Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ADAPTIX, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC., 5:14-cv-01379-PSG (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150515b70 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 14, 2015
Latest Update: May 14, 2015
Summary: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. claims Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., HTC Corporation, Kyocera Corporation, ZTE Corporation, Verizon Wireless, Dell, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC and Sprint Spectrum L.P. infringe United States Patent Nos. 6,947,748 and 7,454,212. Consistent with Pat. L.R. 4-3(c), the parties seek construction of one claim term. 1 The parties appeared for a hearing on the matters at hand earlier
More

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. claims Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., HTC Corporation, Kyocera Corporation, ZTE Corporation, Verizon Wireless, Dell, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC and Sprint Spectrum L.P. infringe United States Patent Nos. 6,947,748 and 7,454,212. Consistent with Pat. L.R. 4-3(c), the parties seek construction of one claim term.1 The parties appeared for a hearing on the matters at hand earlier today. To avoid unnecessary delay, the court proceeds to issue its construction without its full reasoning and analysis:

PATENT CLAIM TERM/PHRASE CONSTRUCTION NO. `212 "continuously monitors" "checks without interruption"

The parties should rest assured that the court arrived at these constructions with a full appreciation of not only the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, but also the Federal Circuit's teaching in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,2 and its progeny. So that the parties may pursue whatever recourse they believe is necessary, a complete opinion will issue before entry of any judgment.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. See Case No. 14-cv-01379: Docket No. 139. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the court adopts by reference its ruling on claim construction from the "Wave 1" cases. See Case No. 13-cv-01776-PSG: Docket No. 158. The parties do not waive their right to appeal those constructions by agreeing to have them apply in these "Wave 2" cases.
2. 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer