Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 137

NOTICE by Microsoft Corp. of Supplemental Authority (Joncus, Stephen)

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 137

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 137

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ANASCAPE, LTD. Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Hon. Ron Clark Civil Action No. 9:06-CV-00158-RC

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Pursuant to the discussion at the claim construction hearing yesterday, Microsoft Corporation submits the following supplemental authority for the Court's consideration: Claim Differentiation Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[C]laim differentiation only creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope; it is `not a hard and fast rule of construction." "Claim differentiation cannot broaden claims beyond their correct scope." "[T]hat the claims are presumed to differ in scope does not mean that every limitation must be distinguished from its counterpart in another claim, but only that at least one limitation must differ") (emphasis added). Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed.Cir. 2007) ("A further reason for not applying the doctrine of claim differentiation in this case is that the Group I claims are not otherwise identical but for the references to pellets, linear extrudates, and composite compositions, and thus the district court's construction does not make the composite composition claims redundant. Instead, there are numerous other differences varying the scope of the claimed subject matter.") (emphasis added).

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Page 1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 137

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 2 of 4

Claim Constructions with Negative Limitations Aquatex Indus. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1378-82 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (District Court's construction of "fiberfill batting material" to cover synthetic fibers, and not natural fibers or a combination of synthetic and natural fibers, was affirmed; accused product contained a combination of natural and synthetic fibers) (emphasis added). Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, 357 F.3d 1340 1347-50 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (based on the description in the specification the Court construed the "sending," "transmitting," and "receiving" limitations "to require that the claimed data packets travel directly from a local site to a remote site (and vice versa) over a telephone line and not a packet-switched network") (emphasis added). Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1329, 1337-1338 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the term "material object" construed to not cover "the hard disk component of a home personal computer" where the accused activities involve download of information over the Internet to a consumer's hard disk on a home personal computer) (emphasis added). On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, 442 F.3d 1331, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (limited the term "customer" to "retail customer" and not to cover "resellers" because the "claims cannot be of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification"). Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 23, 2007

By:

/s/ Stephen J. Joncus _ __________ J. Christopher Carraway (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Jared S. Goff (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Joseph T. Jakubek (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail]

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Page 2

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 137

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 3 of 4

Stephen J. Joncus (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Richard D. Mc Leod (Bar No. 24026836) [e-mail] Derrick W. Toddy (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: [phone] J. Thad Heartfield (Bar No. 09346800) [e-mail] Law Offices of J. Thad Heartfield 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, Texas 77706 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 409-866-5789 Clayton E Dark Jr. (Bar No. 05384500) [e-mail] Clayton E Dark Jr., Law Office 207 E Frank Ave # 100 Lufkin, TX 75901 Telephone: [phone] Stephen McGrath, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) MICROSOFT CORPORATION One Microsoft Way, Building 8 Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 425-706-7329 Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Page 3

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 137

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the 23rd day of August, 2007, the foregoing pleading was electronically filed with the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5, this constitutes service on the following counsel: Luke Fleming McLeroy McKool Smith - Dallas 300 Crescent Court Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201

By:/s/ Stephen J. Joncus ___________________ J. Christopher Carraway [e-mail] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 503-595-5301

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE