Mindshare Technologies, Inc. et al v. Leger Metrics, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER For Briefing On Markman Issues. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 5/16/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01365-REB
MINDSHARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Utah corporation, and
EMPATHICA, INC., a Canada corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LEGER METRICS, INC., a Canada corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON MARKMAN ISSUES
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before the court sua sponte. In this action for alleged patent
infringement, the court recognizes the need first to construe the disputed claims of the
patent in suit before the case 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 by the defendant, 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 patent in suit;
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 7.1(d);
5. That absent further order of the court, the plaintiffs’ brief on claim construction
and the defendant’s response brief SHALL BE LIMITED to twenty (20) pages;
6. That no later than 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 Markman1 hearing;
provided, furthermore, that plaintiff is responsible for arranging, scheduling, and
initiating the conference call, which must include representatives of all parties with
authority to schedule matters in this case; and
7. That based on the parties’ submissions, the court will either rule on the
papers, order further briefing, convene a Markman hearing, consider appointment of a
master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, or take such further action as the court in its discretion
deems proper and necessary.
Dated May 16, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

1

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

2