Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 1032

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING. Briefing due by 7/27/2012. Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Chief Judge James Ware. Signed by Chief Judge James Ware on July 17, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NO. C 08-04990 JW Mformation Techs., Inc., 11 ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING Plaintiff, v. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Research in Motion Ltd., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 / The parties are currently scheduled to appear before the Court on August 6, 2012 at 9 a.m.1 15 16 for a hearing on post-trial Motions. In preparing for this hearing, the Court finds that it would 17 benefit from additional briefing from the parties on two issues. Accordingly, on or before July 27, 18 2012, the parties shall each file a single simultaneous brief addressing the following issues: 19 A. Evidence re. Transmission of the Contents of the Mailbox 20 The Court construed the language of Claim 1 to mean that “delivering” a command from the 21 server had to be performed in a sequence of recited sub-steps. The first sub-step requires “without a 22 request from the wireless device . . . establishing a connection between the wireless device and the 23 server . . . wherein the connection is established based on a threshold condition.” The Court 24 construed this language to mean that when performing this sub-step, a connection must be made by 25 the server with the wireless device. 26 27 1 28 Please note that this time represents a modification of the Court’s July 13, 2012 Minute Order. (See Docket Item No. 1025.) 1 The second recited sub-step in the “delivering” step is “transmitting the contents of the 2 mailbox from the server to the wireless device.” The Court construed the claim language to mean 3 that the “establishing a connection” sub-step must be completed before the “transmitting the 4 contents of the mailbox” sub-step can commence. Thus, under the Court’s construction, a 5 connection between the server and the wireless device must be established before transmission of a 6 command is commenced. 7 In light of the Court’s construction, the parties are directed to point to the evidence produced 8 during Plaintiff’s case-in-chief which shows that a command is transmitted from the Blackberry 9 Enterprise Server to the Blackberry handheld device after a connection has been established between the server and the handheld device.2 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 B. Anticipation 12 The jury returned a verdict finding that: (1) Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘917 Patent are not 13 anticipated, and that (2) Claims 21-25 of the ‘917 Patent are anticipated. (See Docket Item No. 1026 14 at 9.) However, Claims 6, 21-25 are dependent on Claim 1. 15 The parties are directed to address the issue of whether the jury verdict is inconsistent, 16 insofar as the jury found that the independent Claim 1 of the ‘917 Patent is not anticipated, but that 17 claims that depend on that independent claim are anticipated.3 The parties shall also address any 18 course of action they would ask the Court to take with respect to this verdict. 19 20 Dated: July 17, 2012 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge 21 22 23 24 25 2 26 3 27 28 In their briefing, the parties shall clearly quote and cite to the trial transcript. See, e.g., Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1411-MLH, 2012 WL 604138, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2012) (stating that “[i]f an independent claim is not anticipated, any claims that depend upon that claim cannot be anticipated”) (citations omitted). 2 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 2 Aaron D. Charfoos acharfoos@kirkland.com Allen A. Arntsen aarntsen@foley.com Amardeep Lal Thakur athakur@foley.com Christopher R. Liro christopher.liro@kirkland.com Eugene Goryunov egoryunov@kirkland.com Jessica Christine Kaiser jessica.kaiser@kirkland.com Justin E. Gray jegray@foley.com Linda S. DeBruin ldebruin@kirkland.com Lisa Marie Noller lnoller@foley.com Marc Howard Cohen marc.cohen@kirkland.com Maria A. Maras maria.maras@kirkland.com Meredith Zinanni meredith.zinanni@kirkland.com Michael Anthony Parks mparks@thompsoncoburn.com Michael Daley Karson michael.karson@kirkland.com Michael S Feldberg michael.feldberg@allenovery.com Shawn Edward McDonald SEMcDonald@foley.com Tiffany Patrice Cunningham tiffany.cunningham@kirkland.com 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 Dated: July 17, 2012 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: /s/ JW Chambers William Noble Courtroom Deputy

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?