Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 144

NOTICE by Nintendo of America, Inc. -- Statement of Supplemental Authority of Nintendo of America Inc. and Microsoft Corp. (Blank, James)

Download PDF
Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al Doc. 144 Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC Document 144 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION Hon. Ronald Clark Civil Action No.: 9:06-CV-00158-RC ANASCAPE, LTD., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORP. and NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Defendants. STATEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC. AND MICROSOFT CORP. During the September 19, 2007 Markman Hearing concerning the disputed claim terms of the `525 and `700 patents, Anascape argued that the statements in the `525 patent specification distinguishing the Chang prior art patent should not limit the claims because the specification supposedly distinguished Chang on multiple grounds. On the legal issue presented by this argument, the Federal Circuit has recently stated: "An applicant's invocation of multiple grounds for distinguishing a prior art reference does not immunize each of them from being used to construe the claim language. Rather, as we have made clear, an applicant's argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the reference on other grounds as well." Andersen Corporation v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1477, n. * (Fed. Cir. 1998). NY\1329936.1 Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC Document 144 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 2 of 5 While Andersen involved statements made during prosecution rather than in the specification, Phillips makes clear that the specification is, if anything, more important in determining the appropriate construction of disputed claim terms. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("the specification `is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'") (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, it is appropriate to limit the asserted claims of the `525 and `700 patents based on the disavowal of Chang's multiple input member controller irrespective of whether Chang was also distinguished on other grounds. Dated: September 26, 2007 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ James S. Blank James S. Blank (pro hac vice) ( LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 Robert J. Gunther, Jr. (pro hac vice) ( WILMER HALE 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (212) 230-8800 Fax: (212) 230-8888 NY\1329936.1 Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC Document 144 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 3 of 5 Robert W. Faris (pro hac vice) ( Joseph S. Presta (pro hac vice) ( NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 Lawrence L. Germer ( Charles W. Goehringer, Jr. GERMER GERTZ L.L.P. 550 Fannin, Suite 500 Beaumont, Texas 77713 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC. By:/s/ Chris Carraway (with permission by James S. Blank) J. Christopher Carraway (admitted pro hac vice) Joseph T. Jakubek (admitted pro hac vice) Richard D. McLeod (Bar No. 24026836) Derrick W. Toddy (admitted pro hac vice) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 J. Thad Heartfield Bar No. 09346800) LAW OFFICES OF J. THAD HEARTFIELD 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, Texas 77706 Clayton E. Dark. Jr. (Bar No. 05384500) CLAYTON E. DARK, JR., LAW OFFICE 207 E. Frank Avenue, #100 NY\1329936.1 Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC Document 144 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 4 of 5 Lufkin, Texas 75901 Stephen McGrath, esq. (admitted pro hac vice) MICROSOFT CORPORATION One Microsoft Way, Building 8 Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION NY\1329936.1 Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC Document 144 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that al counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 26th day of September 2007. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail /s/ James S. Blank NY\1329936.1

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?