Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 187

ORDER that the jury shall be instructed in accordance with the court's interpretations of the disputed claim terms inthe '525 and '700 patents. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/4/08. (djh, )

Download PDF
Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al Doc. 187 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ANASCAPE, LTD. Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORP., AND NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC. Defendant. Civil Action No. 9:06-CV-158 JUDGE RON CLARK ORDER ON AGREED CLAIM TERMS Plaintiff Anascape, Ltd. ("Anascape") filed suit against Defendants Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and Nintendo of America, Inc. ("Nintendo") and Microsoft claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,222,525 ("the `525 patent") and 6,906,700 ("the `700 patent").1 These patents will be collectively known as the Microsoft & Nintendo-Accused Patents. The court conducted a Markman hearing on September 19, 2007 to assist the court in interpreting the meaning of the claim terms of the Microsoft & Nintendo-Accused Patents in dispute. The definitions agreed upon comport with the meaning of the terms as they are used in the claims, the specification, the prosecution history, and any applicable extrinsic evidence. Therefore, these terms will be defined as follows: Anascape also filed suit against Microsoft and Nintendo alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,344,791 ("the `791 patent"), 6,352,205 ("the `205 patent"), and 6,563,415 ("the `415 patent"). On February 23, 2007, the court granted stay pending reexamination before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") as to the `791, `205 and `415 patents. 1 I. Claim Terms 1. "[electromechanical tactile feedback structure providing vibration][active tactile feedback structure]." Used in `700 patent, Claims 26, 32 and 33. means: "electro-mechanical structure that provides vibration to the user." 2. "active tactile feedback vibration." Used in `700 patent, Claims 1, 2 and 12. means: "vibration created by an electro-mechanical structure." II. Conclusion The jury shall be instructed in accordance with the court's interpretations of the disputed claim terms in the `525 and `700 patents. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4 day of February, 2008. ___________________________________ Ron Clark, United States District Judge 2

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?