Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE Ltd. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., et al.

Representative Claim

  1. An MPEG decoder system which includes a single memory for use by transport, decode and system controller functions, comprising:

a channel receiver for receiving and MPEG encoded stream;

transport logic coupled to the channel receiver which demultiplexes one or more multimedia data streams from the encoded stream;

a system controller coupled to the transport logic which controls operations within the MPEG decoder system;

an MPEG decoder coupled to receive one or more multimedia data streams output from the transport logic, wherein the MPEG decoder operates to perform MPEG decoding on the multimedia data streams; and

a memory coupled to the MPEG decoder, wherein the memory is used by the MPEG decoder during MPEG decoding operations, wherein the memory stores code and data useable by the system controller which enables the system controller to perform control functions within the MPEG decoder system, wherein the memory is used by the transport logic for demultiplexing operations;

wherein the MPEG decoder is operable to access the memory during MPEG decoding operations;

wherein the transport logic is operable to access the memory to store and retrieve data during demultiplexing operations; and

wherein the system controller is operable to access the memory to retrieve code and data during system control functions.

Posture:

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

Abstract Idea: No

In the instant case, the Court concludes that the purpose of the claims at issue is to decompress digital video using a single memory. That is the gist of the invention at issue. Given this purpose, the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine risk of preempting future research and development – i.e., Avago is not simply claiming an abstract idea in the attempt to lay claim to a building block of future research and development; the invention has specific configuration, not a broad abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (stating that, “in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between the buildin[g] block[s] of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Something More: N/A

Because ASUS has failed to establish that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., an abstract idea, the Court need not address step two of Alice which embodies the inventive concept test.