360 Electrical LLC v. Gottrox LLC

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - The Court construes the term electrical communication to mean a direct or indirect electrical connection. Except as set forth above, the Court orders that all other claim terms, phrases, and/or clauses of claim 20 of the 851 patent have their plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 6/22/11. (ehs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

360 ELECTRICAL, L.L.C.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOTTROX, LLC
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-00044-TJW
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Gottrox LLC (“Gottrox”) is currently unrepresented in this action. The Court
entered an order granting Gottrox’s previous attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw as Attorney on March
3, 2010 (Dk.t No. 46). On March 2, 2011, after the Court became aware that Gottrox had failed to
obtain new counsel, the Court sua sponte ordered Gottrox to obtain counsel within 14 days from
the date of the order (Dkt. No. 56). However, instead of obtaining counsel as directed by the
Court, Mr. Peter Gottstein sent a letter to the Court stating that it was the intent of Gottrox to
proceed pro se (Dkt. No. 58). The Court construed Mr. Gottstein’s letter as a motion to
reconsider its previous order requiring Gottrox to obtain counsel and denied the motion to
reconsider (Dkt. No. 59). The Court again ordered Gottrox to obtain counsel within 14 days from
the entry of the order denying the motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 59). Gottrox never obtained
counsel and has failed to participate in any meaningful way in the litigation of this action,
including failing to participate in the claim construction process or discovery.
In this suit, Plaintiff 360 Electrical, LLC (“360 Electrical”) is asserting claim 20 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,196,851 (“the ’851 Patent”). Pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order, 360
1

Electrical submitted a claim construction and prehearing statement on July 7, 2010 in lieu of the
joint claim construction and prehearing statement required by Local Rule P.R. 4-3 because Gottrox
failed to participate in the claim construction process or comply with P.R. 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 (Dkt.
No. 52). Gottrox never filed a response to the claim construction and prehearing statement filed
by 360 Electrical, never filed its own list of terms requiring construction or proposed
constructions, and never disputed the constructions proposed by 360 Electrical. 360 Electrical
then filed its opening claim construction brief on February 9, 2011 (Dkt. No. 54). Again, Gottrox
failed to file any response to 360’s opening brief, to oppose the list of terms for construction
proposed by 360 Electrical in its brief, or to dispute 360 Electrical’s proposed constructions of
those terms. Because Gottrox has failed to file any response or opposition to the constructions
proposed by 360 Electrical, the Court has no choice but to assume that Gottrox does not oppose
those constructions. See Local Rule CV-7(d) (“In the event a party fails to oppose a motion in the
manner prescribed herein, the court will assume that the party has no opposition.”). Accordingly,
the Court adopts as unopposed 360’s proposed constructions for the terms, phrases, and/or clauses
in claim 20 of the ‘851 patent.
The Court construes the term “electrically conductive sleeve” to mean “an open-ended
conductor configured to receive an inserted prong of a male electrical plug and at least partially
encase the prong and contact opposite sides of the prong.”
The Court construes the term “electrical receptacle” to mean “a rotatable female electrical
socket configured for insertion of a male electrical plug.”
The Court construes the term “annular conductive path” to mean “circular electrically
conductive pathway extending 360°.”
The Court construes the Phrase “axial shaft about which the female electrical receptacle
2

angularly moves in the housing cavity” to mean “a shaft, pin, screw, fastener, or other shaft-like
pivot for the receptacle to rotate in the housing cavity.”
The Court construes the term “electrical communication” to mean “a direct or indirect
electrical connection.”
Except as set forth above, the Court orders that all other claim terms, phrases, and/or
clauses of claim 20 of the ‘851 patent have their plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 23rd day of June, 2011.

__________________________________________
T. JOHN WARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3