '916 patentee] claimed,” Tr. 1/23/14 at 113:6-8 (counsel for Sprint), and that “pressing a button, making a choice!,] and getting a new set of choices” is “not scrolling,” id. at 111:3-5 (counsel for Sprint). In short, counsel for Sprint conceded that the “disavowing ... statements made during prosecution [were] both clear and unmistakable.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.2003).

Notwithstanding Sprint’s agreement as to the existence of a disclaimer, counsel for Sprint took issue at the hearing with Com-cast’s characterization of the disclaimer as the “selection of a choice-item to move additional choice-items into view is not scrolling.” Joint Claim Construction Chart at 23 (emphasis added). Specifically, he argued that Comcast “took the statement during prosecution”—“[t]he selection of a choice-item to view additional choice-items is functionally different from scrolling” (emphasis added)—and replaced the infinitive “to view” with “to move.” After counsel for Sprint explained its client’s objection, Comcast agreed to “replace [‘]to move[’] with [‘]to view[’]” in order to “track[ ] precisely what [was] said” to the examiner. Tr. 1/23/14 at 144:21-24 (counsel for Comcast). Despite Comcast’s having modified its proposal to overcome the sole objection articulated by Sprint, counsel for Sprint continued to object to any construction as “unnecessary” because “[w]e’re talking about something that no one’s [sic] ever said was scrolling.” Id. at 146:22-24 (counsel for Sprint).

The Court declines to accept Sprint’s argument that construction of the term “scrolling” is “unnecessary.” According to Comcast, the construction of “scrolling” is relevant to its defense of non-infringement, and the Court is unable to conclude that, absent construction, there is no danger of jurors being confused or mislead. Thus, to “provide the jury ... with instructions adequate to ensure that the jury fully understands ... what the patentee covered by the claims,” Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 358 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2004), the Court will exclude “selection of a choice-item to view additional choice-items” from the scope of the term “scrolling.”

Beyond this disclaimer, the Court deems the claim language to be sufficiently clear so as not to require additional construction. “Scrolling” is a commonplace word to which the patentee ascribes no special meaning. Lay jurors can be expected to use this term in the same manner as would a person of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 07-CV-432, 2009 WL 2497102, at *7 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 13, 2009) (“The term is not confusing because the lay meaning of this term is the same meaning as that which a person having ordinary skill in the art would attribute to the term.”), aff'd sub nom. Priceplay, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 410 Fed.Appx. 325 (Fed.Cir.2011). Further, Sprint’s proposed definition, despite purporting to reflect the term’s ordinary meaning, is overly broad because it fails to capture the “continuous and smooth movement” that “scrolling implies.” Freedman, supra, at 869. For these reasons, additional construction “would only introduce confusion and ambiguity into a clear and unambiguous phrase.” Callpod, Inc. v. GN Netcom, Inc., No. 06-cv-4961, 2009 WL 590156, at *7 (N.D.Ill. March 6, 2009).

Accordingly, the Court assigns the term “scrolling” its plain and ordinary meaning, with the clarification that “selection of a choice-item to view additional choice-items is not scrolling.”

F. Summary of Constructions

The Court’s constructions with respect to the '916 patent are set forth in the following chart.

V. '907 Patents

Sprint’s '4,907 Patent, entitled “Remote Control of Video-on-Demand System,” was filed on February 9, 2000 and issued on June 22, 2004. Sprint’s '7,907 Patent, entitled “Display Selection in a Video-on-Demand System,” was filed on February 9, 2000 and issued on June 29, 2004. Despite almost identical specifications, each patent describes a separate invention. At a high level, the invention of the '4,907 patent is “a video-on-demand system that provides a [television] viewer with remote control,” see '4,907 patent at 1:8-9, while the invention of the '7,907 patent is a “video-on-demand system that provides a [television] viewer with a selection of displays for viewing video,” see '7,907 patent at 1:20-21.

The parties have identified five terms in the '907 patents that require Court construction: (1) “operating a video-on-demand system,” (2) “video control signal,” (3) “viewer control signal,” (4) “transferring [video content signals/the video content signals],” and (5) “transferring [first/second] video signals.” Further, Comcast asserts that an additional four terms are indefinite: (1) “second communication system,” (2) “the video content signals,” (3) “the first communications interface,” and (4) “the second communications interface.”

