Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Docket No. 170.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES ET AL,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

 INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY

ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C06-03717 MJJ

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Aristocrat Technologies Australia, PTY Limited and Aristocrat

Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Aristocrat”) Administrative Motion to Strike Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity (Indefiniteness) or, Alternatively, Deferring Briefing

and Hearing Upon Defendants’ Motion Until After the Court’s Claim Construction Hearing.1

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity based on

claim indefiniteness is premature. According to Plaintiffs, such an inquiry raises claim construction

issues and should therefore be resolved after the Claims Construction hearing. Defendants

International Game Technology, Inc. and IGT (collectively, “IGT”) oppose the motion, or

alternatively, request the Court to hear the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity concurrently

with the Claims Construction hearing. 

After considering the parties’ papers and all other matters presented to the Court, it is hereby

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 194 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDERED that:

(1) The hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity on the basis

of indefiniteness is taken off calendar. 

(2) Defendants’ reply brief shall be due on the dates that they would be due pursuant to

the originally noticed hearing date. 

(3) The parties shall be prepared to discuss the issue of indefiniteness at the Claims

Construction hearing on May 30, 2007, to the extent those issues relate to the Court’s

construction of the disputed claims. The Court will then determine whether a further

hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity on the basis of

indefiniteness is appropriate. 

(4) The present hearing date of May 8, 2007 for Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment of Invalidity on the basis of abandonment is unchanged by this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 194 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2