PLS IV, LLC v. GDC Technology Limited

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PLS IV, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
GDC TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00466-JRG
MEMORANDUM CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION AND ORDER
In this patent case, Plaintiff PLS IV, LLC (“PLS”) accuses Defendant GDC Technology
Limited (“GDC”) of infringing claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,340,602 (the “’602 Patent”) and U.S.
Patent No. 7,406,603 (the “’603 Patent”). The ’602 Patent “relates to systems and methods for
authenticating and protecting the integrity of electronic information using cryptographic tech-
niques.” ’602 Patent at 1:40–41. The ’603 Patent concerns data protection systems and methods
that “provide enhanced resistance to attempts to circumvent content protection.” ’603 Patent at
[54], 1:27–29.
The parties present four claim-construction disputes from the two patents. Having consid-
ered the parties’ briefing, along with arguments of counsel at a November 10, 2025 hearing, the
Court resolves those disputes as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
A. U.S. Patent 7,340,602
The ’602 Patent notes the problem of, in the context of conducting remote transactions,
“authenticating messages received from others and providing ways for others to authenticate one’s
own messages.” ’602 Patent at 1:51–53. Generally, prior-art techniques for addressing this problem
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
rely on sharing private information, like a private key, between the sender and receiver of mes-
sages. Id. at 1:65–2:6. As shown in Figure 1A (below), for example, a message sender applies a
hashing algorithm (102) to a message (100), which creates a hash (104) of the message. That hash
is encrypted (106) using a private key (108), which results in a separate signature (105). Both the
message and the signature are sent to the receiver. As shown in Figure 1B (below), after receiving
the message (100’) and signature (105’), the receiver decrypts the signature using a public key
(118), applies the hashing algorithm to the message (114), and compares the two results (116, 120).
If those results are equal, the message is deemed authentic. See generally id. at 2:15–36.
FIGS. 1A (left) and 1B of the ’602 Patent
This approach, however, requires the receiver to receive the entire message before authen-
ticating it. ’602 Patent at 2:37–39. For large files, like multimedia files, that can take an impractical
amount of time and storage, and might prevent users from starting to use the file before it is com-
pletely received. Id. at 2:39–47. Alternatively, the file could be broken into parts and the method
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
shown in Figures 1A–1B used for each subpart, but that can lead to other problems, like receiving
parts in an incorrect order. Id. at 3:2–5.
As an improvement, the patent teaches “using a signed chain of check values . . . con-
structed from the original content of the communication.” ’602 Patent at [57]. “[E]ach check value
in the chain [is] at least partially dependent on the signed root of the chain and a portion of the
communication.” Id. In Figure 10A, for example, the disclosed embodiment partitions a content
file (1005) into segments P1 through Pi. The method hashes each segment, and then hashes each
group of hashes, and so on, ultimately obtaining a top-level group hash H(GM) (1020) for the file.
This provides a signed hash usable to verify other hash values in the hierarchy, and those other
hash values can be used to efficiently authenticate other parts of the file. See generally id. at 14:39–
15:10.
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The parties dispute one term from this patent, which is a phrase in Claim 25:
25. A method for encoding a block of data in a manner designed to
facilitate fault-tolerant authentication comprising:
generating a progression of check values, each check value in
the progression being derived from a portion of the block of
data and from at least one other check value in the progres-
sion;
generating an encoded block of data, comprising:
inserting error-check values into the block of data, each er-
ror-check value being inserted in proximity to a portion
of the block of data to which it corresponds, and each
error-check value being operable to facilitate authentica-
tion of a portion of the block of data and of a check value
in the progression of check values;
transmitting the encoded block of data and the check values to a
user’s system,
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
whereby the user’s system is able to receive and authenticate
portions of the encoded block of data before the entire
encoded block of data is received,
wherein each error-check value comprises a hash of the portion
of the block of data to which it corresponds.
’602 Patent at 23:38–59 (disputed phrase in bold). Specifically, they dispute whether the
“whereby” clause is limiting.
