Netlist, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 45

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT and Prehearing Statement Under Patent Local Rule 4-3, filed by Netlist, Inc., Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hansen, Steven) (Filed on 6/25/2010) Modified on 6/28/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP Adrian M. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 118215/[e-mail]) 2 Erica J. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 227712/[e-mail]) 200 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1525 3 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone] 4 LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC 5 Enoch H. Liang (Bar No. CA 212324/[e-mail]) Steven R. Hansen (Bar No. CA 198401/[e-mail]) 6 Edward S. Quon (Bar No. CA 214197/[e-mail]) 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4025 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone] 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 NETLIST, INC. 10 Timothy T. Scott (SBN 126971/[e-mail]) KING & SPALDING LLP 11 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 12 Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone] 13 Scott T. Weingaertner (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) Robert F. Perry ([e-mail]) 14 Allison Altersohn (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) Daniel Miller (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) 15 KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas 16 New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone] 17 Attorneys for Defendant 18 GOOGLE INC. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT UNDER P.L.R. 4-3 Case No. CV-09-05718 SBA [Related to Case No. CV-08-04144 SBA]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION NETLIST, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT UNDER PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 CASE NO. CV-09-05718 SBA [Related to Case No. CV-08-04144 SBA]

1

Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3 of the Local Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the

2 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. 3 ("Netlist") and Defendant Google Inc. ("Google"), by and through their respective undersigned 4 counsel, submit the following Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement ("Joint 5 Statement"). 6 I. 7 Construction Of Claim Terms On Which The Parties Agree (Patent L.R. 4-3(a)) The chart attached as Exhibit A to this Joint Statement lists the constructions of the claim

8 terms and clauses of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 ("the `912 Patent") on which the parties agree. 9 The agreed to constructions for the claim terms "logic element," "signal," and "control signals" 10 were construed by the Court in related case Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., CV-08-04144 SBA ("the 11 `386 Patent Case"). In addition, the parties have agreed to constructions previously stipulated to 12 from the `386 Patent Case for the claim terms "memory devices," "coupled to the printed circuit 13 board," "rank," "command signal," and "chip-select signal." The parties have also agreed to the 14 constructions of the claim terms and clauses "computer system," "phase-lock loop device," 15 "mounted to the printed circuit board," and "register." 16 II. 17 Proposed Construction Of The Disputed Terms (Patent L.R. 4-3(b-c)) The chart attached as Exhibit B to this Joint Statement lists the constructions of the claim

18 terms and clauses of the `912 Patent whose constructions the parties dispute, as well as each 19 party's proposed constructions and supporting evidence, in accordance with Patent L.R. 4-3(b). 20 For purposes of Patent L.R. 4-3(c), Netlist contends that the five most significant terms in

21 dispute are (1) "bank," (2) "the at least one integrated circuit element comprising a logic 22 element, a register, and a phase lock loop," (3) "operatively coupled/operationally coupled," (4) 23 "spaced from," and (5) "in a direction along the first side/in a direction along the second side." 24 For purposes of Patent L.R. 4-3(c), Google contends that the five most significant terms

25 in disputed are (1) "set of input control signals" / "set of input signal" / "plurality of input control 26 signals," (2) "set of output control signals" / "set of output signals" / "plurality of output 27 signals," (3) "at a time," (4) "bank," and (5) claim 45 (indefiniteness). 28 2
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT UNDER P.L.R. 4-3 Case No. CV-09-05718 SBA [Related to Case No. CV-08-04144 SBA]

1 III. 2

Length Of Time For Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-3(d)) The tutorial and claim construction hearing are presently scheduled for September 9,

3 2010 beginning at 9 a.m. Pursuant to Judge Armstrong's Patent Standing Order, the tutorial is 4 scheduled to last approximately one to one-and-a-half hours, with each side being allotted 30-45 5 minutes to present a short summary and explanation of the technology at issue. 6 Google Proposal for the Tutorial: Due to the parties' previous tutorial to the Court on

7 similar technology in the `386 Patent Case, Google does not believe that a live tutorial is 8 necessary. Google proposes that, prior to the claim construction hearing, the parties submit a 9 written tutorial to the Court. 10 Joint Proposal for the Claim Construction Hearing: Pursuant to the Patent Standing

11 Order, the claim construction hearing will normally be scheduled to last no longer than three (3) 12 hours. Due to the parties' previous tutorials to the Court on similar technology in the `386 Patent 13 Case, the parties believe that three (3) hours would be sufficient and appropriate for the hearing. 14 The parties will meet and confer on an appropriate manner of presentation for the hearing

15 and will submit a joint proposal to the Court. 16 IV. 17 18 19 Witnesses To Be Called At Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-3(e)) The parties identify the following witnesses to be called at the claim construction hearing. A. Witness Netlist May Call Netlist anticipates that it may call Richard Turley as a witness at the tutorial and claim

20 construction hearing. Mr. Turley would be expected to explain how a person of skill in the art 21 would interpret the claim terms at issue. Mr. Turley may also testify regarding the relevant 22 technology at issue in this case. 23 24 B. Witness Google May Call Google does not believe any witnesses are required; nevertheless Google reserves the

25 right to call William Hoffman as a witness at the tutorial and claim construction hearing. Mr. 26 Hoffman would be expected to explain how a person of skill in the art would interpret the claim 27 terms at issue. Mr. Hoffman may also testify regarding the relevant technology at issue in this 28 case. 3
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT UNDER P.L.R. 4-3 Case No. CV-09-05718 SBA [Related to Case No. CV-08-04144 SBA]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: June 25, 2010 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT UNDER P.L.R. 4-3 Case No. CV-09-05718 SBA [Related to Case No. CV-08-04144 SBA]

DATED: June 25, 2010

LEE, TRAN & LIANG, APLC

By /s/ Steven R. Hansen Steven R. Hansen Attorneys for Plaintiff NETLIST, INC. KING & SPALDING LLP

By /s/ Scott T. Weingaertner Scott T. Weingaertner Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.

1 2

DECLARATION OF CONSENT Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under

3 penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Scott T. 4 Weingaertner, counsel for Defendant Google Inc. 5 6 DATED: June 25, 2010 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT UNDER P.L.R. 4-3 Case No. CV-09-05718 SBA [Related to Case No. CV-08-04144 SBA]

LEE, TRAN & LIANG, APLC

By /s/ Steven R. Hansen Steven R. Hansen Attorneys for Plaintiff NETLIST, INC.