The disputed phrase is used several times in the patent, but its first use in Claim 1 is illustrative: "serving a graphical representation of the route to a user device in association with a toolset including at least one of a set including an annotation tool, a rating tool, and a review tool." '752 Patent, claim 1. Depending on how this is read, the claim may be interpreted as "at least one set including" (defendants' view), versus "a set including at least one of' (plaintiffs' view). Either interpretation does some violence to the original language, but such a result is unavoidable in light of the awkward claim drafting. The court finds that the plaintiffs' interpretation is most consistent with the remainder of the claim language, as well as the teachings of the specification. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Claim language must be viewed in light of the specification, which is `the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" (quoting Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir.2005))).

As can be seen from the parties' proposals, the dispute is essentially over whether the claims require at least one set or at least one component within the set. Focusing on the excerpted claim language above, the court finds that only the plaintiffs' view lends meaning to claim. Claim 1 already notes that there must be a "toolset" present; thus, interpreting "at least one of' to modify "set" adds nothing new to the claim. Indeed, the word "set" serves very little purpose in the claims other than signaling that the components are somehow associated with one another. In contrast, reading "at least one of' as modifying the tools within the set does add new, meaningful information. Such a result is preferred. See Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystemen B.V. v. Stopaq Amcorr Inc., 744 F.3d 715, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("It is the usual (though not invariable) rule that, in patent claims as elsewhere, the construction of a clause as a whole requires construction of the parts, with meaning to be given to each part so as to avoid rendering any part superfluous.").

The specification supports this view. The defendants can point to no disclosure in the written description requiring all of the components (i.e., annotation tool, rating tool, and review tool). Rather, the defendants contend that the only embodiment disclosed does have each of the components. See '752 Patent, fig. SB. Even if the court accepts that Figure SB illustrates the only relevant embodiment, courts "have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. Moreover, the specification language used to describe Figure 5B makes clear that it is only an "exemplary" embodiment, not meant to be limiting. See, e.g., '752 Patent, col. 21. 37.

The second limitation stems from disagreement over the meaning of "rating." The court agrees with the defendants that "user rating" is unquestionably distinguished from "user review" in the claims. See, e.g., '752 Patent, claim 1. In the context of the term "user rating," "rating" is construed to mean a "relative rank," in order to make clear that it differs from a "user review" (which the court has not been asked to construe). "Relative rank" is among the accepted dictionary definitions for rating, and the court finds it applicable in this instance. The court emphasizes that this construction is only in the context of the '752 Patent's use of"user rating." As explained infra, the use of "rating" in the related '226 Patent differs. The court is convinced that the differing usage across both patents is sufficient to overcome the presumption that "the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning." See Omega Eng'g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Figure 5B and its accompanying description in the specification confirm the court's construction:

'752 Patent, col. 15 ll. 8-14 & fig. 5B. In the context of the '226 Patent's claim terms, "rating" has a different usage.

There is additional support for this broader characterization. The route rating—which is "based upon at least one individual rating"—can incorporate "written feedback." '226 Patent, claims 1 & 16. By extension, the individual writing must also be capable of incorporating written feedback. Moreover, Figure 4F shows a route rating and the number of reviews from which it was determined. '226 Patent, col. 12 ll. 47-49 & fig. 4F. Knowing from claim 1 that a route rating is based on individual ratings, the court is lead to the conclusion that the '226 Patent interchanged "review" for "individual rating" in Figure 4F.

Construing an "individual rating" the same as a "user rating" would seem to restrict the broad usage of the term in the '226 Patent claims and specification. The court's construction offers an alternative accepted plain meaning definition of rating that accounts for this broader usage. As indicated supra note 3, the court finds that the presumption that the same claim term should carry the same construed meaning across related patents has been rebutted. See Omega Eng'g, 334 F.3d at 1334.

The comma structure of the first sentence shows the rating of the route (i.e., route rating) includes both the star rating and the review count. Thus, as explained supra note 4, the '226 Patent's usage of "rating" indicates a broader conception than that of the '752 Patent.

The defendants present compelling arguments for adding a limitation requiring the route path to be "predetermined," in order to allow comparison between a user's location and the route path. See, e.g., '858 Patent, claim 1 ("[T]he visual display further includes an indication of the first user's location with respect to the route path."). Ultimately, however, the court is not persuaded that the intrinsic evidence clearly supports the importation of this limitation. See Omega Eng'g, 334 F.3d at 1329 ("It is axiomatic that, unless expressly compelled by the intrinsic evidence, courts must avoid the addition of a novel limitation." (emphasis added)). The defendants' second proposed limitation—that the route path be represented by a "series of geographic points"—finds even less support in the intrinsic record.

The claims provide considerable evidence supporting the defendants' view. Claim 20 of the '009 Patent claims a method "wherein the position data is received with a global positioning satellite receiver." '009 Patent, claim 20. Global positioning makes clear that geographic position is what is recorded.

The claims of the '562 Patent refer to a "position monitor" that gathers both position and speed data/information. '562 Patent, claims 1-4, 10. Basic physics teaches that speed and position (in the locational sense) are closely linked, and that speed can be calculated as the distance between two positions, per unit time. As such, these claims also support the defendants' geographic position proposal.

The remainder of the intrinsic record is in accord. Indeed, the common specification uses the term "form" specifically when discussing the user's body orientation, rather than "position." See, e.g., '562 Patent, col. 11 ll. 14. The specification uses "position" consistently to refer to geographic position or location. See id. col. 40 ll.38-44 (distinguishing "position" data from other metrics like speed, elevation, and direction).

The plaintiffs point to claim 1 of the '276 Patent as evidence that the defendants' proposal creates a redundancy: "A method for monitoring an athletic activity, comprising: receiving position data relating to the geographical positions of an individual during the athletic activity with a global positioning satellite receiver...." '276 Patent, claim 1. While it is true that substituting the defendants' proposal perhaps leads to some awkward and even redundant phrasing, the court is not convinced that it is reason enough to reject the well-supported construction. See 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[Plaintiff] has not cited, and we have not discovered, any authority for the proposition that construction of a particular claim term may not incorporate claim language circumscribing the meaning of the term.").