B. U.S. Patent 7,406,603
The ’603 Patent relates to data protection systems and methods that “provide enhanced
resistance to attempts to circumvent content protection.” ’603 Patent at [54] (“Data Protection
Systems and Methods”), 1:27–29. At the time, conventional content protection methods focused
on protecting the content during transfer, rather than after removing the content protection for use.
Id. at 1:34–53. As an example, the patent describes the possibility of “substitut[ing] a malicious
software driver to intercept the content file as it is headed for an output device,” which “might
reroute and/or duplicate the unprotected content file” and “allow[] the attacker to obtain a perfect
digital copy of the content and/or to use the content in an unauthorized manner.” Id. at 1:65–2:3.
The patent describes the invention generally as “using a combination of encryption, water-
mark screening, detection of invalid content processing software and hardware, and/or detection
of invalid content flows” to protect content from packaging until use by the end user. ’603 Patent
at [57].
Encryption protects the secrecy of content while it is being transferred or stored.
Watermark screening protects against the unauthorized use of content . . . by invok-
ing a filter module to examine content for the presence of a watermark before the
content is delivered to output hardware or software. The filter module [prevents]
delivery of the content to the output hardware or software if it detects a predefined
protection mark. Invalid content processing software is detected by a monitoring
mechanism that validates the software involved in processing protected electronic
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
content. Invalid content flows can be detected by scanning the information passed
across system interfaces for the attempted transfer of bit patterns that were released
from an application and/or a piece of content management software.
Id.
The parties’ disputes from this patent relate to the “invalid content flow” part of the inven-
tion. Under a section entitled “policy-based validation,” the patent explains:
[A]dditional markings may be added to the content stream in order to allow instru-
mentation of the general driver stack for the storage medium, or another port capa-
ble of streaming the content, . . . to determine if the content is being directed
through an unapproved streaming channel. Similarly, if the rules associated with
the content allow the content to be presented only on screen (e.g. “view”), or to be
played only through an audio device (e.g., “play”), then the detection and monitor-
ing system need only set-up processes which [inspect] the channels appropriate to
detecting attacks against those functions (e.g. storing content for later playback,
directing it through a substitute module or redirected interface to defeat the protec-
tion mechanisms, etc.).
’603 Patent at 19:24–37.
The parties have three disputes from Claim 1, which recites:
1. A method for protecting electronic media content from unau-
thorized use by a user of a computer system, the method includ-
ing:
receiving a request from a user of the computer system to use a
piece of electronic media content;
identifying one or more software modules responsible for pro-
cessing the piece of electronic media content and enabling
use of the piece of electronic media content by the user;
processing at least a portion of said piece of electronic media
content using at least one of the one or more software mod-
ules;
evaluating whether the at least one of the one or more software
modules process the portion of the electronic media content
in an authorized manner, the evaluating including at least one
action selected from the group consisting of:
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
evaluating whether the at least one of the one or more
software modules make calls to certain system inter-
faces;
evaluating whether the at least one of the one or more
software modules direct data to certain channels;
analyzing dynamic timing characteristics of the at least
one of the one or more software modules for anoma-
lous timing characteristics indicative of invalid or
malicious activity;
denying the request to use the piece of electronic media con-
tent if the evaluation indicates that the at least one of the
one or more software modules fail to satisfy a set of pre-
defined criteria.
’603 Patent at 23:46–24:8 (disputed terms in bold). Specifically, the parties dispute the scope of
“certain channels” and “predefined criteria,” as well as the effect of the conditional language in
the last limitation.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
“[T]he 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). As such, if the
parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their meaning. See, e.g., Verizon
Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Gajarsa, J., concur-
ring in part); see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52
F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Claim construction, however, “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical
Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[c]laim construction is a
matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
explain what the patentee covered by the claims . . . .” Id. A court need not “repeat or restate every
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim construction is for the court.” Id.
When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given
their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Courts must therefore “look to the
words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.” Id. (citations
omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “person of ordinary
skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specifica-
tion.” Id.
Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See Power-One, Inc. v.
Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). For
certain claim terms, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in
the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves
little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term . . . in a vacuum. Rather, we must
look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.”).
