Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 224

RESPONSE to Motion re 192 MOTION Motion to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims filed by Function Media, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D, # 5 Exhibit Ex. E)(Grinstein, Joseph)

Download PDF
Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al Doc. 224 Att. 3 Exhibit C Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00229-CE Document 334 Filed 0713012009 Page I of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COTJRT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MINERVA INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. $ $ $ $ CASE NO. 2 :07-CV -229-CE MOTOROLA, INC., ET AL. $ ORDER Pending before the court is the defendants' motion to limit the number of asserted patent claims (Dkt. No. 231). For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the motion. The plaintiff, Minerva Industries, Inc. ("Minerva") accuses the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,681,120 ("the'120 patent") and 7,321,783 ("the'783 patent"). The '120 patent contains 35 claims, and the'783 patent contains 125 claims. The claims of the'120 and '783 patents are directed to multi-media devices that contain various combinations permutations of these features. and In its infringement contentions, Minerva asserts 125 patent claims against the defendants-Z7 ftom the'120 patent and 98 from the'783 patent Many of the independent claims of the asserted patents disclose numerous elements that are claimed in the alternative. Furthermore, many of the dependent claims of the asserted patents are written in multipledependent claims. form. For these reasons, the 125 asserted claims effectively increases to over 275 Minerva opposes the motion at this time. Minerva asserts that to limit the claims at this time would abridge its intellectual property rights. Minerva concedes, however, that after a frill opportunity to participate in discovery, it will ultimately limit its asserted claims. Minerva Case 2:07-cv-00229-CE Document 334 Filed 07/3012009 Page 2 of 2 alternatively suggests that the court defer limiting claims until the parties exchange lists of proposed terms to be construed. The court will conduct a claim construction hearing in this case on January 6,2010, and the deadline for discovery concerning claims construction issues was July 1,2009. Atthis state of the litigation and in light of the deadlines in this case, the court orders Minerva to limit its asserted claims to 40 across both patents. See Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell,1nc., No. 2:06-CY-528 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2008). This limitation is a total across both the '120 and'783 patents and does not limit a number per patent. SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2009. CHARLES EVERINGHA UNITED STATES MAGI

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?