Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04063-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v

MEMOREX PRODUCTS, INC, ET AL,

Defendants. /

No C-01-4063 VRW

ORDER

This action involves a patent dispute between SanDisk,

the patent holder, and three companies (Ritek, Pretec and Memorex)

that allegedly infringe SanDisk's patent. This court previously

construed two claim terms (“array” and “partitioning”), and granted

summary judgment in favor of defendants based on its construction

of “partitioning.” See Doc ##318, 349 and 351. SanDisk appealed

to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See SanDisk Corp

v Memorex Prods, Inc, 415 F3d 1278 (Fed Cir 2005). The Federal

Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, finding this court’s

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 16
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

construction of “partitioning” erroneous. Id. The action was

remanded for reconsideration and further claim construction. Id. 

SanDisk and defendants Ritek, Pretec and Memorex filed a

second joint claim construction statement on November 14, 2005. 

Doc #371. Subsequently, SanDisk, Ritek and Pretec filed separate

claim construction briefs and replies. See Doc ##373, 387, 390,

395 and 396. Defendant Memorex joined in Pretec’s claim

construction statement. Doc #392. Additionally, SanDisk, arguing

that defendants had violated the local patent rules, filed a motion

to strike defendants’ addition of new claim terms and new claim

constructions. Doc #393. Defendants filed two separate

oppositions. Doc ##398, 400.

At the claim construction hearing, counsel for SanDisk

and Ritek limited their arguments to three critical terms (“array,”

“partitioning” and “sector”). For each of these three terms, the

court adopts a construction that is consistent with the claim

language, the intrinsic evidence and the Federal Circuit’s

guidance. 

I

SanDisk designs and manufactures CompactFlash memory

cards. CompactFlash cards are memory storage units used in many

electronic devices, including personal digital assistants, digital

cameras and MP3 players. SanDisk owns United States Patent No

5,602,987 ('987 patent). The '987 patent covers a method of using

electrically erasable programmable read only memories ("EEprom"). 

'987 patent at 1. EEprom memory is different from conventional

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 16
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

hard drive memory because EEprom memory is solid state, which means

it does not have any moving mechanical parts. EEprom memory is

similar to conventional hard drive memory in that it is nonvolatile, which means that its memory can be maintained without a

continuous power source. Some of the advances over the prior art

described in this patent include the ability to select sectors of

memory individually and in groups, erase such a group of sectors

simultaneously, perform read/write functions on sectors

simultaneously with erase functions on other sectors and map

defective memory cells at the sector level. Id at 1:60-2:63. 

Claims 1 and 10 are two of the '987 patent's five

independent claims. These two claims and some of their respective

dependent claims contain the only terms that are disputed. See Doc

##373, 390, 395. Claims 1 and 10 describe a method of operating a

computer system that includes a processor and a memory system. The

memory system contains a memory controller and an EEprom array. 

'987 patent at Fig 1a. 

The EEprom array is an array of non-volatile floating

gate memory cells. The EEprom array is subdivided into sectors,

and some of the sectors include at least a user data portion and an

overhead portion. Id at 8:40-51; SanDisk Corp v Memorex Prods,

Inc, 415 F3d 1278. The user data portion contains the information

the user has designated to be stored. User data includes, for

example, music files, digital images and text documents. The

overhead portion contains information used to regulate the memory

system. Overhead data may include, for example, identifying

information about the sector and information used to detect and

manage defects. The relative proportion between the user data

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 16
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

portion and the overhead portion can be changed over time. ‘987

patent at 8:59-67. Additionally, the user data and overhead

portions do not need to be grouped together physically. Id.

When erasing data from the array, the controller relays

command and address information to the EEprom array. The commands

are “gated by the address decode,” so that the command “is

effective only on the sector that is being addressed.” Id at 5:46-

55. This gating function allows the sectors to be erased

simultaneously. It also results in less “over-erasing,” because

individual sectors can be examined during the process of erasing to

verify that the command given to that sector has been executed. 

For example, if an erase command is given to a large number of

sectors, some sectors will finish erasing earlier than others. 

These sections can be de-selected for any subsequent erase commands

initiated to complete the original erase command.

When reading or writing to the memory sectors, the

controller interacts with the information contained in the memory

sector. The controller shifts out the address and read or write

command information to the EEprom array, which sends the command to

the appropriate memory sector and returns data from the memory

sector through a variety of components. The controller then relays

the data to the processor. 

The use of overhead data allows the memory system to

identify and correct for defects on a more efficient and dynamic

basis. '987 patent at 7:31-8:39. Memory defects may be either

hard or soft. Hard defects are physical defects in the memory

medium. Soft defects are temporary defects in a particular read,

write or erase command. Because EEprom memory degrades more

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 4 of 16
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

quickly than traditional disk drives, compensating for hard defects

in an efficient manner is more important. To compensate for hard

defects, the patent method includes defect-related information in

the overhead portion of the memory sectors. This information

allows the memory system to manage defects at the memory cell

level, rather than merely at the sector level. Such defect

management can occur on a dynamic basis. Against this background,

the court must construe the terms of the patent. 

II

The construction of patent claims is a question of law to

be determined by the court. Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc,

517 US 370 (1996). The goal of claim construction is “to interpret

what the patentee meant by a particular term or phrase in a claim.” 

Renishaw PLC v Marposs SpA, 158 F3d 1243, 1249 (Fed Cir 1998). In

doing so, the court looks first to the claim itself:

The claims of the patent provide the concise

formal definition of the invention. They are

the numbered paragraphs which “particularly

[point] out and distinctly [claim] the subject

matter which the applicant regards as his

invention.” 35 USC § 112. It is to these

wordings that one must look to determine

whether there has been infringement. Courts

can neither broaden nor narrow the claims to

give the patentee something different than what

he has set forth. No matter how great the

temptations of fairness or policy making,

courts do not rework claims. They only

interpret them.

EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co v Phillips Petroleum Co, 849 F2d 1430,

1433 (Fed Cir 1988).

\\

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 5 of 16
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

“The claims define the scope of the right to exclude; the

claim construction inquiry, therefore, begins and ends in all cases

with the actual words of the claim.” Renishaw, 158 F3d at 1248. 

“The words used in the claim are viewed through the viewing glass

of a person skilled in the art.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v Intuitive

Surgical, Inc, 326 F3d 1215, 1220 (Fed Cir 2003) (citing Tegal Corp

v Tokyo Electron Am, Inc, 257 F3d 1331, 1342 (Fed Cir 2001)). 

“Absent a special and particular definition created by the patent

applicant, terms in a claim are to be given their ordinary and

accustomed meaning.” York Prods, Inc v Central Tractor Farm &

Family Ctr, 99 F3d 1568, 1572 (Fed Cir 1996). The court may, if

necessary, consult a variety of sources to determine the ordinary

and customary meaning of a claim term, including “the words of the

claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the

prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant

scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the

state of the art.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc v Safari Water, 381 F3d

1111, 1116 (Fed Cir 2004).

The court begins its construction of claim terms by

consulting intrinsic evidence of the meaning of disputed claim

terms, which includes the claims, the specification and the

prosecution history (if in evidence). Lacks Industries, Inc v

McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc, 322 F3d 1335, 1341 (Fed Cir

2003) (citation omitted). “If upon examination of this intrinsic

evidence the meaning of the claim language is sufficiently clear,

resort to ‘extrinsic’ evidence * * * should not be necessary.” 

Digital Biometrics, Inc, v Identix, Inc, 149 F3d 1335, 1344 (Fed

Cir 1998). “[I]f after consideration of the intrinsic evidence,

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 6 of 16
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

7

there remains doubt as to the exact meaning of the claim terms,

consideration of extrinsic evidence may be necessary to determine

the proper construction.” Id. Although extrinsic evidence such as

expert and inventor testimonies, dictionaries and learned treatises

can shed useful light on the relevant art, extrinsic evidence is

“less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the

legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips v AWH Corp,

415 F3d 1303, 1317 (Fed Cir 2005) (quoting C R Bard, Inc v United

States Surgical Corp, 388 F3d 858, 862 (Fed Cir 2004)) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

“[A] court may constrict the ordinary meaning of a claim

term in at least one of four ways[:]” (1) “if the patentee acted as

his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the

disputed claim in either the specification or prosecution history;”

(2) “if the intrinsic evidence shows that the patentee

distinguished [the] term from prior art on the basis of a

particular embodiment, expressly disclaimed subject matter, or

described a particular embodiment as important to the invention;”

(3) “if the term chosen by the patentee so deprives the claim of

clarity as to require resort to the other intrinsic evidence for a

definite meaning;” or (4) “if the patentee phrased the claim in

step- or means-plus-function format,” then “a claim term will cover

nothing more than the corresponding structure or step disclosed in

the specification, as well as equivalents thereto * * *.” CCS

Fitness, Inc v Brunswick Corp, 288 F3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed Cir 2002)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Limitations from the specification, such as from a

preferred embodiment, cannot be read into the claims unless

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 7 of 16
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

8

expressly intended by the patentee. Teleflex, Inc v Ficosa North

Am Corp, 299 F3d 1313, 1326 (Fed Cir 2002) (“The claims must be

read in view of the specification, but limitations from the

specification are not to be read into the claims.”) And “a

construction that excludes a preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if

ever, correct.’” C R Bard, 388 F3d at 865 (citing Vitronics Corp v

Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F3d 1576, 1583 (Fed Cir 1996)).

With these legal principles in mind, the court now

construes the disputed claim language in the patents.

III

A

“[A]rray of non-volatile floating gate memory cells” (claims 1 &

10)

The court previously interpreted the term “array of

non-volatile floating gate memory cells” as meaning: 

a group of memory cells on one or more memory chips. 

Multiple chips in the same array are connected through

objects such as a common interface and/or common logic

and resistor circuits. An array may contain components

that are not memory cells, such as an interface.

Doc #318 at 12.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit did not address the

“array” interpretation. SanDisk Corp v Memorex Prods, Inc, 415 F3d

at 1292. Despite the Federal Circuit’s pass on this term, SanDisk

argues that the interpretation should be: “a memory portion of a

semiconductor chip that contains non-volatile floating gate memory

cells organized into rows and columns (i.e., a non-volatile

\\

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 8 of 16
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

9

floating gate memory chip).” SanDisk Br (Doc #373) at 6 (emphasis

added). 

SanDisk repeats the argument that an “array” is limited

to a single chip. Id at 6-9; SanDisk Reply Br (Doc #396) at 3-6. 

This argument was considered and rejected in the initial claim

construction order. Doc #318 at 12-16. SanDisk presents no reason

why the court should revisit that decision here. Accordingly, the

court declines to adopt SanDisk’s construction. 

Ritek contends that the Federal Circuit’s analysis of the

“partitioning” construction provided “additional guidance regarding

the meaning of ‘array.’” Ritek Br (Doc #390) at 14-15. Ritek

proposes the following claim construction to “conform” with the

Federal Circuit opinion:

A group of memory cells on one or more memory chips that

are required to perform the steps of the claimed method

and are connected through a common interface and/or

common logic and resistor circuits. It may contain

components that are not memory cells, such as an

interface. There may be other memory cells in the memory

system that are not part of the array which performs the

steps of the claimed method.

Id at 15 (Ritek’s proposed additions to this court’s original claim

construction order in italics). For the reasons that follow, the

court declines to modify the original construction of “array.”

The Federal Circuit explicitly stated: “The judgment

does not depend on the choice between these disputed meanings of

‘array.’ * * * [W]e find it unnecessary at this point to decide

this dispute.” SanDisk Corp v Memorex Prods, Inc, 415 F3d at 1292. 

This suggests that the Federal Circuit did not intend to provide

any “additional guidance” on the term. More importantly, the

Federal Circuit explicitly acknowledged it was not reviewing

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 9 of 16
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

10

“array.” Id. The court finds that the Federal Circuit did not

intend to alter the construction of “array” in its analysis of

“partitioning.”

Moreover, Ritek concedes that the court’s original

construction of “array” is correct. Ritek conceded at the claim

construction hearing that the additional language it proposes

merely makes the court’s previous construction “extra right” in

light of the guidance provided by the Federal Circuit with respect

to the “partitioning” construction. A construction need not be

“extra right” to avoid being wrong. Since the court will address

the Federal Circuit’s guidance in the “partitioning” construction,

the court declines to adopt Ritek’s proposed additions.

Accordingly, the court’s original construction of the

term “array” stands. 