But for claim terms with less-apparent meanings, courts consider “those sources available to the
public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language
to mean . . . [including] the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
III. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
The level of ordinary skill in the art is the skill level of a hypothetical person who is pre-
sumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
(Fed. Cir. 1995). In resolving the appropriate level of ordinary skill, courts consider the types of
and solutions to problems encountered in the art, the speed of innovation, the sophistication of the
technology, and the education of workers active in the field. Id. Importantly, “[a] person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Here, neither party addresses the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inven-
tions. For its analysis, the Court finds a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have had a
Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field and two years of
experience in the field of data encryption and authentication.
IV. THE DISPUTED TERMS
A. “whereby the user’s system is able to receive and authenticate portions of the
encoded block of data before the entire encoded block of data is received" (’602
Patent, Claim 25)
PLS’s Construction GDC’s Construction
Clause is not limiting. If limiting, plain and or-
dinary meaning.
Clause is limiting; plain and ordinary mean-
ing.
Claim 25 recites:
generating an encoded block of data . . .
transmitting the encoded block of data and the check values to a
user’s system,
whereby the user’s system is able to receive and authenticate
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
portions of the encoded block of data before the entire en-
coded block of data is received,
wherein each error-check value comprises a hash of the portion of
the block of data to which it corresponds.
’602 Patent at 23:45–59 (emphasis added). The parties dispute whether the “whereby” clause is
limiting.
GDC says the clause is limiting because it is material to patentability. Dkt. No. 49 at 6. In
its view, the “whereby” clause “is integral to the ‘on-the-fly’ authentication discussed in the spec-
ification,” and “is more than the intended result of other method steps positively recited.” Id. at 8.
Without the “whereby” clause, says GDC, “the required operability of the error-check values is
lost.” Id. at 9. GDC does not assert that the receiving and authenticating capabilities of the
“whereby” clause must be performed, but only that the user system must be capable of receiving
and authenticating as recited in the limitation.
PLS focuses on the general rule that “whereby” clauses in method claims are not given
weight when they recite the intended result of a process step. Dkt. No. 47 at 5 (citing cases). Here,
says PLS, “the ‘whereby’ clause merely expresses what the receiving user’s system ‘is able to’ do
as a consequence of the specific claim steps that precede it.” Id. at 6. Nor does PLS consider the
clause material to patentability, because “the intended benefit a receiving system may realize when
authenticating data has no bearing on the patentability of a method of encoding that data performed
by a different system.” Id. at 8. Notably, PLS says “the ‘whereby’ clause only requires the user’s
system to be ‘able to’ receive and authenticate portions of the encoded data block before receiving
the entire block of data.” Id. at 7.
“A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the
intended result of a process step positively recited.” Minton v. NASD, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Tex. Instruments Inc. v. United States ITC, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
1993)). Concluding the “whereby” clause at issue was not limiting, the Minton court reasoned the
clause “on its face does not inform the mechanics of how the trade is executed, and nothing in the
specification or the prosecution history suggests otherwise.” Id. at 1381. But in Hoffer v. Microsoft
Corp., 405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court, while acknowledging Minton’s general rule,
stressed that “when the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot
be ignored [to] change the substance of the invention.” Hoffer, 405 F.3d at 1329. In Hoffer, the
court held the clause limiting because it was “more than the intended result of a process step; it is
a part of the process [itself].” Id. at 1330 (concluding the limitation in question “is described in the
specification and prosecution history as an integral part of the invention”).
Here, the “whereby” clause is limiting. One cannot read the limitation as the result of the
previously recited steps, so the general rule does not apply. Nor does the limitation, as PLS asserts,
“merely express[] what the receiving user’s system ‘is able to’ do as a consequence of” those steps.
Rather, the claim language clearly describes a capability of the user’s system. Notably, although
the claim’s preamble recites a method of “encoding a block of data in a [specific] manner,” the
applicant chose to also include a transmitting step and limit the characteristics of the receiving
system to one “able to receive and authenticate portions of the encoded block of data before the
entire encoded block of data is received.” Based on the plain language of the claim, the Court holds
the “whereby” clause requires the user’s system to have that recited capability.