A. “operating a video-on-demand system ”

The term “operating a video-on-demand system” appears in claim 10 of the '4,907 patent and claim 21 of the '7,907 patent. For example, claim 10 of the '4,907 patent states:

A method of operating a video-on-demand system, the method comprising: transferring a control screen signal to a second communication system;

receiving a video control signal from the second communication system;

implementing a viewer control selection indicated by the video control signal; and

transferring video content signals to a first communication interface if the first communication interface is indicated by the video control signal received from a second communication interface or transferring the video content signals to the second communication interface if the second communication interface is indicated by the video control signal.

'4,907 patent at 7:6-21 (emphasis added).

The dispute with respect to these two terms is narrow. The parties disagree as to whether the claimed methods for operating a video-on-demand system must exclude the use of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system. Comcast argues that the patent disclaims the use of a set-top box for remote control by disparaging the prior art’s reliance on set-top boxes and by not including a set-top box in any one of the patents’ embodiments. Sprint disagrees, asserting that the allegedly “disparaging” language cited by Comcast merely “discuss[es] certain disadvantages of prior systems that relied exclusively on set-top boxes to process video and control signals.” Sprint’s Answering Claim Construction Br. at 12.

“The standard for disavowal of claim scope is ... exacting,” however, “ ‘[w]here the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.’ ” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2012) (quoting SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325 (“The patentee may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”).

The disparaging language at issue is found in the “Background of the Invention” and “Summary of the Invention” sections of the patents, both of which are typically understood to be parts of a specification that “broadly describe the overall invention!].” Microsoft Corp. v. MultiTech. Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir.2004). In describing the prior art, the patentee noted that “[v]ideo-on-demand systems use a television set-top box for remote control,” which allows the “viewer [to] view a video content menu on the television,” “order video content for display on the television,” and “play, stop, pause, rewind, and fast forward the video content on the television.” '4,907 patent at 1:24-30; '7,907 patent at 1:36-39. The problem with this arrangement, the patentee explained, is that “the set-top box is a special component that is closely coupled to the television” and “does not have other uses.” '4,907 patent at 1:30-32; '7,907 patent at 1:39-40. Besides that it is “not mobile,” “[t]he set-top box does not have a video display” and “does not offer a selection of displays or bandwidths.” '7,907 patent at 1:41-43.

While “eliminating] the cost of a special television set-top box,” “[t]he invention[s] solve[ ]” these shortcomings, see '4,907 patent at 1:35, :42-46; '7,907 patent at 1:46, :54-55, by “disclosing] an enhanced video-on-demand system whereby [a] user[] ‘use[s] a portable computer connected over a second communications system for remote control’ such that the user ‘can control the video display using [his or her] portable computer.’ ” Sprint’s Opening Claim Construction Br. at 9 (quoting '4,907 patent at 1:35-44). Replacement of the set-top box with a portable computer allows the viewer to control the television remotely through the computer or to select the option of watching content on the portable computer itself.

The instant case is akin to others in which courts have found disavowals of claim scope. In In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., for instance, the question was whether an “electrochemical sensor,” used to provide information to diabetes patients about glucose levels in their bloodstreams, necessarily was devoid of cables and wires connecting the electrochemical sensor to the sensor unit. 696 F.3d 1142, 1143 (Fed.Cir.2012). In reversing the PTO’s holding that the sensor could, in some configurations, be attached to external cables and wires, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit focused on the fact that (1) “the specification contain[ed] only disparaging remarks with respect to the external cables and wires of the prior-art sensors”; and (2) “every embodiment disclosed in the specification show[ed] an electrochemical sensor without external cables or wires.” Id. at 1149. Likewise, the '907 specifications contain only disparaging remarks about the use of a set-top box for remote control of a video-on-demand system. Set-top boxes also are not used for remote control of the video-on-demand system in any of the disclosed embodiments.

Moreover, this case can be distinguished from others in which disparaging statements have not risen to the level of disavowals. For example, unlike In re Rambus, 694 F.3d 42, 47 (Fed.Cir.2012), in which “[t]here [were] no words of manifest exclusion or clear disavowals of multichip devices,” the '907 patents clearly state in their “Summary of Invention” sections that “[t]he portable computer ... eliminates the cost of a special television set-top box.” '4,907 patent at 1:41-43 (emphasis added); '7,907 patent at 1:53-55 (same). Nor is this a case like those in which “courts have found no disclaimer of claim scope” because “the specification [only] describe[d] certain features as ‘preferable’ or as examples.” Colucci v. Callaway Golf Co., No. 08-cv-288, 2010 WL 324771, at *6 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 21, 2010).

