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).

Download PDF
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?