Because the court declines to adopt Ritek’s proposed

modifications to the construction, SanDisk’s motion to strike

Ritek’s “new” construction of “array” is moot and DENIED. See Doc

##393, 405-2.

B

“[P]artitioning the memory cells within the individual sectors into

at least a user data portion and an overhead portion” (claims 1 &

10)

The court previously interpreted the above term as

meaning: 

Construction: Each non-volatile memory sector contained

within an array of non-volatile floating gate memory

cells must include at least one user data portion and one

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 10 of 16
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

11

overhead portion. Memory sectors are not limited to only

one user data portion and one overhead portion.

Claim constr order (Doc #318) at 16 (emphasis added). 

The Federal Circuit held that this construction was

erroneous. SanDisk Corp v Memorex Prods, Inc, 415 F3d 1292. Based

on the plain language of the claim term, a strong presumption

against excluding preferred embodiments of the invention and

rejecting defendants’ prosecution history estoppel argument, the

Federal Circuit held that there may be memory sectors within a

device that are not partitioned into at least one user portion and

one data portion. Id at 1283-1290. The parties now all

acknowledge “each” sector need not be partitioned into user data

and overhead data. 

But the dispute has shifted focus. SanDisk proposes: 

“The step of dividing (logically or physically) each individual

sector used by the computer system in the practice of method claim

1 into at least one user data portion and at least one overhead

portion.” JCC (Doc #371), Ex A at 11 (emphasis added). Quite

similarly, Ritek proposes: “The memory cells within the individual

sectors required to perform the steps of the claimed method are

logically or physically divided (i.e., partitioned) into at least a

user data portion and an overhead portion. Memory sectors are not

limited to only one user data portion and one overhead portion.” 

Id (emphasis added). Both SanDisk and Ritek agree that their

constructions are largely the same. SanDisk Br (Doc #373) at 10;

Ritek Br (Doc #390) at 16; SanDisk Reply Br (Doc #396) at 6. 

The only substantive differences are the terms “used by”

and “required to perform.” To the extent the parties’ proposed

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 11 of 16
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

12

constructions differ, Ritek argues that, while the “partitioning *

* * into user and overhead data” step need not be performed on

every sector in the memory system, the “partitioning” step must be

performed on every sector in the memory array. According to Ritek,

the significance of Ritek’s proposed addition, “required to perform

the steps of,” is that it requires each sector within an “array” to

be partitioned. Ritek argues that this is merely what the Federal

Circuit held in rejecting the court’s first construction of

“partitioning.”

The court is not persuaded that the Federal Circuit

stated as much. The Federal Circuit rejected the construction that

“every Flash EEprom memory cell within an actual device [must] be

grouped into a sector that is partitioned into user and overhead

data portions.” SanDisk Corp v Memorex Prods, Inc, 415 F3d at

1284. Ritek’s additions do not necessarily follow from this

rejection. The Federal Circuit did not address whether every

sector within an “array” must be partitioned. Nor did the Federal

Circuit address how an “array” is delimited from other arrays or

other memory cells – nor did this court. By the plain language of

the claims, the Federal Circuit stated that all that is required of

the claimed memory system is “some memory cells, grouped into

sectors, partitioned into user and overhead data portions,” and

“additional, unclaimed use” of memory cells is consistent with

practicing the claimed invention so long as all of the limitations

are met. Id; ‘987 patent. 

There is a gap between what the Federal Circuit held (all

that is required is “some memory cells, grouped into sectors,

partitioned into user and overhead data portions”) and what Ritek

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 12 of 16
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

13

argues that the Federal Circuit held (“the Federal Circuit held

that the ‘array’ practices the invention but that the ‘memory

system’ may contain other, unclaimed, memory cells.”) SanDisk Corp

v Memorex Prods, Inc, 415 F3d at 1284; Doc #400 at 6. The court

does not need to visit this issue to arrive at a proper claim

construction that is consistent with the language of the plain

language and the intrinsic evidence. Accordingly, the court

declines to adopt Ritek’s proposed construction of “partitioning.” 

Similarly, the court declines to adopt SanDisk’s proposed

construction. 

Instead, the court gives the following hybrid

construction to conform with the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the

initial claim construction:

The non-volatile memory sectors contained within an array

of non-volatile floating gate memory cells include at

least one user data portion and one overhead portion. 

Memory sectors are not limited to only one user data

portion and one overhead portion.

