Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation

Filing 231

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY INC.,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 10-02066 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

v.
SIDENSE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

/

13
14

On May 15, 2012, Kilopass filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of

15

Court’s Order on Claim Scope Disavowal Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-9. In considering Kilopass’ motion,

16

the Court requests that either party file a document with the Court. In the USPTO’s February 18, 2011

17

Action Closing Prosecution, the USPTO stated:

18
19

Furthermore, as evidenced by US-PG PUB 2006/0104108 (See Paragraph 5-7)
it [sic] well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
that the bitlines and wordlines have a distinct functional effect on the operation
of memory devices and thus are not interchangeable.

20
Khaliq Decl., Ex. B, at 6. The Court requests that either Kilopass or Sidense file the document
21
referenced by the USPTO – “US-PG PUB 2006/0104108" – by Thursday, May 24, 2012.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: May 21, 2012
26
27
28

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge