Richard Lang couldn't have writen a more favorable Markman order than the one done by Judge Patel. The Judge GOT IT big time.

Although I was in the courtroom to hear the Markman Tutorial and the Claim Construction Hearing, I am surprised by the one-sidedness of the order. The order done by Judge Motz in Baltimore was favorable to Burst but the one done by Judge Patel is way over the top in Burst's favor.

There is a lot to sift through in the 48 pages and it will take a while to process all of this information. Here are some things that I noted on my first reading of the document.

I. Compression Terms

The prior art disclosed in the patent does not support Apple’s proposed construction.

The court concludes that the temporal aspect of the term does not refer to TCM.

Burst’s construction of burst time period as a “transmission time period shorter than the time period associated with a real time representation” is consistent with the court’s construction of “time compressed representation.” The court accordingly adopts Burst’s construction.

II. Transmission Terms

Accordingly, the court finds that “transmission” means “sending”, and “transmitting away”or “transmission . . . to a select destination” means “sending information to an external device”.

(COMMENT: We are talking iPods here!)

The court concludes that “audio/video source information” is equivalent to “an audio and/or video work that can be received from one or more sources and that has a temporal dimension.” Additionally, “work” may be a portion of a complete program, permitting subsequent steps to commence before completion of previous steps.

Apple argues that “editing” should be narrowed to mean “modifying the representation of the audio/video source information, not including the creation of playlists or modification of metadata.” The court finds no reason to carve out these two functions, and the ordinary meaning of “editing” will not bear such limitations.

(COMMENT: We are talking iPods here!)