Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al

Filing 414

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 412 Stipulation re Errata to 333 Order Regarding Claim Construction and Motions for Summary Judgment. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Stanford Research Park
3300 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Vincent P. Kovalick (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Barry W. Graham (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Richard H. Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Troy E. Grabow (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Laura P. Masurovsky (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Rajeev Gupta (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Kenie Ho (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Cecilia Sanabria (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Jia Lu (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Robert D. Wells (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
901 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

19
20

Attorneys for Linex Technologies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

21
22
23
24

LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

25
26
27
28

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, APPLE
COMPUTER INC., ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
MERU NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS
WIRELESS, INC.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)
STIPULATION REGARDING
ERRATA TO DKT. NO. 333 ORDER
REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1

Plaintiff Linex Technologies, Inc. (“Linex”) and Defendants Hewlett-Packard Company

2

(“HP”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Aruba Networks, Inc. (“Aruba”), Meru Networks, Inc. (“Meru”), and

3

Ruckus Wireless Inc. (“Ruckus”) (collectively “Defendants”) through their counsel, hereby stipulate,

4

subject to the approval of the Court as follows:

5

1. The parties have reviewed the Court’s May 20, 2014 Order Regarding Claim

6

Construction and Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 333. The parties respectfully submit

7

that the Order contains clerical errors that may be corrected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The

8

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has granted leave for the parties and this

9

Court to correct these errors under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Order at 2, Linex Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-

10

Packard Co., Appeal No. 2014-1561 (Fed. Cir. issued Aug. 28, 2014) (Dkt. No. 50), a true and

11

correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kenie Ho supporting this

12

stipulation.

13

2. On March 18, 2014, Linex filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Certain Claims with

14

Prejudice and Certain Counterclaims with Prejudice. Dkt. No. 309. The Court granted the

15

stipulation on March 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 311. The dismissed claims were as follows:

16

Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,322 (“the ’322 patent”);

17

Claims 109, 119, 120, 133, 144 and 145 of U.S. Patent No. RE42,219 (“the ’219

18

patent”);

19

Claim 106 of U.S. Patent No. RE,43,812 (“the ’812 patent”).

20
21

Dkt. No. 309 at 1.
3. On May 20, 2014, the Court issued an Order Regarding Claim Construction and Motions

22

for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 333. At the time the Court issued its Order, claims 97, 107, 108,

23

121, 131, and 132 of the ’219 patent and claims 97, 98, 101, and 102 of the ’812 patent were at

24

issue. The Order Regarding Claim Construction and Motions for Summary Judgment incorrectly

25

refers to claim 107 (rather than claim 109) of the ’219 patent as dismissed and claims 107-109

26

(rather than 97, 107-108) of the ’219 patent as asserted claims. Dkt. No. 333 at 4. The parties seek

27

to correct these typographical errors in the Court’s Order in the various instances the Order refers to

28

the dismissed and asserted claims.
1

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1

4. The parties also respectfully submit that the Court’s Order Regarding Claim Construction

2

and Motions for Summary Judgment contains certain typographical errors when referring to the

3

claims that include the claim language that the Court construed in its Order. Through this

4

stipulation, the parties also seek to correct those typographical errors.

5
6

5. The following are the corrections to the Court’s May 20, 2014 Order Regarding Claim
Construction and Motions for Summary Judgment that the parties submit are necessary:

7

On page 4, line 15, “claims 107” should read --claims 109--.

8

On page 4, line 17, “claims 107-109” should read --claims 97, 107-108--.

9

On page 11, lines 6-7, “’219 patent, claims 107-109, 121, 131-132” should read --’219

10

patent, claims 97, 107-108, 121, 131-132--.

11

On page 11, line 11, “claim 109” should read --“claim 97”--

12

On page 11, lines 13-19,

13

“109. A method for recovering data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of

14

different signals transmitted on separate carrier waves from a single source over a

15

wireless channel, said signals being differentiated by different codes conveyed along

16

with said signals, comprising the steps of:

17

Receiving said signals at plural receiving antennas;

18

Demodulating the signals received at each receiving antenna and separating said

19

signals by detecting said different codes conveyed in said signals;

20

[ . . . ]” should read

21

---97. A receiver system for recovering data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality

22

of different signals transmitted on separate carrier waves from a single source over a

23

wireless channel, said signals being differentiated by different codes conveyed along

24

with said signals, comprising:

25

Plural receiving antennas for receiving said signals;

26

Receiver circuitry connected to each receiving antenna for demodulating said

27

received signals and for separating said signals by detecting said different codes

28

conveyed in said signals;
2

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1

[ . . . ]---

2

On page 13, line 5, “claim 109” should read --claim 97--.

3

On page 15, lines 19-21, “’219 patent, claims 107-109, 121, 131-132” should read --’219

4

patent, claims 97, 107-108, 121, 131-132--.

5

On page 19, lines 19-20, “’219 patent, claims 109, 121, 133,” should read --’219 patent,

6

claims 97, 121--.

