Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 346

ORDER Requiring Further Briefing. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 11/18/2011. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

SPEEDTRACK, INC.,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

ORDER REQUIRING
FURTHER BRIEFING

WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 06-7336 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment came on for hearing before the

14

court on November 16, 2011. At the hearing, the court ruled on plaintiff’s motion for

15

summary judgment on the defendants’ affirmative defenses and indicated that it is likely to

16

find that there are triable issues of fact with respect to the cross-motions for summary

17

judgment on infringement, with the possible exception being defendant’s argument in

18

connection with the “file information directory” limitation of claim 1 of the ‘360 patent.

19

Because of the potentially dispositive nature of the court’s ruling with respect to the

20

foregoing limitation, and because the parties have advanced new arguments with respect

21

to the meaning of the court’s prior construction of the term “category description” as it

22

pertains to the “file information directory” limitation, the court has determined that further

23

briefing is required. Specifically, the court finds it appropriate and necessary to further

24

construe this term in order to resolve the pending motions. The parties are directed to

25

provide additional briefing with respect to the court’s prior construction of the term

26

“category description,” in light of the parties’ post-reexamination arguments addressing the

27

distinction between descriptive names and numerical identifiers.

28

The parties are each ordered to file simultaneously a brief in accordance with the

1

foregoing, numbering no more than 10 pages, no later than December 2, 2011. No

2

opposition or reply briefs shall be filed. The court will thereafter take the supplemental

3

briefs under submission, for resolution in conjunction with the pending cross-motions for

4

summary judgment.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2