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)

Download PDF
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

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?