B. “certain channels" (’603 Patent, Claim 1)
PLS’s Construction GDC’s Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. “unapproved channels”
Claim 1 recites:
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
receiving a request from a user of [a] computer system to use a piece
of electronic media content;
. . .
evaluating whether the at least one of the one or more software mod-
ules process the portion of the electronic media content in an
authorized manner, the evaluating including at least one action
selected from the group consisting of:
evaluating whether the at least one of the one or more software
modules make calls to certain system interfaces;
evaluating whether the at least one of the one or more software
modules direct data to certain channels;
analyzing dynamic timing characteristics of the at least one of
the one or more software modules for anomalous timing
characteristics indicative of invalid or malicious activ-
ity . . . .
’603 Patent at 23:49–24:4 (emphasis added). Following the “evaluation” using one of the three
“actions,” the method “den[ies] the request to use the piece of electronic media content if the eval-
uation indicates that the at least one of the one or more software modules fail to satisfy a set of
predefined criteria.” Id. at 24:5–8.
The parties dispute the scope of “certain channels” in the second evaluating “action” and,
more specifically, whether that term should be limited to “unapproved channels.” GDC asserts “a
broader construction encompassing more than unapproved channels would render the claimed
method ineffective and create indefiniteness issues.” Dkt. No. 49 at 13. In that case, “the claim
would sweep in legitimate, policy-compliant uses and fail to achieve its stated purpose of ‘protect-
ing . . . from unauthorized use.’” Id. Moreover, says GDC, the patent describes “certain channels”
only in embodiments aimed at detecting and blocking unauthorized data use. Id. at 13–14. Finally,
if “certain channels” includes both unapproved and approved channels, the term is subjective and
standardless, and therefore indefinite. Id. at 14–15.
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
Citing dictionary definitions for “certain,” PLS says GDC’s construction “would improp-
erly read in a restriction not found in the plain meaning” of the term. Dkt. No. 47 at 12. It says
GDC’s construction would contradict the first part of the limitation, which recites “evaluating
whether the . . . software modules process . . . the electronic media content in an authorized man-
ner,” and the last limitation, which denies the request if the evaluation indicates specified criteria
aren’t met. Id. at 13. PLS also stresses the specification’s disclosure of embodiments in which the
evaluation concerns approved channels. Id. at 13–14 (citing excerpts from the specification).
The Court agrees with PLS. For one, nothing about the ordinary meaning of “certain” limits
the channels to only unauthorized channels. Thus, to impose such a narrowing construction, GDC
must show some disclaimer or lexicography, which it fails to do. In fact, it doesn’t try, instead
asserting its construction is simply the proper construction of the term considering the intrinsic
record. Dkt. No. 49 at 14. But this is not a case of choosing one meaning from multiple plausible
meanings based on which best aligns with the disclosure. Rather, the applicant chose not to limit
the channels to only those that are unauthorized. See Retractable Techs. v. Becton, Dickinson &
Co., 659 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is not for the court to tailor the claim language to
the invention disclosed. The language is the language . . . .”).
Nor is GDC’s “indefiniteness” argument persuasive. “Certain channels” are merely chan-
nels that are “definitively known, fixed, or settled,” without regard to whether they are unauthor-
ized. See certain, Encarta World English Dictionary (1999), Dkt. No. 47-8 at 299; certain, Random
House Webster’s College Dictionary (2005), Dkt. No. 47-12 at 200. GDC, however, does not ex-
plain with any depth why the term is subjective and standardless if its scope includes both author-
ized and unauthorized channels.
GDC also argues the claimed process doesn’t work if the “certain channels” are authorized,
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
but that ignores the “denying” step and the first part of the “evaluating” step. Regarding the former,
the “predefined criteria” determine whether the request is authorized. If those “predefined criteria”
are not satisfied, the request is denied. Moreover, the “evaluating” step doesn’t just require any
type of evaluation, but “evaluating whether the . . . software modules process the portion of the
electronic media content in an authorized manner.” ’603 Patent at 23:58–60 (emphasis added). In
fact, the “evaluating” step is necessary to decide whether the “certain channels” are authorized. If
that was already known, there would be no need for the “evaluation.”
