Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Filing 59

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT (JOINT) filed by Apple Computer Inc., Apple Computer Inc., Apple Computer Inc., Apple Computer Inc., Apple Computer Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Agreed Constructions# 2 Exhibit B - '995 Patent# 3 Exhibit C - '839 Patent# 4 Exhibit D - '932 Patent# 5 Exhibit E - '705 Patent)(Brown, Nicholas) (Filed on 10/3/2006)

Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Doc. 59

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PARKER C. FOLSE III (WA Bar No. 24895 ­ Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] IAN B. CROSBY (WA Bar No. 28461 ­ Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] FLOYD G. SHORT (WA Bar No. 21632 ­ Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] JOHN M. NEUKOM (WA Bar. No. 36986 ­ Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 [phone] Tel [phone] Fax SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777) [e-mail] BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530) [e-mail] HOSIE McARTHUR LLP One Market, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax (additional attorneys listed on signature page) Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant BURST.COM, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. BURST.COM, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant. § § § § § § § § § CASE NO. C06-00019 MHP PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to Patent Local Rule ("PLR") 4-3, Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") and Defendant Burst.com, Inc. ("Burst") jointly submit, through their respective counsel, this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement regarding the February 8, 2007, Claim Construction Hearing regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 4,963,995 ("the '995 Patent"), 5,164,839 ("the '839 Patent"), 5,995,705 ("the '705 Patent"), and 5,057,932 ("the `932 patent"), and the Prehearing Tutorial on February 1, 2007. A. Agreed Claim Constructions (PLR 4-3(a)).

The parties attach hereto their proposed constructions of the claim terms, phrases, and/or clauses on which the parties agree. See Exhibit A. B. Disputed Claim Constructions and Joint Claim Construction Chart (PLR 4-3(b)).

The parties attach hereto joint claim construction charts for each of the four patents that include each party's proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause, together with an identification of all references from the specification or prosecution history that support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction of the claim or to oppose the other party's proposed construction of the claim. See Exhibits B - E. Burst believes that an alternative version of the charts attached as Exhibits B ­ E may assist the Court, and intends to provide a sample at the October 10, 2006, status conference. percipient and/or expert witnesses is addressed below in Section D. C. Length of Time for Claim Construction Hearing (PLR 4-3(c)). The issue of testimony of

The parties have not reached agreement on the length of time necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing. Burst believes that a total of four hours ­ two hours per side ­ is
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

2

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sufficient to present the parties' respective positions on construction of the important disputed terms. Apple believes that reserving five hours would be preferable and should be sufficient, given the disputes as presently articulated. D. Need for Live Testimony at the Claim Construction Hearing (PLR 4-3(d)).

The parties have agreed, as incorporated in the Court's scheduling order, that they will disclose the identities of their experts on October 20, 2006, when the parties exchange their expert reports. The expert reports, therefore, will include a summary of the experts' opinions in sufficient detail to permit a meaningful deposition of the expert, as required under Patent Local Rule 4-3(d). Neither party plans to call any percipient witnesses to testify at the Claim

Construction Hearing. Burst did not plan to call any expert witnesses to testify live at the Hearing, but Apple has advised that it may do so, and therefore Burst may do so as well. However, these positions are subject to the parties' discussion with the Court at the upcoming Pre-hearing Conference on October 10, 2006, at which time the parties hope to learn the Court's preferences regarding both live testimony by experts at the Claim Construction Hearing and the total amount of Hearing time that the Court intends to schedule. E. The Tutorial Prior to the Claim Construction Hearing (PLR 4-3(e)).

With respect to the Pre-Hearing Tutorial scheduled for February 1, 2006, the parties agree that a total of two to three hours, or 60 to 90 minutes per side, is sufficient. Apple believes that a total of three hours would be preferable. At the Initial Case Management Conference ("ICMC"), the Court stated that the tutorial should be a non-argumentative, non-testimonial presentation on the technology at issue in the patents, the technology at the time the patents were filed, and the technology of the products and instrumentalities accused of infringement. At the
3

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

3

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

status conference on October 10, 2006, the parties wish to confirm their understanding of the Court's expectations regarding the content of the tutorials. The parties propose that each party be allowed to allocate its one-hour presentation as it wishes between presentation by counsel and a non-testimonial presentation by an expert. Burst anticipates that it will use an expert during part of its presentation at the tutorial. through counsel. At the ICMC, the parties discussed with the Court the possibility that the parties might prepare and submit recorded tutorial presentations on DVD together with this Pre-hearing Statement and Joint Claim Construction Chart. At the ICMC, the Court expressed a willingness to consider such DVD presentations, but indicated that they should be non-argumentative. Following further discussions between the parties, and in light of the Prehearing Tutorial that will occur on February 1, 2006, the parties determined and agreed not to prepare and submit DVD tutorials. Apple anticipates making its presentation primarily

Dated: October 3, 2006.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Parker C. Folse III PARKER C. FOLSE III (WA Bar No. 24895- Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] IAN B. CROSBY (WA Bar No. 28461- Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] FLOYD G. SHORT (WA Bar No. 21632- Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] JOHN M. NEUKOM (WA Bar. No. 36986 ­ Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

4

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 [phone] Tel [phone] Fax SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777) [e-mail] BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530) [e-mail] HOSIE McARTHUR LLP One Market, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax MICHAEL F. HEIM (TX Bar No. 9380923Pro Hac Vice Pending) LESLIE V. PAYNE (TX Bar No. 0784736Pro Hac Vice Pending) HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax ROBERT J. YORIO (CA Bar No. 93178) V. RANDALL GARD (CA Bar No. 151677) COLBY B. SPRINGER (CA Bar No. 214868) CARR & FERRELL LLP 2200 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 [phone] Tel. [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMAINT BURST.COM, INC. /s/ Nicholas A. Brown MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) [e-mail] NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) [e-mail] LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) [e-mail]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

5

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant APPLE COMPUTER, INC.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

6

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 59

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 7 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date written above, that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. The Court or the CM/ECF system will send notification of such filings to all CM/ECF participants.

/s/ Nicholas Brown

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Case No. C06-00019 MHP

7