Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Teleconference Systems, LLC et al

Filing 288

ORDER VACATING MARKMAN HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/14/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

11

No. C 09-01550 JSW

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER VACATING HEARING
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
No. C 10-01325 JSW
15
TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC,
16
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
TANDBERG, INC., et al.,
19
Defendants.
20
No. C 10-05740 JSW

21
22

TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
AT&T CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
/

1

The Court scheduled a hearing to construe the terms of the patent at issue and set the

2

hearing for November 14, 2011. However, after reviewing the papers submitted by the parties,

3

the Court has determined that a hearing is not necessary. The construction of a patent claim is a

4

matter of law exclusively for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517

5

U.S. 370, 388-89, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Courts may hold a hearing on the

6

issue of claim construction, but such a procedure is not necessary:

7

Markman does not require a district court to follow any particular procedure in
conducting claim construction. It merely holds that claim construction is the
province of the court, not a jury. To perform that task, some courts have found it
useful to hold hearings and issue orders comprehensively construing the claims in
issue. Such a procedure is not always necessary, however. ... District courts have
wide latitude in how they conduct the proceedings before them, and there is
nothing unique about claim construction that requires the court to proceed
according to any particular protocol. As long as the trial court construes the
claims to the extent necessary to determine whether the accused device infringes,
the court may approach the task in any way that it deems best.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Ballard Medical Products v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 268 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir.

14

2001).

15

The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and

16

is deemed submitted. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for

17

November 14, 2011 is hereby VACATED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: November 14, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2