For the same reasons discussed in the immediately preceding section, the Court will not adopt Dropcam’s proposal that “provide” be construed to mean “send.” Dropcam also argues that the provided update “must describe a user’s status.” ECF No. 51 at 28. Dropcam argues that many of the embodiments in the specification describe the providing of information regarding a user’s status. e.Digital disagrees, noting that the examples listed in the specification include an embodiment wherein the claimed invention provides information concerning a home fire emergency, which would not necessarily concern the user’s status. ECF No. 50 at 23 (citing ECF No 50-2 (’522 patent) at 21:25-33). The Court agrees with e.Digital and will again decline Dropcam’s request to import an additional limitation from the specification, as the plain and ordinary meaning is consistent with the intrinsic evidence, and the patentee did not set out his own definition for the term or plainly disavow the term’s full scope. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
