Filed: Jul. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . This order addresses several outstanding issues related to defendant Micron Technology Inc.'s contention that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 ("the '571 patent") are invalid under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting ("OTDP"). At the case management conference held on May 11, 2017, the following issues were submitted to the Court for resolution: (1) whether construction
Summary: ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . This order addresses several outstanding issues related to defendant Micron Technology Inc.'s contention that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 ("the '571 patent") are invalid under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting ("OTDP"). At the case management conference held on May 11, 2017, the following issues were submitted to the Court for resolution: (1) whether construction o..
More
ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
This order addresses several outstanding issues related to defendant Micron Technology Inc.'s contention that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 ("the '571 patent") are invalid under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting ("OTDP"). At the case management conference held on May 11, 2017, the following issues were submitted to the Court for resolution: (1) whether construction of two terms that appear in the '851/'814 patents but not in the '571 patent — "programming reference parameter" and "control circuitry" — is necessary to the OTDP analysis, and if so, whether the Court can construe these terms on the present record; (2) the proper "direction" of the OTDP inquiry; and (3) whether, with the benefit of claim construction, the Court can determine whether the asserted claims of the '571 patent are invalid in view of the '851/'814 patents. After the case management conference, the parties submitted several letter briefs setting forth their arguments regarding the "direction" of analysis for the OTDP inquiry. Dkt. Nos. 134, 137-39.
The Court concludes that construction of the terms "programming reference parameter" and "control circuitry" is necessary in order to engage in the OTDP analysis, and that the Court can construe the disputed terms without the need for further motion practice or a hearing. However, the Court finds that it would be helpful for the parties to file succinct letter briefs setting forth their proposed constructions of the two terms.1 The parties are directed to file letter briefs of no more than five pages by July 28, 2017. The parties may cite to the expert declarations and other material that was filed in conjunction with the summary judgment motions. In addition, the parties may attach new expert declarations to the letter briefs if they wish. Upon submission of the letter briefs, the Court will take the matter under submission and issue an order regarding claim construction shortly thereafter.
After the Court issues the supplemental claim construction order, the Court will issue a separate order regarding the proper "direction" of the OTDP analysis. The Court will also address whether any further proceedings are necessary to resolve the OTDP matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
