Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 60

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed by Apple, Inc., Elan Microelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Reines, Edward) (Filed on 2/5/2010) Modified on 2/8/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 60 Case5:09-cv-01531-RS Document60 Filed02/05/10 Page1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Yitai Hu (SBN 248085) (yitai.hu@alston.com) Sean P. DeBruine (SBN 168071) (sean.debruine@alston.com) S.H. Michael Kim (SBN 203491) (michael.kim@alston.com) C. Augustine Rakow (SBN 254585) (augie.rakow@alston.com) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Ste 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Phone: (650) 838-2000 Fax: (650) 838-2001 T. Hunter Jefferson (admitted pro hac vice) (hunter.jefferson@alston.com) ALSTON + BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street At lanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: 404-881-7333 FACSIMILE: 404-253-8863 Attorneys for Plaintiff ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) matthew.powers@weil.co m EDWARD R. REINES (Bar No. 135960) edward.reines@weil.com SONAL N. MEHTA (Bar No. 222086) sonal.mehta@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silico n Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Plaint iff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. APPLE INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT) JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Hon. Richard Seeborg Claim Construction Hearing: May 12, 2010, 9:30 am JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT) Dockets.Justia.com Case5:09-cv-01531-RS Document60 Filed02/05/10 Page2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to Northern District of California Patent Local Rule 4 -3, Elan Microelectronics Corporation ("Elan") and Apple Inc. ("Apple") jointly submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. I. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2(c), the parties have met and conferred regarding the submission of this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearin g Statement. The proposed constructions and supporting evidence for U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,825,352 ("the `352 patent"), 7,274,353 ("the `353 patent"), 5,764,218 ("the `218 patent"), 7,495,659 ("the `659 patent"), and 6,933,929 ("the `929 patent"), including agreed constructions, are identified in Exhibits A to E hereto, respectively. As noted in Exhibits A to E, the parties anticipate proffering expert evidence on claim construction. The parties have agreed to exchange expert reports concerning the construction of disputed terms on February 19, 2010. Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), the parties jointly identify the following terms as most significant to resolution of the case: 1. `353 patent: "a first pattern on said panel for representing a mode switch to switch said touchpad between a key mode and a handwriting mode," "a first pattern on said panel for representing a mode switch to switch said touchpad between a key mode and a mouse mode," and "a first pattern on said panel for representing a mode switch to switch said touchpad between a mouse mode and a handwriting mode"1 (identified by both parties) `353 patent: "a plurality of second patterns on said plurality of regions for operation in said key and handwriting modes," "a plurality of second patterns on said plurality of regions for operation in said key and mouse modes," and "a plurality of second patterns on said plurality of regions for operation in said mouse and handwriting modes"2 (identified by both parties) `352 patent: "ident ify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger," "ident ify a minima the following the first maxima" and "identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to the second finger following said minima"3 (identified by Apple) 2. 3. The parties contemplate that these terms will be briefed together because the dispute is the same for each of the parallel limitations. 2 The parties contemplate that these terms will be briefed together because the dispute is the same for each of the parallel limitations. 3 Apple contemplates that these terms will be briefed together because the dispute is the same for each of the parallel limitations. JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT 2 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT) Case5:09-cv-01531-RS Document60 Filed02/05/10 Page3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. II. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. `352 patent: "identify" (identified by Apple) `352 patent: "in response to" (identified by Apple) `352 patent: "means for selecting an appropriate control function" (identified by Apple) `218 patent: "cursor control operation" (identified by Elan) `659 patent: "sensors configured to map the touchpad surface into native sensor coordinates" (identified by Elan) `659 patent: "logical device units" (identified by Elan) `929 patent: "housing" (identified by Elan) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE The Court's October 1, 2009 Case Management Scheduling Order sets the following schedule for claim construction: Completion of Claim Construction Discovery: March 8, 2010 Opening Briefs: March 26, 2010 Responsive Briefs: April 16, 2010 Reply Briefs: April 30, 2010 Tutorial: TBD Claim Construction Hearing: May 12, 2010 REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS Patent Local Rule 2-1 suggests that, in conjunction with the Initia l Case Management Conference, the parties discuss with the Court the forma t for the claim construction hearing. Because there was no Initial Case Management Conference in this case, the parties ' respectfully request a conference with the Court to discuss the overall structure and format for claim construction proceedings. Specifically, the parties wish to discuss and obtain the Court 's guidance on which and on how many terms the Court would like oral argument at the hearing, especially in view of the fact that there are five patents at issue; whether and in what format expert evidence and/or a tutorial would be most helpful to the Court; and, based on overall scope and format for the proceedings, the appropriate length of the hearing and for the parties' claim 3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT) Case5:09-cv-01531-RS Document60 Filed02/05/10 Page4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 construction briefing. Elan estimates that a tutorial will take no more than one hour and that the claim construction hearing should take no more than two hours. Apple estimates that the tutorial will take approximately two hours and that the claim construction hearing should take no more than six hours depending on the scope of terms at issue and to be addressed. DATED: February 5, 2010 /s/ Sean P. DeBruine Sean P. DeBruine ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys For Elan Microelectronics Corporation DATED: February 5, 2010 /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward R. Reines WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Attorneys for Apple Inc. JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT 4 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT) Case5:09-cv-01531-RS Document60 Filed02/05/10 Page5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT FILER'S ATTESTATION I, Edward R. Reines, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT. In compliance with General Order 45, paragraph X.B. I hereby attest that Sean DeBruine has concurred in this filing. By: /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward R. Reines 5 Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)

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?