Sprint’s counterarguments as to why the Court should not find a disclaimer are unavailing. First, Sprint argues that such a disclaimer would subvert the “aim” of the two patents, which Sprint vaguely characterizes as “to give user’s [sic] more ways to access video-on-demand content by combining conventional techniques for operating a video-on-demand system with, e.g., newer Internet-based technologies.” Sprint’s Opening Claim Construction Br. at 11. But the intrinsic evidence is devoid of support for this assertion. In fact, during the Markman hearing, counsel for Sprint acknowledged that the object of the '4,907 patent is not the combination of new and old technologies, but “the ability to remotely control how the video is presented,” Tr. 1/22/14 at 31:4-5 (counsel for Sprint); see also id. at 32:5-8 (counsel for Sprint), while the object of the '7,907 patent is to “giv[e] the user the ability to select the display of the video that [he or she is] purchasing or previewing, or interested in buying,” see id. at 18:24-19:1 (counsel for Sprint); see also id. at 20:2-4 (counsel for Sprint).

Indeed, if a viewer was required to control the television through a set-top box, it is difficult to see what value the '4,907 patent would add to the prior art. Adopting Sprint’s argument, the viewer would be forced to use “the very [prior art] that the patent criticized,” Tech. Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd., 700 F.3d 482, 493 (Fed.Cir.2012), rather than being able to remotely control the video content through the portable computer. While the remote-control functions presumably could be divided between the sét-top box and the portable computer, this arrangement would provide little or no advantage over the prior art.

Likewise, the Court disagrees with Sprint’s argument that, because the term “operating a video-on-demand system” is located in the claims’ respective preambles, the term “should not be construed in a limiting manner.” Sprint Opening Claim Construction Br. at 11. It is proper to construe a preamble as limiting when “the preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to' the claims or counts.’ ” On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed.Cir.2006) (quoting Kropa v. Robie, 38 C.C.P.A. 858, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (1951)). The patents identify the inventions as “video-on-demand systems,” yet, aside from the preambles, there is no mention of a video-on-demand system in the claims. Because a reader would not understand that the claimed methods pertain to video-on-demand systems absent the preamble language, the preambles must limit the claims. See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2012) (holding that the preamble-phrase “rotary cutter deck” was a limitation when the specification referred to “the present invention” as “a rotary cutter deck”); Poly-Am, LP v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2004) (construing the preamble,' which disclosed a “fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention,” as limiting).

Finally, the Court rejects Sprint’s argument that it is improper to construe such a structural limitation into a method claim. See, e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2010) (rejecting the argument that it is improper to incorporate structural limitations into a method claims), rev’d on other grounds, 692 F.3d 1301, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2012) (en banc) (per curium), rev’d, - U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2111, 189 L.Ed.2d 52 (2014). It is well established that “[mjethod claim preambles often recite the physical structures of a system in which the claim method is practiced.” Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2003) (construing a method claim as including “steps that require the operation or manipulation of the particular structure identified and described by the preamble”).

Accordingly, the Court construes “operating a video-on-demand system” as “operating a video-on-demand system without the use of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system.”

B. “video control signal ” and “viewer control signal ”

The next two terms are “video control signal,” which is located in claim 10 (supra at 609) of the '4,907 patent, and “viewer control signal,” which is located in claims 21, 23, and 31 of the '7,907 patent. For example, claim 21 of the '7,907 patent states:

A method of operating a video-on-demand system, the method comprising:

transferring a control screen signal indicating a control screen to a second communication system;

receiving a viewer control signal from the second communication system; and

transferring first video signals to a first communication system using a first bandwidth if the first communication system is indicated by the viewer control signal or transferring second video signals to the second communication system using a second bandwidth if the second communication system is indicated by the viewer control signal wherein the second bandwidth is less than the first bandwidth.

'7,907 patent at 7:58-8:4.

The dispute over these two terms is intertwined with that of the last. As discussed supra, the Court concludes that neither a video control nor a viewer control signal may be generated and processed using a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system. However, in characterizing the disclaimers as they relate to these two terms, Comcast’s proposals go too far. The specifications are precise in defining a set-top box as a “special component that is closely coupled to the television,” which serves a single funqtion: that of a remote control. See '4,907 patent at 1:24-25; :31-32 (“Video-on-demand systems use a television set-top box for remote control----The set-top box does not have other uses.”); '7,907 patent at 1:36— 37 (“Video-on-demand systems use a television set-top box for remote control.”). The specification does not disparage the use of a set-top box for other purposes, such as for “decoding a video signal] and presenting] it to a television.” Tr. 1/22/14 at 30:1-2 (counsel for Sprint); see also Tr. 1/22/14 at 49:13-17 (counsel for Sprint). Thus, in requiring that the two control signals be “generated and processed without [any] involvement of a set-top box,” Comcast overreaches.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects the constructions of these terms— “video control signal” and “viewer control signal”—proposed by the parties. The Court construes “video control signal” as “a video control signal generated and processed without the involvement of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system” and “viewer control signal” as “a viewer control signal generated and processed without the involvement of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system.”

