Microsoft's Windows Media Player and associated metafiles comprised the accused infringing product. While Windows Media Player is an executable program downloaded as a separate entity, metafiles are downloaded text-based scripts interpreted by the media player application to download content.

“Download component” was one of the terms construed by the district court. It rejected both parties’ proposed constructions and found “that a ‘download component’ by the plain language of the claims requires an executable file or program, but does not necessarily need to be merchandise-specific.” Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 01-CV-1991, slip op. at 7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2002) (“Network I”). In reaching its construction, the district court reasoned that the words “download” and “component” in combination “imply a part that downloads or a part that plays an active role in downloading” and therefore must be “an executable file or program.” Id. It also found that the “download component” must be an executable file or program because it “‘coordinates’ or ‘controls’ the download of information” and “makes requests for electronic content from a source computer.” Id. The district court further found that the specification and prosecution history supported its interpretation of download component. Id. at 8.

On March 10, 2003, the district court granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. First, the district court held that a download component must independently “coordinate or control the download of information, [and] request electronic content from a source computer.” Network II, slip op. at 6. Applying this test to metafiles, the district court held that a metafile is not a download component because “on their own [metafiles] are neither able to coordinate or control the download of information, nor request electronic content from a source computer.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Second, the district court held that a download component must be “downloaded onto a client computer in response to a request for electronic content.” Id. It held that Windows Media Player is not a download component because Network Commerce failed to “set forth specific facts showing that . . . Windows Media® Player is downloaded onto a client computer in response to a request for electronic content, or that once installed the Windows Media® Player makes a request on its own for that content.” Id. Accordingly, the district court found no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

The Appeals Court agreed.

We construe a claim term as having its “ordinary and customary meaning,” that 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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In some cases, it is possible to construe a claim term by applying “the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “Download component” is not a claim term amenable to construction in this manner because it has no commonly understood meaning reflected in general dictionaries or similar sources. We may also rely on a term’s “particular meaning in a field of art” when construing claims. Id. As the parties seem to agree, the term “download component” does not have a specialized meaning in the relevant art. Microsoft urges that “download component” does not have a particular meaning in the computer art; and that the term does not appear in computer dictionaries and treatises. Network Commerce also agrees that a definition of the term “download component” as a whole does not exist, but invites the court to combine individual dictionary definitions of “download” and “component.” Under that construction, any part of a system involved in the transfer of data from one computer to another would be a download component. This is not a tenable theory in light of the specification.

In general “the specification necessarily informs the proper construction of the claims” and it is “appropriate for a court . . . to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of claims.” Id. at 1317.

In summary, the specification makes clear that the download component must include a boot program, and that the boot program interacts directly with the operating system of the computer without the assistance of any other program. Accordingly, we construe “download component” to mean a file or program either sent to or received by a computer in response to a request for electronic data that 1) requests (or controls the download of) electronic data from a computer other than the computer from which the program was sent or received; 2) coordinates the download of electronic data; and 3) interacts directly with the operating system of the computer without another program mediating between it and the operating system. This construction of the term “download component” is similar to the definition of “application” adopted in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Network Commerce's expert witness, Theodore Coombs, got trashed.

Coombs’ declaration provides scant support for Network Commerce’s position. As we recently reaffirmed in Phillips, “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Here Coombs does not support his conclusion with any references to industry publications or other independent sources. Moreover, expert testimony at odds with the intrinsic evidence must be disregarded. Id. (“[A] court should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the written record of the patent.”). That is the case here.