Prism Technologies v. AT&T et al

Filing 211

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The previous order did not limit the obviousness combinations other than to combinations of those twenty (20) references. The defendants shall elect twenty (20) anticipation references per defendant. The defendants may utilize only those twenty references (20) to compose obviousness combinations. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
)
d/b/a SPRINT PCS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES CELLULAR
)
CORPORATION, d/b/a U.S.
)
CELLULAR,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV122

ORDER

8:12CV123

8:12CV124

8:12CV125

PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
)
VERIZON WIRELESS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV126

This matter is before the Court at the joint request of
the plaintiff and the defendants for clarification of this
Court’s February 19, 2014, Order (Filing No. 190).

The parties

have opted to forego lengthy motion practice and instead offered
two letters to the Court and discussed the matter with the Court
via telephone conference.

The issue is whether the Court limited

the obviousness combinations when it ordered that the defendants
were limited to “twenty (20) references (either obviousness or
prior art) per defendant.”

After review of the prior motions,

filings of the parties, and the Court’s previous order, the Court
recognizes the ambiguity of its Order.

The Court adopts the

defendants’ position and clarifies it as follows.
IT IS ORDERED:
1)

The previous order did not limit the obviousness

combinations other than to combinations of those twenty (20)
references.

-2-

2)

The defendants shall elect twenty (20) anticipation

references per defendant.
3)

The defendants may utilize only those twenty

references (20) to compose obviousness combinations.
DATED this 9th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-