MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., 14-cv-03657-SI. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190419h66
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: APRIL 19, 2019 HEARING SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . The Court directs the parties to be prepared to address the following questions at the April 19, 2019 hearing: 1. In the original claim construction briefing, MLC identified structures for the means plus function claims, albeit not specific Micron circuits. Are these claim construction disclosures consistent or inconsistent with the specific structures identified in the Lee Report for the "programming," "selecting" and "comp
Summary: ORDER RE: APRIL 19, 2019 HEARING SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . The Court directs the parties to be prepared to address the following questions at the April 19, 2019 hearing: 1. In the original claim construction briefing, MLC identified structures for the means plus function claims, albeit not specific Micron circuits. Are these claim construction disclosures consistent or inconsistent with the specific structures identified in the Lee Report for the "programming," "selecting" and "compa..
More
ORDER RE: APRIL 19, 2019 HEARING
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
The Court directs the parties to be prepared to address the following questions at the April 19, 2019 hearing:
1. In the original claim construction briefing, MLC identified structures for the means plus function claims, albeit not specific Micron circuits. Are these claim construction disclosures consistent or inconsistent with the specific structures identified in the Lee Report for the "programming," "selecting" and "comparing" processes?
2. If the Court agrees with Micron that Mr. Lee's identification of the memory cell as part of the comparator represents a new theory and therefore should be stricken, what is the consequence for this case?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
