Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524-3/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD,

Plaintiff,

v

QUANTA COMPUTER, INC, et al, 

Defendants. /

No C-00-4524 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff’s United States Patent No 5,333,273 (the “‘273

patent”) has been the subject of considerable litigation both in

this court and in the Southern District of Texas before Magistrate

Judge Johnson and Judge Rainey. On May 12, 2005, the court

construed the terms in the ‘273 patent, including the term “ISAcompatible computer,” which appears in claims 1 and 5 of the

patent. Doc #227 (Order). Adopting the same construction as the

Texas court, this court construed “ISA-compatible computer” to mean

“a computer that can handle ISA standard defined interrupts.” Id

at 10. That construction was also the one proposed by defendants

Quanta Computer, Inc and Quanta Computer USA, Inc (“Quanta”). Doc

#196 (Joint Claim Construction Statement), Ex C at 2. Nonetheless,

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 417 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Quanta now moves the court “further” to construe the term “ISAcompatible computer” as “a computer having an ISA bus capable of

handling ISA standard defined interrupts.” Doc #311 (Add Constr

Mot) at 2.

I

Although Quanta characterizes the instant motion as a

“motion for further construction of claim term ‘ISA compatible

computer,’” in essence, Quanta requests the court to reconsider its

prior claim construction. But Quanta did not bother to follow Civ

L R 7-9(a), which provides that “[n]o party may notice a motion for

reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the

motion.” Because Quanta filed the present motion without first

requesting leave of this court, the motion is properly denied on

that ground.

Nonetheless, Quanta suggests that the court’s claim

construction order explicitly contemplated that Quanta would be

able to file the instant motion. See Add Constr Mot at 2 (“At the

Court’s invitation, Quanta Defendants file this motion to ask the

Court to further construe the term ‘ISA-compatible computer’ * * *

as ‘a computer having an ISA bus capable of handling ISA standard

defined interrupts.’”) (citing Order at 10). But Quanta

misconstrues that order, which permitted the parties to apply for a

further construction only to define particular interrupts that a

computer must handle to be considered “ISA-compatible”:

The Texas construction * * * is sufficient, at least

for the time being. Nothing in this language

excludes the possibility that some interrupts might

not be used in a given computer. Plaintiff is free

to argue that point to the jury. It may be that the

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 417 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

parties’ true dispute is not over an ISA-compatible

computer’s ability to handle interrupts, but rather

over what interrupts must be defined for a computer

to be dubbed ‘ISA-compatible.’ If so, the parties

may apply to the court for a further construction of

‘ISA-compatible computer.’

Order at 10:9-14. (emphasis added). The order says nothing about

allowing the parties to move the court to add an “ISA bus” as

another limitation in the claim, which is the “further

construction” that Quanta presently seeks. Accordingly, the court

did not in any way “invite” Quanta to file the present motion.

Even putting aside these procedural details, the motion

itself appears frivolous and provides no basis for altering the

court’s prior construction. Quanta asserts that further

construction is appropriate because Phillips v AWH Corp, 415 F3d

1303 (Fed Cir 2005), “changed the focus of claim construction.” 

Add Constr Mot at 4. Quanta continues:

While Phillips did not change the general rule that

the focus in construing claims remains on the

intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence may be

considered, particularly if the intrinsic evidence

is not sufficient to provide a construction. When

considering extrinsic evidence, expert opinion and

technical treatises are on at least an equal footing

with dictionary definitions.

Samsung used dictionary definitions almost

exclusively in the Texas actions to defeat a

construction of ISA compatible computer that

referenced an ISA bus. Following Phillips, Samsung’s arguments are no longer appropriate.

Id at 4-5.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 417 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Quanta’s argument is flawed in many ways. First,

Phillips did not fundamentally change the principles of claim

construction. Characterizing its previous decision in Vitronics

Corp v Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F3d 1576 (Fed Cir 1996), the Phillips

court stated “we did not attempt to provide a rigid algorithm for

claim construction, but simply attempted to explain why, in

general, certain types of evidence are more valuable than others. 

Today, we adhere to that approach and reaffirm the approach to

claim construction outlined in that case, in Markman v Westview

Instruments, Inc, 52 F3d 967, 979-81 (Fed Cir 1995) and in

Innova/Pure Water, Inc v Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc, 381

F3d 1111 (Fed Cir 2004).” Phillips, 415 F3d at 1324 (emphasis

added) (citations altered).

More importantly, even if Phillips changed the focus of

claim construction, those changes would not support the further

construction that Quanta presently espouses. In determining

whether an “ISA-compatible computer” necessarily included an “ISA

bus,” the Texas district court adopted Magistrate Judge Johnson’s

report and recommendation (R&R) in full. The R&R relied on

intrinsic evidence to decide that the term “ISA-compatible

computer” as used in the ‘273 patent did not require the additional

limitation of an ISA bus:

Defendant Arima invites the court to adopt a

construction that would specify that an ISAcompatible computer must include an ISA bus as one

of its components. However, the court finds no legal

justification for carrying its claim construction to

that level of specificity. Such a narrow definition

is not required either by the claims themselves or

the intrinsic evidence. Defendant Arima argues

that, although no mention of the ISA bus is made in

the claims, it is clear from the specification that

the only portion of the ISA-compatible computer that

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 417 Filed 07/25/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

the patent is concerned with is the system of

interrupts. Therefore, following Defendant Arima’s

logic, the ISA bus, as a main component of the

commonly used system of interrupts described as a

preferred embodiment in the specification, should be

included in the definition. The court cannot give

credence to this argument. Limitations to the

claims should not be inferred from a preferred

embodiment.

Doc #321, Ex A (R&R) at 13-14 (emphasis added). Quanta’s “further”

construction, on the contrary, relies primarily on extrinsic

evidence, Add Constr Mot at 6, and improperly attempts to limit the

claim based on an “exemplary” embodiment in the specification, id

at 5. Compare Teleflex, Inc v Ficosa North Am Corp, 299 F3d 1313,

1326 (Fed Cir 2002) (“[T]he claims must be read in view of the

specification, but limitations from the specification are not to be

read into the claims * * *.” (citations omitted)); Phillips, 415

F3d at 1323. Accordingly, because the court’s prior construction

of “ISA-compatible computer” comports with the principles

enunciated in Phillips -- unlike Quanta’s proposed construction --

there is no reason to construe that term again.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 417 Filed 07/25/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

II

As described above, Quanta’s instant motion appears to

rely on frivolous arguments. The motion has imposed on plaintiff

the expense of opposing the motion and has delayed the action. 

Accordingly, the court invites plaintiff to serve and file a motion

for such relief as may be appropriate.

For all of the above reasons, the court DENIES Quanta’s

motion for “further” construction of the term “ISA-compatible

computer.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 417 Filed 07/25/06 Page 6 of 6