Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09870801"

See other formats


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 




KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 
JOHN W. KEKER - #49092 
MICHAEL H. PAGE - #154913 
710 Sansome Street 
San Francisco, CA 94 1 1 1 - 1 704 
Telephone: (415)391-5400 
Facsimile: (415)397-7188 

DERWIN & SIEGEL 
DOUGLAS K. DERWIN - #1 1 1407 
3280 Alpine Road 
Portola Valley, CA 94028 
Telephone: (650)529-8700 
Facsimile: (650)529^8799 

INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 

MARK SCADINA - #173103 • 

JEFF MCDOW- #184727 

4800 Patrick Henry Drive 

Santa Clara, CA 95054 

Telephone: (408)855-0100 

Facsimile: (408) 855-0144 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 


CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 


INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES 


Case No. C 01-1640 SBA (MEJ) 


Consolidated with C 02-0647 SBA 


Plaintiff, 


v. 


PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT 
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND 
PREHEARING STATEMENT 


MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a 
Washington corporation, 


Defendant. 


AND COUNTER ACTION. 


PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT 
CASE NO. C 01-1640 SBA (MEJ), CONSOLIDATED WITH C 02-0647 SBA 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

1.5 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Intertrust Technologies Corporation ("Intertrust") and 
Defendant and Counter-Claimant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") submit the following 
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in accordance with Patent Local Rule 4-3. 

RULE 4-3(a) and (b) 

Claim terms and phrases on which the parties agree are listed at the beginning of Exhibit 
B, attached. 

RULE 4-3(b) 

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is Microsoft's presentation of disputed claim terms 
and Microsoft's proposed constructions. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is InterTrust's 
presentation of disputed claim terms and InterTrust's proposed constructions. The parties are 
discussing a joint presentation that would present each party's position on all disputed terms in a 
side-by-side format. If the parties reach agreement on such a submission, the parties will provide 
that submission to the Court as a substitute for the attached Exhibits A and B. 

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is InterTrust's identification of intrinsic and 
extrinsic evidence supporting InterTrust's proposed construction for each disputed term and 
phrase. 

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is Microsoft's identification of intrinsic and 
extrinsic evidence supporting Microsoft's proposed construction for each disputed term and 
phrase. 

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a Microsoft statement of reservations. 

RULE 4-3(c) 

The Court has set aside three days for the Claim Construction Hearing. 

RULE 4-3(d) 

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a summary of expert testimony to be presented by 
InterTrust. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a summary of expert testimony to be presented by 
Microsoft. 

RULE 4-3(e) 

Following is a list of other issues the parties believe might appropriately be taken 

!_ 

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT 
CASE NO. C 01-1640 SB A (MEJ), CONSOLIDATED WITH C 02-0647 SBA 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



up at the Case Management Conference hearing set for February 13, or such other prehearing 
conference as the Court may wish to schedule. Substantive argument on these issues is set forth 
in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed concurrently herewith. 

A. Issues upon which the parties agree: 

1 . Live expert testimony should not be presented. Each party will undertake its best 
efforts to have its above-designated expert(s) present at the hearing to respond to 
questions from the Court. 

2. Each party will undertake its best efforts to have its declarants available for deposition 
within one week of submitting Claim Construction or indefiniteness summary judgment 
declarations. 

3. Normal briefing page limits should be doubled for the Claim Construction briefs. 

4. There will be no post-hearing briefing, except at the request of the Court. 

B. Issues which the parties agree should be taken up at the Case Management Conference, but as 
to which the parties do not agree on substance: 

1 . The number of claim construction briefs to be filed by the parties. 

2. Format of the Claim Construction Hearing. 

a. Whether the parties should present tutorials, and, if so, the length and format of 
such a tutorial. 

b. Whether the parties should present a non-tutorial opening statement. 

c. The format and ordering of substantive argument on disputed claim language. 

d. Whether the currently scheduled Mini-Markman proceeding should be devoted 
to all of the disputed terms and phrases from the 12 selected patent claims, or a 
subset. 

2 

PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT 
CASE NO. C 01-1640 SBA (ME J), CONSOLIDATED WITH C 02-0647 SBA 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


3. Whether other issues should be addressed during the Claim Construction Hearing. 

a. The anticipated Microsoft motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness, 
referenced in the Court's Further Case Management Order of November 6, 2002. 

b. Whether certain material said to be "incorporated by reference" into several of 
the asserted patents, does or does not constitute part of the "specification" of those 
patents for claim construction purposes. 

c. Other evidentiary disputes related to the Claim Construction Hearing. 

C. Issues Microsoft intends to raise at the Case Management Conference, but which InterTrust 
believes are not appropriate for that conference: 

1. Claim construction and claim indefiniteness discovery disputes. 

2. The scope of the stay entered by the court. ^ 


Dated: February 3, 2003 


By: 



MICHAEL H. PAGE 


Dated: February 3, 2003 


By: 


Attorneys for Intertmsfibchnologies 
Corporation / \ 


gklC L. WESENBERG 
Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation 


ORRICK HERRINQTON Jk SUTCLEFFE 



3 


PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT 
CASE NO. C 01-1640 SBA (MEJ), CONSOLIDATED WITH C 02-0647 SB A