On March 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 52 in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display and Processing Capabilities (Inv. No. 337-TA-884). 

By way of background, the investigation is based on a complaint filed by Graphics Properties Holding Inc. (“GPH”) alleging a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S., sale of importation into the U.S., or sale after importation into the U.S. of certain consumer electronics with display and processing capabilities that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent), 8,144,158 (the ‘158 patent), and 5,717,881 (the ‘881 patent) by numerous Respondents.  See our May 21, 2013 and June 24, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

The ‘327 Patent

The first disputed term of the ‘327 patent was “processor” which ALJ Gildea construed as having its plain and ordinary meaning. The second disputed term was “rasterization circuit” which ALJ Gildea construed to mean “a graphics operation that translates three dimensional primitives into a set of corresponding fragments and/or pixels and fills them in.” The third disputed term was “frame buffer” which, ALJ Gildea determined (after rejecting both Respondents’ and GPH’s proposed constructions) one of ordinary skill would understand to mean “a portion of computer memory that stores and provides access to a bit-mapped image for display.”  The fourth disputed term was “color values” which ALJ Gildea determined meant “attributes of a color (e.g., proportion of red, green, and blue color components).”  The fifth disputed claim term was “texture circuit” which ALJ Gildea construed based on GPH’s construction as meaning “an interconnection of specialized electrical hardware [i.e., a circuit] for applying texture to a primitive.”

The ‘158 Patent

The first disputed term of the ‘158 patent was “a geometry processor” which ALJ Gildea construed as meaning “a processor for performing geometric calculations on a plurality of vertices of a primitive.”  The second disputed term was “a rasterizer” which ALJ Gildea found the parties had essentially adopted in their proposed constructions for the term “rasterization circuit” contained in the ‘327 patent, and thus found should be construed based on the agreed upon meaning for “rasterization.” The third disputed term was “scan converter” which the ALJ construed based on GPH’s construction to mean “a subsystem that receives primitives and generates pixel and/or fragment positions associated with the primitive.” The fourth disputed term was “scan convert data” which ALJ Gildea determined required no construction beyond that which was already adopted for the term “scan converter.” For the terms “frame buffer” and “color values,” ALJ Gildea adopted the same construction that was used for the terms in the ‘327 patent.  The seventh disputed term was “floating point texture circuit” which ALJ Gildea found should have the same meaning as applied in the ‘327 patent with the addition that the texture is specified by floating point values.