C. “transferring [video content signals/the video content signals]” and “transferring [first/second] video signals”

The Court also addresses the next two terms as a pair. “Transferring [video content signals/the video content signals]” is located in claim 10 (supra at 609) of the '4,907 patent, and “transferring [first/second] video signals” is located in claims 21, 23, 25, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37 of the '7,907 patent. For example, claim 10 of the '4,907 patent states, in relevant part, “transferring video content signals to a first communication interface if the first communication interface is indicated by the video control signal received from a second communication interface or transferring the video content signals to the second communication interface if the second communication interface is indicated by the video control signal.” '4,907 patent at 7:15-21 (emphasis added).

Comcast asserts that the Court should construe these terms to reflect the fact that, as described in the specifications, “the video signals are transferred in response to the video/viewer control signal received from the computer.” Comcast’s Answering Claim Construction Br. at 14. Sprint offers only two arguments as to why the Court should reject Comcast’s proposal, neither of which are persuasive.

First, Sprint argues that judicial construction is unnecessary because “[t]he claimed ‘transferring’ of video signals is set forth with plain and non-technical language that will be easily understood by the jury without judicial construction.” Sprint’s Opening Claim Construction Br. at 13. This argument ignores that the parties do not disagree about what it literally means to transfer a video content signal or video signal; rather, their positions diverge on the issue of whether the video signal must be sent in response to a video or viewer control signal. 02 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361 (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate ... when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Thus, even if the terms are in plain English, the Court must “determine what claim scope is appropriate in the context of the patents-in-suit.” Id.

Similarly unpersuasive is Sprint’s argument that Comcast’s construction fails to “demónstratele] that the transferring of video content signals is not ‘in response to’ a particular signal, but is instead responsive to a host of signals that may be transmitted within the system.” Sprint’s Opening Claim Construction Br. at 13. Not only does Sprint fail to identify any other type of signal besides a “control signal” to which the video or viewer content signal responds, but its argument is plainly contradicted by the specifications, including parts on which it relies. See, e.g., Joint Claim Construction Chart at 14 (citing '7,907 patent at 2:61-3:14, which states, in relevant part, “The processing system transfers video signals ... in response to the viewer control signal.” (citation omitted)); see also, e.g., '4,907 patent at 2:54-57 (same); '7,907 patent at 4:5-7 (“The processing system ... responsively transfer[s] a preview of the selected video content as video signals.” (citation omitted)); '4,907 patent at 3:57-59'(same); '4,907 patent at 2:47-49 (“In response to viewer input to the control screen, the second display transfers a corresponding viewer control signal____” (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, because Sprint has provided no legitimate basis for objecting to Comcast’s proposed constructions, which are amply supported by the specifications, the Court construes the terms as follows in accordance with Comcast’s proposed constructions: (1) “transferring [video content signals/the video content signals]” is construed as “in response to the video control signal, transferring [video content signals/the video content signals]”; and (2) “transferring [first/seeond] video signals” is construed as “in response to the viewer control signal, transferring [first/seeond] video signals.”

D. Allegedly Indefinite Claim Terms

The final set of disputes between parties with respect to the '907 patents pertain to a series of terms that Comcast contends are indefinite. Specifically, Comcast argues the following terms are “insolubly ambiguous” and, thus, incapable of being construed: (1) “second communication system,” (2) “the video content signals,” (3) “the first communications interface,” and (4) “the second communications interface.”

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the parties filed their briefs prior to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014). In Nautilus, the Court clarified that the relevant inquiry is not whether a claim term is “insolubly ambiguous,” but whether the “claim[], read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. at 2124. Accordingly, this Court is guided by the standard set forth in Nautilus.

1. “second communication system”

Comcast argues that the term “second communication system” in claims 10 through 18 of the '4,907 patent is indefinite because claim 10—from which claims 11 through 18 depend—refers to a “second communication system” without any reference to a “first communication system.” The Court rejects this argument. Although claim 10 does not recite a “first communication system,” it does recite a first and a second communication interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “second communication system” logically pertains to the “second communication interface.”

Moreover, to the extent that there is any ambiguity left by the words of the claims, the specification and independent claim 1 of the patent make the relationship between the second communication interface and second communication system abundantly clear. See, e.g., '4,907 patent at 2:17-24 (noting in the specification that “[t]he video-on-demand system comprises a fi