I respectfully disagree with your comment , i believe Mr Handal able to explain this narrow construction re " social hierarchy" in better detail to the judge.jmo
Here are some excerpts of Transcript for this subjects ,
MR. HANDAL: The next term that's up for construction is "social hierarchy." All right. So the term "social hierarchy," e.Digital has proposed that "social hierarchy" is: "An arrangement of persons, things, information and/or operations in a series of levels. " Opposed to that, Dropcam's construction is: "An ordered ranking of social groups defined within each social template."
MR. HANDAL: So since it's just the patent -- and I think that the Court needs to be consistent in its construction against the family of patents, in consideration of the family of patents, I'm referring the Court to this Claim 1 from the '331. And in this particular claim it talks about: "Social hierarchy is comprised of different levels of operations." THE COURT: Can you have give me an example of a
hierarchy that isn't ordered or graded in some way? A hierarchy in the world? Doesn't the word "hierarchy" by itself denote -- not connote, but denote -- the concept of order? MR. HANDAL: Well, it depends how you -- how you use "hierarchy." It can. Yes, indeed.
THE COURT: Please. At the top of the column that says "social hierarchy," the column consists of people. MR. HANDAL: All right. But the hierarchy in this example is also levels of information. There are two hierarchies at play here and they interface with another one. The Court did offer its thoughts on the construction to Ms. Shanberg. I didn't quite get it all. So what was the Court's thoughts on that? THE COURT: (As read) "An arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of ordered levels." Ms. Shanberg spent some -- spent the majority of her time, I think -- MR. HANDAL: Okay. THE COURT: -- trying to talk me out of the "operations" part of that. MR. HANDAL: I kind of like it. Thank you.