7

On page 19, line 24, “claims 109, 121, 133” should read --claims 97, 121--.

8

On page 19, line 28, “claim 109” should read --claim 97--.

9

On page 26, line 4, “claim 109” should read --claim 97--.

10

On page 29, line 9, “claims 107-109” should read --claims 97, 107-108--.

11

On page 35, line 3, “Claims 107-109” should read --Claims 97, 107-108--.

12
13
14
15

6. This Stipulation is supported by the accompanying Declaration of Kenie Ho, counsel for
Linex.
Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that
concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of its signatories.

16
17

Dated: September 15, 2014

18

/s/ Eric C. Rusnak
Michael J. Bettinger (Sbn 122196)
Shane Brun (SBN 179079)
Meghana RaoRane (SBN 253531)
K&L GATES LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94111-5994
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.882.8220
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Eric C. Rusnak (Pro Hac Vice)
K&L GATES LLP
1601 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.778.9100
[e-mail]

/s/ Laura P. Masurovsky
Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Stanford Research Park
3300 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Vincent P. Kovalick (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Barry W. Graham (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Richard H. Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Troy E. Grabow (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Rajeev Gupta (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
3

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

L. Scott Oliver
K&L Gates LLP
630 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (650) 69-6701
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Aruba Networks, Inc.
/s/ Scott Oliver
L. Scott Oliver
K&L Gates LLP
630 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (650) 69-6701
Email: [e-mail]

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Linex Technologies, Inc.

Attorneys for Defendant
Meru Networks, Inc.

12
13

Kenie Ho (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Cecilia Sanabria (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Jia Lu (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Robert D. Wells (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Laura P. Masurovsky (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
901 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Scott Oliver
L. Scott Oliver
K&L Gates LLP
630 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (650) 69-6701
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
s/ Elizabeth M. Reilly
Mark C. Scarsi
Miguel Ruiz
Jennifer L Miremadi
Ashlee N. Lin
Michael Sheen
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Mark D. Selwyn
Andrew L. Liao
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

/s/ Michael K. Plimack
Sarah J. O’Connell
Alan H. Blankenheimer
Laura E. Muschamp
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
9191 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Michael K. Plimack
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Robert T. Haslam
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Alexander D. Chinoy (Pro Hac Vice)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2401
4

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
William F. Lee
Dominic E. Massa
Elizabeth M. Reilly
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Hewlett-Packard Company

Attorneys for Defendant
Apple, Inc.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

IT IS SO ORDERED

3

The Court’s May 20, 2014 Order Regarding Claim Construction and Motions for Summary

4

Judgment (Dkt. No. 333) is amended to reflect the following changes:

5

On page 4, line 15, “claims 107” should read --claims 109--.

6

On page 4, line 17, “claims 107-109” should read --claims 97, 107-108--.

7

On page 11, lines 6-7, “’219 patent, claims 107-109, 121, 131-132” should read --’219

8

patent, claims 97, 107-108, 121, 131-132--.

9

On page 11, line 11, “claim 109” should read --“claim 97”--

10

On page 11, lines 13-19,

11

“109. A method for recovering data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of

12

different signals transmitted on separate carrier waves from a single source over a

13

wireless channel, said signals being differentiated by different codes conveyed along

14

with said signals, comprising the steps of:

15

Receiving said signals at plural receiving antennas;

16

Demodulating the signals received at each receiving antenna and separating said

17

signals by detecting said different codes conveyed in said signals;

18

[ . . . ]” should read

19

---97. A receiver system for recovering data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality

20

of different signals transmitted on separate carrier waves from a single source over a

21

wireless channel, said signals being differentiated by different codes conveyed along

22

with said signals, comprising:

23

Plural receiving antennas for receiving said signals;

24

Receiver circuitry connected to each receiving antenna for demodulating said

25

received signals and for separating said signals by detecting said different codes

26

conveyed in said signals;

27

[ . . . ]---

28

On page 13, line 5, “claim 109” should read --claim 97--.
6

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)

1

On page 15, lines 19-21, “’219 patent, claims 107-109, 121, 131-132” should read --’219

2

patent, claims 97, 107-108, 121, 131-132--.

3

On page 19, lines 19-20, “’219 patent, claims 109, 121, 133,” should read --’219 patent,

4

claims 97, 121--.

5

On page 19, line 24, “claims 109, 121, 133” should read --claims 97, 121--.

6

On page 19, line 28, “claim 109” should read --claim 97--.

7

On page 26, line 4, “claim 109” should read --claim 97--.

8

On page 29, line 9, “claims 107-109” should read --claims 97, 107-108--.

9

On page 35, line 3, “Claims 107-109” should read --Claims 97, 107-108--.

10
11

9/16/2014
Dated: __________________

__________________________________
Hon. Claudia Wilken
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDER REGARDING CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:13-cv-00159-CW (MEJ)