MyMedicalRecords Inc v. Quest Diagnostics Inc
Filing
45
ORDER RE. TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The technology tutorial in this action is hereby scheduled for Wednesday, June 18, 2014, at 10 a.m. The Court STRIKES the deficient statement 58. The parties have until Thursday, June 5, 2014, to file an Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing statement.(lc). (lc). Modified on 5/28/2014 (lc).
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
United States District Court
Central District of California
8
9
10
11
12
13
MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:13-cv-00631-ODW(SHx)
ORDER RE. TECHNOLOGY
TUTORIAL
Case No. 2:13-cv-02538-ODW(SHx)-*
Case No. 2:13-cv-03560-ODW (SHx)
Case No. 2:13-cv-07285-ODW (SHx)
JARDOGS, LLC; ALLSCRIPTS
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
21
22
23
MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
24
25
26
WEBMD HEATH CORP. et al.,
Defendants.
27
The technology tutorial in this action is hereby scheduled for Wednesday,
28
June 18, 2014, at 10 a.m. The Court expects the parties to meet and confer and, if
1
possible, to present a joint tutorial not to exceed one hour. If the parties cannot agree
2
on a joint presentation, then each side will be permitted 30 minutes to present a short
3
summary and explanation of the technology at issue. The tutorial should provide a
4
neutral, objective overview of the technology, the prior art, and the patents involved.
5
No argument will be permitted. Visual aids and demonstrative exhibits are strongly
6
encouraged. The tutorial will be off the record and not subject to transcription.
7
The parties shall lodge with the Court all materials utilized in the technology
8
tutorial.
The parties are permitted to include as an additional attachment a
9
memorandum—not to exceed five pages—summarizing the materials and tutorial.
10
The parties are encouraged to lodge the materials for the Court’s review 7 days prior
11
to the tutorial.
12
The parties may elect to present the tutorial through counsel, experts, or both.
13
If a party intends to utilize an expert in the technology tutorial, a statement of the
14
expert’s qualifications must be submitted as an additional attachment to the lodged
15
materials.
16
Additionally, the Court has received the parties’ Statement of Joint Claim
17
Construction. (ECF No. 58.) The parties are reminded of the 10-term limit for
18
construction.
19
subparts to the nine proffered terms for construction. This is impermissible. The
20
presumptive 10-term limit will not be expanded absent good cause. The parties are
21
reminded that failure to make a good-faith effort to narrow the disputed terms may
22
expose counsel to sanctions. Patent L.R. 4-7.
Patent L.R. 4-3(c).
Examination of the joint report reveals many
23
Furthermore, the parties are mistaken about what constitutes a proper “claim
24
term” for the Court to construe. Claim construction is intended to define particular
25
disputed words and phrases appearing in the claim—not colossal chunks of the text of
26
the claim. (E.g., ECF No. 58 at ¶¶ 4–6, 8.) Many of the “terms” proffered for
27
construction are large excerpts of the ’466 Patent that the parties seemingly made no
28
effort to distill into discrete words or phrases. This is utterly improper.
2
1
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the deficient statement. (ECF No. 58.) The
2
parties have until Thursday, June 5, 2014, to file an Amended Joint Claim
3
Construction and Prehearing statement.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
May 28, 2014
7
8
9
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?