Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02927/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02927-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

MICROSOFT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE A 

SUPPLEMENTAL MARKMAN BRIEF ADDRESSING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S RECENT EN BANC

DECISION PHILLIPS

Case No.: C 04-2927 JW (HRL)

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

MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (STATE BAR NO. 122196)

TIMOTHY P. WALKER, PHD (STATE BAR NO. 105001)

ELAINE Y. CHOW (STATE BAR NO. 194063)

PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP

55 Second Street, Suite 1700

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 882-8200

Fax: (415) 882-8220

JOHN D. VANDENBERG

KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP

One World Trade Center, Suite 1600

121 S.W. Salmon St.

Portland, OR 97204-2988

Phone: (503) 226-7391

Fax: (503) 228-9446

KATHERINE FORD HORVATH (STATE BAR NO. 213098)

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

One Microsoft Way

Building 8

Redmond, WA 98052-6399

Phone: (425) 882-8080

Fax: (425) 869-1327

Attorneys for Defendant

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TELESHUTTLE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

TELESHUTTLE CORPORATION, and BTG 

INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Plaintiffs and counter-defendants,

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant and counterclaimant.

Case No. C 04-2927 JW (HRL)

MICROSOFT’S UNOPPOSED 

REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL

MARKMAN BRIEF ADDRESSING THE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S RECENT EN 

BANC DECISION PHILLIPS

AND RELATED ACTION.

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 112 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 1 of 3
 Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 113 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 3
MICROSOFT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE A 

SUPPLEMENTAL MARKMAN BRIEF ADDRESSING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S RECENT EN BANC

DECISION PHILLIPS

Case No.: C 04-2927 JW (HRL)

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 -1-

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) 

respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental Markman brief addressing the Federal 

Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Phillips v AWH Corp., Nos. 03-1260, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 

July 12, 2005). Counsel for Plaintiffs Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC, Teleshuttle 

Corporation and BTG International, Inc. (collectively, “BTG”) do not oppose Microsoft’s 

request, but simply request an opportunity to respond if appropriate.

The parties have briefed and, on two occasions, argued claim construction issues for 

the disputed terms and phrases of the nine independent apparatus claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,125,388, 6,658,464 and 6,611,862. The Court plans to set a third hearing to address the 

impact of Figure 5 on claim construction issues, and the remaining terms and phrases in 

dispute. The claim construction proceeding remains open, and pending before the Court.

The Federal Circuit on July 12, 2005 issued its long-awaited decision in the Phillips

case, clarifying the legal principles that guide claim construction. In particular, the en banc

decision rejects the methodology in Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 

1193 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and its progeny that greater emphasis be assigned to dictionary 

definitions than the written specification and prosecution history. Instead, Phillips reaffirms 

the approach to claim construction set forth in Vitronics v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 

(Fed. Cir. 1996) and reiterates that the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning 

of a disputed term,” Slip Op. at 24. Phillips further provides that “[p]roperly viewed, the 

‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the 

entire patent.” Id. at 25. Microsoft respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental Markman brief applying 

the reasoning of Phillips to the disputed terms and phrases currently pending before the 

Court. 

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 112 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 2 of 3
 Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 113 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 3
MICROSOFT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE A 

SUPPLEMENTAL MARKMAN BRIEF ADDRESSING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S RECENT EN BANC DECISION PHILLIPS

Case No.: C 04-2927 JW (HRL)

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 -2- Microsoft proposes filing an opening supplemental Markman brief of no more than 

15 pages, on or before July 22, 2005. Microsoft proposes that BTG file a response

supplemental Markman brief, if any, of no more than 15 pages, on or before July 29, 2005. DATED: July 15, 2005 Respectfully submitted, 

PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP By /s/ Michael J. Bettinger

 

 Michael J. Bettinger Attorneys for Defendant MICROSOFT CORPORATION ORDER GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the unopposed Administrative Request of Microsoft 

Corporation is hereby GRANTED. Defendant, Microsoft shall file its opening supplemental Markman brief, limited to 

15 pages, on or before July 22, 2005. 

Plaintiff, BTG shall file its response supplemental Markman brief, if any, limited to 

15 pages, on or before July 29, 2005. 

Dated: ___________________ __________________________________ United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 112 Filed 07/15/2005 Page 3 of 3

July 20, 2005 /s/ James Ware

Case 5:04-cv-02927-JW Document 113 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 3