Acer, Inc. et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al

Filing 381

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER re (356, 357, 358 & 374 in 5:08-cv-00877-PSG) AND re (385, 387, 388 & 403 in 5:08-cv-00882-PSG). Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 12/4/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ALLIACENSE LTD., 17 Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 PSG Defendants. (Re: Docket Nos. 356, 357, 358, 374) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:08-cv-00882 PSG Plaintiffs, v. TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ALLIACENSE LTD., Defendants. 25 26 (Re: Docket Nos. 385, 387, 388, 403) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., Gateway, Inc., 27 and Plaintiffs HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek a declaratory 28 Case No.: 08-0877 ORDER 1 judgment that they do not infringe patents owned by Defendants Technology Properties Ltd., 2 Patriot Scientific Corp., and Alliacense Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”). 1 Consistent with Pat. 3 L.R. 4-3(c), the parties seek further construction of terms and phrases in claims in the patents-in- 4 suit. 2 Plaintiffs and Defendants each also seek reconsideration of Judge Ware’s earlier 5 constructions of certain terms. 3 6 As part of those motions for reconsideration, Plaintiffs seek to file a sur-reply on the 7 8 9 grounds that Defendants’ reply to their motion for reconsideration introduced new arguments and new evidence. 4 The court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to file the sur-reply. In light of this case’s long history and the trial date set for June 24, 2013, the court does not United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 wish to add any further delay to the constructions by its preparation of a complete opinion setting 12 forth its reasoning and analysis. To that end, the court at this time will simply issue its 13 constructions without any significant reasoning and analysis: 14 CLAIM TERM CONSTRUCTION “instruction register” Register that receives and holds one or more instructions for supplying to circuits that interpret the instructions an oscillator having a multiple, odd number of inversions arranged in a loop, wherein the oscillator is variable based on the temperature, voltage and process parameters in the environment a central processing unit that accesses memory and that fetches and executes instructions directly and separately of the main central processing unit provide the multiple sequential instructions in parallel (as opposed to one-by-one) to said central processing unit integrated circuit during 15 16 17 “ring oscillator” 18 19 20 “separate DMA CPU” 21 22 23 “supply the multiple sequential instructions” 24 25 1 Unless otherwise noted, the docket citations refer to Case No. 5:08-cv-00882 PSG. 26 2 See Docket Nos. 387, 394. 27 3 See Docket Nos. 385, 388. 28 4 See Docket No. 403. Case No.: 08-0877 ORDER 1 “clocking said CPU” 2 a single memory cycle Providing a timing signal to said central processing unit 3 The parties should rest assured that the court arrived at these constructions with a full 4 5 appreciation of not only the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, but also the Federal Circuit’s 6 teaching in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 5 and its progeny. So that the parties may pursue whatever 7 recourse they believe is necessary, a complete opinion will issue before entry of any judgment. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dated: December 4, 2012 11 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Case No.: 08-0877 ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?