PARALLEL NETWORKS LICENSING, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 13-2073(KAJ). (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Delaware
Number: infdco20170307559
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KENT A. JORDAN , Circuit Judge . This Memorandum Order relates to two motions currently pending before me: Microsoft's motion for reconsideration of claim construction (D.I. 339), and Microsoft's motion for a phased trial (D.I. 340). With respect to the claim construction motion, Microsoft argues that the Court should reconsider its claim construction based on arguments that Parallel Networks presented to the PTAB during an inter partes review. Microsof
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KENT A. JORDAN , Circuit Judge . This Memorandum Order relates to two motions currently pending before me: Microsoft's motion for reconsideration of claim construction (D.I. 339), and Microsoft's motion for a phased trial (D.I. 340). With respect to the claim construction motion, Microsoft argues that the Court should reconsider its claim construction based on arguments that Parallel Networks presented to the PTAB during an inter partes review. Microsoft..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
KENT A. JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
This Memorandum Order relates to two motions currently pending before me: Microsoft's motion for reconsideration of claim construction (D.I. 339), and Microsoft's motion for a phased trial (D.I. 340). With respect to the claim construction motion, Microsoft argues that the Court should reconsider its claim construction based on arguments that Parallel Networks presented to the PTAB during an inter partes review. Microsoft contends that Parallel Networks "made narrowing arguments during the IPRs, which are contrary to its earlier position." (D.I. 339 at 3.) I disagree. It does not appear to me that the arguments Parallel Networks presented to the PTAB are necessarily contrary to the claim construction adopted by this Court. Nor does there appear to be any other persuasive reason to alter the previously stated claim construction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, that:
(1) Microsoft's motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and
(2) Microsoft's motion for a phased trial is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