Finally, GDC asserts its construction would limit the term to the ’603 Patent’s intended
scope as set forth in the specification. Dkt. No. 49 at 15. But the claims, not the specification,
define the scope of protection. Aventis Pharm., 715 F.3d at 1373 (noting courts must “look to the
words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention” (citations omit-
ted)). In any event, courts don’t try to discern intended claim scope, but only how a skilled artisan
would understand the claim language in light of the specification. Here, such a person would not
understand “certain” to have the narrow meaning urged by GDC for the reasons stated above.
Accordingly, the Court rejects that construction and will give “certain channels” a “plain and or-
dinary meaning” construction.
C. “software modules fail to satisfy a set of predefined criteria” (’603 Patent,
Claim 1)
PLS’s Construction GDC’s Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning “software modules processing electronic media content in a
manner predefined as unapproved”
This is a similar dispute to the dispute about “certain channels.” Claim 1’s last limitation
recites:
denying the request to use the piece of electronic media content
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
if the evaluation indicates that the at least one of the one or
more software modules fail to satisfy a set of predefined
criteria.
’603 Patent at 24:5–8 (emphasis added).
The parties dispute whether the “predefined criteria” must be limited to “criteria” indicat-
ing that the authorization is not approved. GDC says that “[i]n every embodiment, failing to meet
the criteria triggers denial of the requested use because the processing is unapproved under the
content security policy.” Dkt. No. 49 at 16. According to PLS, the surrounding claim language
supports the terms “neutral plain meaning,” and GDC’s construction would exclude embodiments.
Dkt. No. 47 at 16.
The Court agrees with PLS. Regardless of the criteria, under the claim’s plain language, if
the evaluation indicates the software modules fail to satisfy them, the method denies the user’s
request to use the content, which itself means the use is not authorized. The “predefined criteria”
does not need to separately specify whether the criteria is for authorized or unauthorized access.
The Court will give this term a “plain and ordinary meaning” construction.
D. “denying the request to use the piece of electronic media content if the evalua-
tion indicates that the at least one of the one or more software modules fail to
satisfy a set of predefined criteria” (’603 Patent, Claim 1)
PLS’s Construction GDC’s Construction
Contingent claim step; plain and ordinary mean-
ing.
Plain and ordinary meaning; the scope of the
claim is limited to methods where the condi-
tion is met, and the step is performed.
This dispute concerns the same limitation at issue in the previous dispute, which recites:
denying the request to use the piece of electronic media content
if the evaluation indicates that the at least one of the one or
more software modules fail to satisfy a set of predefined cri-
teria.
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
’603 Patent at 24:5–8. Specifically, the dispute centers on the conditional nature of the limitation.
GDC says the scope of the claim is limited to implementations that both (1) indicate the
software modules “fail to satisfy a set of predefined criteria,” and (2) perform the “denying” step.
Dkt. No. 49 at 18. PLS replies that a system implementing the method is within the limitation’s
scope “so long as the system performing the method has the capability of performing the contin-
gent step if the condition [is] satisfied.” Dkt. No. 50 at 7.
Of the cases cited by the parties, Cybersettle v. Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243
Fed. App’x 603 (Fed. Cir. 2007), addresses claim language most like the disputed phrase. In Cy-
bersettle, the patent at issue concerned a “computerized dispute resolution system and method.”
243 Fed. App’x at 604. The court described the invention as a method that “automates dispute
resolution through a computerized system that receives [litigants’] proposals (or ‘bids’) for settling
a claim, keeps the bids confidential, and determines whether, according to preset standards, the
bids are close enough to result in settlement of the claim.” Id. Claim 27 recited “testing a pair of
non-equal values in one of at least two rounds” and “if the pair of bids meets the established set-
tlement condition, calculating a settlement value for the claim.” Id. at 605. Resolving a dispute
unrelated to Claim 27, the court explained “[i]t is of course true that method steps may be contin-
gent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by
the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.” Id. at 607.
