Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. et al, No. 2:09-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2011)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00274, Dkt. No. 280
Decided
April 5, 2011
Judge
Charles Everingham IV, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION regarding claim construction. The court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of thepatents-in-suit
Length
26 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

I. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY In 2002, plaintiff PalTalk purchased U.S. Pa tent Nos. 5,822,523 (the “’523 Patent”) and 6,226,686 (the “’686 Patent”) (collec tively the “PalTalk Patents) . The PalTalk Patents are related. The applicatio n for the ’523 Patent was filed on Fe bruary 1, 1996. The application for the ’686 Patent was filed on September 28, 1999 as a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,766 (“the ’766 Patent”), which itself is a continuatio n of the ’523 Patent. The ’523, ’766, and ’686 Patents all share the same specifi cation.