Implicit L.L.C. v. F5 Networks, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER REGARDING TOPICS FOR TUTORIAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/16/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IMPLICIT L.L.C.,

Case No. 14-cv-02856-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING TOPICS FOR
TUTORIAL

9
10

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 46

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Implicit L.L.C. (“Implicit”) and defendant F5 Networks, Inc. (“F5”) are scheduled

14

for a tutorial and Markman hearing on March 18, 2015 at 2:00 PM regarding the construction of

15

one disputed claim term in the asserted patent owned by Implicit: U.S. Patent No. 8,694,683 (“the

16

‘683 patent”). The parties agreed that the scope of the initial claim construction briefing and

17

Markman hearing would be limited to “sequence”/“list of” routines. The Court has determined

18

that a brief tutorial will be helpful, thus each party will be permitted no more than thirty minutes

19

to present a short summary and explanation of the technology at issue before the Markman hearing

20

commences. The Court has allotted two hours for the tutorial and Markman hearing.

21

The Court encourages counsel to meet and confer and, if possible, to present a joint

22

tutorial. If the parties cannot agree on a joint presentation, then the patent holder will make the

23

first presentation.

24

technology at issue and should not be used to argue claim construction contentions. No argument

25

will be permitted. The tutorial will not be recorded and the parties may not rely on statements

26

made at the tutorial in other aspects of the litigation.

27
28

Visual aids are encouraged.

The technical tutorial should focus on the

The Court requests that the parties focus the tutorial presentation on the following topics:

1
2

1. The prior art systems (Mosberger)

3

 The ‘683 specification refers to prior art systems that “typically use predefined

4

configuration information to load the correct combination of conversion routines for

5

processing data.”

6

 The parties should explain the difference between “predefined configuration information”

7

as referenced in the prior art and the “sequence”/“list of” routines as disclosed in the ‘683

8

patent. The parties should also present the meanings and technical relationships between

9

the terms “information,” “paths,” and “routines,” as disclosed in the ‘683 specification and
prior art.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

 The parties should discuss how the prior art systems create a “path” or “routine,” and at

12

what time these features are created relative to the system receiving a first message packet.

13

2.

The ‘683 invention as disclosed in the ‘683 and ‘211 specifications

14

 The ‘683 specification incorporates by reference the ‘211 patent (U.S. Patent No.

15

7,730,211). The ‘211 patent discloses an embodiment that “primes the cache” by storing

16

“addresses” for “sequences of routines.”

17

 The parties should present the meanings and technical relationships between the terms

18

“primed cache,” “addresses,” “information,” “paths,” and “routines,” as described in the

19

‘683 and ‘211 specifications and prior art systems. Specifically, the parties should discuss

20

when each of these technical features is created in the system relative to the system

21

receiving a first message packet.

22

 The parties should explain the “Label Map Get” feature as disclosed in the ‘683 patent and

23

the “Media Map Get” feature as disclosed in the ‘211 patent, and the relationship between

24

these two features and the “information,” “path,” “address,” and “routines” features as

25

disclosed in the ‘683 patent. Specifically, the parties should discuss when the “Label Map

26

Get” and “Media Map Get” features are created in the system relative to receiving the first

27

message packet.

28
2

1
2

The parties may discuss topics beyond those identified in this order if it will help explain
the technology at issue in preparation for the Markman hearing.

3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3