BIAX Corporation v. NVIDIA Corporation et al

Filing 455

ORDER denying 335 Defendants' Motion for Clarification of Claim Constructions to Incorporate Statement Made in the Claim Construction Order, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/28/10.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 09-cv-01257-PAB-MEH BIAX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, INC., and SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on defendants' Motion for Clarification of Claim Constructions to Incorporate Statement Made in the Claim Construction Order [Docket No. 335]. Defendants seek to clarify that the Court's construction of the terms "condition code register" and "condition storage" includes the finding that "any processor element is able to access any condition code register" or "condition storage." See Docket No. 335 at 3. The Court, however, clearly ruled that, "in the event there is only one processor element, that processor element is capable of accessing any of the condition code registers for storing condition code values" and that the claim language already accounts for the shared access to condition code registers upon the introduction of additional processor elements. See Docket No. 231 at 37. Furthermore, the Court found that the claim language "clearly provides that the `condition code storages' are accessible by `each of said processor elements'" and, "[t]herefore, it is unnecessary to

import that quality into the definition" of condition storage. See Docket No. 231 at 44. "But, to the extent there is any dispute over whether, despite the foregoing, condition code storage locations are shared by all processor elements, the Court rules that they are." Docket No. 231 at 44. Defendants do not explain how these rulings are unclear. Rather, defendants' real concern appears to be that, because the Court's construction of the terms did not include specific reference to an attribute of the processor element, plaintiff might attempt to present constructions or arguments to a jury that are inconsistent with the Court's unambiguous rulings. The Court, however, ruled that it is unnecessary to include the attribute of shared access in the construction of the two terms because such a quality was already clearly provided for by the claims at issue. Plaintiff has expressed no confusion regarding that ruling and has not sought clarification. The Court, therefore, sees little risk that plaintiff will attempt to argue at trial that processor elements are not able to access any condition code registers or condition storage locations. Therefore, it is ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Clarification of Claim Constructions to Incorporate Statement Made in the Claim Construction Order [Docket No. 335] is DENIED. DATED October 28, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge

2