Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

Background

Personalized Media Communications, LLC sued Netflix Inc. for patent infringement. Before the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, a court in an earlier related proceeding construed the patent term “intermediate transmission station” to mean a “station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions.” That court construed the different term “intermediate transmitter station” according to its plain and ordinary meaning.

The disputed terms appear in a family of patents sharing a common specification. “Intermediate transmission station” appears in the specification and in some patent claims. “Intermediate transmitter station” appears in claims of other patents, but the specification and glossary do not use that exact term.

Netflix moved for reconsideration of the earlier construction of “intermediate transmitter station.” A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling, generally because of a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.

Analysis

The court held that reconsideration was warranted because “intermediate transmission station” and “intermediate transmitter station” are synonyms. It relied primarily on the patents’ intrinsic evidence: the claims, specification, and patent-application history. The court noted that the specification used “intermediate transmission station,” while a claim used “intermediate transmitter station,” without indicating a difference in meaning. It also relied on prosecution-history statements in which Personalized Media Communications used material discussing “intermediate transmission stations” to support claims referring to an “intermediate transmitter station.”

The court further found support in related patents, inventor testimony, and the parties’ earlier litigation positions. The court stated that Personalized Media Communications and Netflix had briefed the terms together, and that Personalized Media Communications had used the terms interchangeably in other patent materials and in its technology tutorial.

The court rejected Personalized Media Communications’ argument that “intermediate transmitter station” was a broader category and “intermediate transmission station” was a narrower example. It found no evidence that Personalized Media Communications had understood the terms that way before the earlier ruling.

Because the court found the terms synonymous, it concluded that they must receive the same construction. It did not disturb the earlier ruling that “intermediate transmission station” was defined in the patents.

Disposition

The court granted Netflix’s motion for reconsideration. It construed “intermediate transmitter station” to mean a “station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 66.