GDC criticizes Cybersettle as non-precedential and questioned by later precedential cases.
Specifically, GDC suggests the court in Hytera Commnc’ns Co. v. Motorola Sols., Inc., 841 F.
App’x 210 (Fed. Cir. 2021), opted not to follow Cybersettle, and that Lincoln Nat’l Life Co. v.
Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010), contradicts Cybersettle. Dkt. No. 49
at 20. Both cases, however, are distinguishable.
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
In Hytera, Claim 7 recited two alternative conditions and corresponding responses:
if the timeslot is the current desired timeslot, selecting a synchroni-
zation pattern selected from the first set of synchronization pat-
terns based on the one of the particular payload type and a par-
ticular source of the transmission;
otherwise selecting a synchronization pattern selected from the sec-
ond set of synchronization patterns based on the one of the par-
ticular payload type and the particular source of the transmis-
sion;
Hytera, 841 F. App’x at 215 (emphasis by the court). Hytera challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board’s conclusion in an inter partes review proceeding that the prior art must teach both cases to
render the claim obvious or anticipated. Id. at 214. The court affirmed the Board’s conclusion,
explaining “the ‘selecting’ step in claim 7 is not met unless the . . . system is configured to perform
each claimed responsive action in response to each corresponding claimed prerequisite condition.”
Id. at 216. GDC says Hytera questioned Cybersettle, but the court didn’t question the rule—only
the applicability of the rule to the claim at issue. Id. (noting Cybersettle is distinguishable because
the limitation at issue “requires that a specific action be taken in response to each of two alternative
specified conditions”).
In Lincoln, the patent concerned “computerized methods for administering variable annuity
plans.” Lincoln, 609 F.3d at 1366. The limitation in question recited “periodically paying the
scheduled payment to the owner [of a variable annuity plan having a guaranteed minimum pay-
ment feature] for the period of benefit payments, even if the account value is exhausted before all
payments have been made.” Id. Lincoln’s “even if” language is distinguishable from the disputed
term because it did not recite a conditional limitation. If anything, the language clarified there was
not a condition that the payments must only be made if the account was not exhausted.
Notably, GDC’s interpretation of the limitation would render the “condition” superfluous.
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

18
In other words, if the “denying” must always be performed, there’s no point to conditioning it on
an indication from the “evaluation” step. Applying Cybersettle’s rule, however, avoids that prob-
lem and comports with the plain language of the limitation. Accordingly, the Court holds that rule
applies to this limitation, and “denying the request” need only be performed if the evaluation in-
dicates that the at least one of the one or more software modules fails to satisfy a set of predefined
criteria.
V. CONCLUSION
Disputed Term The Court’s Construction
“whereby the user’s system is able to receive
and authenticate portions of the encoded block
of data before the entire encoded block of data
is received”
(’602 Patent, Claim 25)
The “whereby” requires the user’s system to
have the recited capability, but does not re-
quire actually receiving and authentication.
“certain channels”
(’603 Patent, Claim 1) Plain and ordinary meaning
“software modules fail to satisfy a set of prede-
fined criteria”
(’603 Patent, Claim 1)
Plain and ordinary meaning
“denying the request to use the piece of elec-
tronic media content if the evaluation indicates
that the at least one of the one or more software
modules fail to satisfy a set of predefined crite-
ria”
(’603 Patent, Claim 1)
If the evaluation does not indicate that the at
least one of the one or more software mod-
ules fail to satisfy a set of predefined criteria,
the “denying” need not be performed.
The Court ORDERS each party not to refer, directly or indirectly, to its own or any other
party’s claim-construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the Court ORDERS the
parties to refrain from mentioning any part of this opinion, other than the actual positions adopted
by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Neither party may take a position before the jury that
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

19
contradicts the Court’s reasoning in this opinion. Any reference to claim construction proceedings
is limited to informing the jury of the positions adopted by the Court.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-00466-JRG Document 62 Filed 11/25/25 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>