Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON MARKMAN ISSUES. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/9/2012. (sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00331-REB
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON MARKMAN ISSUES
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before the court sua sponte. In this action implicating patent
infringement,1 the court recognizes the need first to construe the claims of the patents at
suit before the case properly can proceed to resolution by summary judgment, trial, or
otherwise. Therefore, I establish the following briefing schedule to govern resolution of
these matters.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That no later than ninety days after the first answer or other response, e.g.,
motion to dismiss, etc., to the complaint is filed with the court by the defendant in this
case, the parties SHALL FILE a joint claim construction statement setting forth the
construction of claims and terms on which the parties agree and the construction of
claims and terms on which the parties disagree for the patents at issue;

1

The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the plaintiff has not infringed the patents at suit.
Complaint [#1] at 7.

2. That absent further order of the court, the joint claim construction statement
SHALL BE LIMITED to fifteen (15) pages;
3. That the plaintiffs’ brief on claim construction SHALL BE FILED 30 days after
the joint claim construction statement is filed;
4. That the deadlines for filing a response brief and a reply brief, if any, SHALL
BE AS PRESCRIBED by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.;
5. That absent further order of the court, the plaintiff’s brief on claim construction
and the defendant’s response brief SHALL BE LIMITED to twenty (20) pages;
6. That within ten (10) days after the reply brief is filed, the parties SHALL
CONVENE a telephonic motions’ hearing setting conference with the court’s
administrative assistant (303-335-2350) to set a time for a possible Markman2 hearing;
provided, furthermore, that plaintiff is responsible for initiating the call, which must
include representatives of all the parties with authority to schedule matters in this case;
and
7. That based on the submissions of the parties, the court will either rule on the
papers, order further briefing, convene a Markman hearing, appoint a special master, or
take such further action as the court in its discretion deems proper and necessary.
Dated February 9, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2

A reference to the seminal case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370,
384-88 (1996).

2