The changes in the court’s construction being: (1)

“Each” is now “The”; and (2) “must” is omitted. See claim constr

order (Doc #318) at 16. This construction is consistent with the

Federal Circuit, the plain language and the intrinsic evidence.

C

“[S]ectors” (claims 1 & 10)

As a starting point, both SanDisk and Ritek agree that a

“sector” is the “basic unit of erase.” The Federal Circuit

endorsed this interpretation. SanDisk Corp v Memorex Prods, Inc,

415 F3d at 1281. Judge Breyer also adopted this construction in

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 13 of 16
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

14

the Lexar litigation. In full, Judge Breyer’s construction was: 

A “non-volatile memory sector” is the basic unit of erase

for the non-volatile memory. It is not limited to 512

bytes of user data and 64 bytes of overhead data.

SanDisk Corp v Lexar Media, Inc, 1999 WL 129512, 3 (ND Cal 1999). 

The parties agree with this construction as far as it goes, but

this does not end their dispute. 

The dispute is whether the construction of “sector”

should include some reference to size or number of memory cells. 

JCC (Doc #371), Ex A at 6. SanDisk proposes that the court adopt

Judge Breyer’s construction and add that a sector is “further

understood to refer to a substantial number of memory cells.” Id. 

Ritek contends that SanDisk is playing “fast and loose with the

courts” since they previously argued that “sector” was not limited

to the size recited above. Ritek Br (Doc #148) at 15. 

SanDisk’s position in Lexar (that size was not limited to

a specified value) was essentially arguing that the example

provided in the specification should not be read into the claim. 

See Lexar, 1999 WL 129512, 3; Berta Reply Decl (Doc #397-2), Ex A

at 8-12. This is consistent with arguing that size must be a

certain minimum number of cells, i e, more than an insubstantial

number. Ritek’s judicial estoppel argument lacks merit. 

Ritek also argues that inserting SanDisk’s proposed

language is incorrect because the specification refers to “Flash

EEprom” and traditional (non-flash) “EEprom.” Ritek argues that

since the invention did not exclude EEprom, and in fact refers to

EEprom, that the invention relates to both flash EEprom and

traditional EEprom. This distinction is significant, Ritek argues,

\\

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 14 of 16
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

15

because traditional EEprom memories would only allow sectors to

contain small units of memory. 

The court need not visit the issue whether the invention

relates to flash EEprom only or both flash and traditional EEprom

because it is unnecessary to insert SanDisk’s proposed addition

(“further understood to refer to a substantial number of memory

cells”) in the court’s construction. Nothing in the construction

which the parties agree to (“the basic unit of erase”) precludes

the size of the “basic unit of erase” from being a “substantial,”

according to one having ordinary skill in the art, “basic unit of

erase.” The court reaches this conclusion without deciding whether

Ritek’s argument, that the invention is not limited to flash EEprom

memories, has merit. The court also reaches this conclusion

without deciding whether SanDisk’s arguments that one having

ordinary skill in the art would understand the invention to relate

only to flash EEprom memories. 

Since Ritek does not argue, as Lexar did, that a sector

was limited to a described embodiment in the specification (512

bytes of user data and 64 bytes of overhead data), it is

unnecessary to include that clarification here. 

Accordingly, the court adopts the following construction

for “sector” means: 

The basic unit of erase. 

\\

\\

\\

\\ 

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 15 of 16
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

16

IV

In sum, the court has construed or clarified the

construction of the three key disputed terms of the ‘987 patent

according to the patent’s plain language, the intrinsic record and

the Federal Circuit’s guidance. Notwithstanding any further orders

the court may make regarding claim construction, this order shall

be deemed to be the “claim construction order” for scheduling

purposes. 

Because the court declines to construe the terms

addressed in SanDisk’s motion to strike, Doc #393, the motion is

moot and DENIED. 

The court DIRECTS SanDisk and defendants Ritek, Memorex

and Pretec to attend a CMC at 9:00 am on April 3, 2007, or if this

date is not convenient, the court DIRECTS the parties to confer to

determine an alternative date and contact the deputy clerk to set

up a conference at a date convenient to their schedules.

SO ORDERED

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:01-cv-04063-VRW Document 431 Filed 02/21/07 Page 16 of 16