Red Bend Software, Inc. et al v. Google

Filing 113

JOINT STATEMENT of counsel re Post Markman Hearing Proposed Claim Constructions. (Tempesta, Jennifer)

Download PDF
Red Bend Software, Inc. et al v. Google Doc. 113 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION RED BEND LTD., and RED BEND SOFTWARE INC., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-cv-11813-DPW GOOGLE INC., Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. RED BEND LTD. and RED BEND SOFTWARE INC., Counterclaim-Defendants. JOINT POST-MARKMAN HEARING PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS Further to the parties' arguments made at the August 18, 2010 Markman hearing in this action, the parties jointly submit the following alternative claim construction proposals for the Court's consideration. A. Invariant Reference RedBend's New Proposal1 Values made the same in the modified old and new programs (or data tables) for corresponding reference entries so that substantially each reference that has changed due to delete/insert modifications does not appear in the difference result. Google's New Proposal Values made the same in the modified old and new programs (or data tables) for substantially each corresponding reference entry, that has changed due to delete/insert modifications, so that their references are excluded from the difference result. B. Modified Old/New Program/Data Table RedBend's New Proposal2 Table(s) or data structure(s), related to the old/new program or data table, wherein substantially each of the references in corresponding entries that changed due to a delete/insert modification are reflected as invariant references. (See, e.g., `552 Patent at 3:36-41; Fig. 2; 10:47-11:3 ("table"); 13:61-64 ("data structure")). C. Continued Markman Hearing Should the Court find it useful, the parties are available for a short follow-up hearing for additional argument on the foregoing claim terms. Google's New Proposal A version of the actual program or data table in its original executable form, with references replaced. Although RedBend continues to believe this term should properly be construed as "values made the same" (with the remainder of the claim text already specifying which references are to be reflected as invariant), RedBend proposes this alternative construction in the event the Court elects to depart from RedBend's original proposed construction. Red Bend proposes this new construction to replace its prior construction for each of "modified old data table," "modified old program," "modified new data table" and "modified new program." 2 1 Dated: August 19, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: _/s/ Jennifer C. Tempesta______ Daniel Cloherty (BBO# 565772) Dwyer & Collora, LLP 600 Atlantic Avenue - 12th Floor Boston, MA 02210-2211 Telephone: (617) 371-1000 Facsimile: (617) 371-1037 Robert C. Scheinfeld (RS-2632) (pro hac vice) Eliot D. Williams (EW-6560) (pro hac vice) Jennifer C. Tempesta (JT-4841) (pro hac vice) Baker Botts L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza 44th Floor New York, New York 10012-4498 Telephone: (212) 408-2500 Facsimile: (212) 408-2501 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Red Bend Ltd. and Red Bend Software Inc. By: __/s/ Elizabeth Austern_______ Jonathan M. Albano, Bar No. 013850, David M. Magee, Bar No. 652399 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Telephone: 617.951.8000 Susan Baker Manning (pro hac vice), Robert C. Bertin (pro hac vice) Elizabeth Austern (pro hac vice) BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 2020 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006-1806 Telephone: 202.373.6000 William F. Abrams (pro hac vice), BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223 Telephone: 650.849.4400 Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on August 19, 2010. By: /s/ Jennifer C. Tempesta Jennifer C. Tempesta

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?