LML Holdings, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Distributing Inc. et al

Filing 86

ORDER CONTINUING MARKMAN HEARING; AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Markman hearing set for Friday 2/1/2013 is CONTINUED to Wednesday, 3/13/2013 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/29/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

LML HOLDINGS, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No.: 11-CV-06173 YGR
ORDER CONTINUING MARKMAN HEARING;
AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

vs.
PACIFIC COAST DISTRIBUTING INC. et al.,
Defendant(s).

14
15

The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with the Claim

16

Construction Hearing set for February 1, 2013 and has determined that supplementation of the

17

record and further briefing is necessary.

18
19

The Court CONTINUES the February 1, 2013 Markman Hearing and SETS the following
supplemental briefing schedule:

20
21
22
23

Event

Date

Parties to File Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement

February 8, 2013

Plaintiff to File Supplemental Claim Construction Brief

February 18, 2013

Defendants to File Supplemental Claim Construction Brief

February 25, 2013

Markman Hearing

March 13, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.

24
25
26
27
28

AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT: The parties’ Amended Joint Claim

1
2

Construction Statement must contain all required information, including the following previously

3

omitted information:


4
5

Impact statement (see Standing Order for Patent Cases ¶ 1; Transcript of July 23, 2012
Case Management Conference, Dkt. No. 70, at 8:19-22);

6



7

The claim in which the disputed claim language is found (see Standing Order for Patent
Cases ¶ 1); and

8



9

The parties may wish to refer to the model construction statement attached to the Court’s

10

Standing Order for Patent Cases.

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

Copies of all patents in dispute (see Standing Order for Patent Cases ¶ 2).

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS: In fifteen pages or less, the parties must address the following
issues:


“Ordinary and customary meaning”: why is the proposed construction of the

disputed claim language the meaning it would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art who read
the claims, in the context of the description of the invention, in the specification and the
prosecution history;


Claim Language: Identify the claim(s) in which the disputed claim language

appears;


Specification: (1) Identify where the disputed claim language appears in the

specification and (2) explain why the proposed construction is consistent with the patent’s
specification;


Prosecution History: If the prosecution history will inform the meaning of the claim

language, the party relying upon the prosecution history: (1) first must set forth the ordinary
meaning of the claim language in view of the specification of which it is a part; and then (2)
second, explain how the inventor changed the claim scope during the prosecution history;


Extrinsic Evidence: Where a party believes extrinsic evidence will aid the Court,

that party still needs to (1) reference the relevant intrinsic evidence; (2) explain why the meaning of

2

1

the claim language cannot be ascertained from that intrinsic evidence; and (3) explain why the

2

chosen source for the extrinsic evidence is the appropriate source (e.g., technical dictionary, learned

3

treatise) from which to ascertain the true meaning of the disputed claim language;

4



Evidence: Citations to the evidence should provide sufficient information to allow

5

the Court to find the cited material quickly and easily. Any evidence relied upon by a party―in an

6

Opening Claim Construction Brief or a Supplemental Brief―must be a part of the record (see

7

Patent Local Rule 4-5), and be cited in the brief.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Date: January 29, 2013

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

3