Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION

This order addresses several outstanding issues related to defendant Micron Technology 

Inc.’s contention that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 (“the ‘571 patent”) are 

invalid under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (“OTDP”). At 

the case management conference held on May 11, 2017, the following issues were submitted to 

the Court for resolution: (1) whether construction of two terms that appear in the ‘851/ʻ814 

patents but not in the ‘571 patent − “programming reference parameter” and “control circuitry” − 

is necessary to the OTDP analysis, and if so, whether the Court can construe these terms on the 

present record; (2) the proper “direction” of the OTDP inquiry; and (3) whether, with the benefit 

of claim construction, the Court can determine whether the asserted claims of the ’571 patent are

invalid in view of the ‘851/ʻ814 patents. After the case management conference, the parties 

submitted several letter briefs setting forth their arguments regarding the “direction” of analysis 

for the OTDP inquiry. Dkt. Nos. 134, 137-39. 

The Court concludes that construction of the terms “programming reference parameter” 

and “control circuitry” is necessary in order to engage in the OTDP analysis, and that the Court 

can construe the disputed terms without the need for further motion practice or a hearing. 

However, the Court finds that it would be helpful for the parties to file succinct letter briefs setting 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 140 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

forth their proposed constructions of the two terms.1 The parties are directed to file letter briefs of 

no more than five pages by July 28, 2017. The parties may cite to the expert declarations and 

other material that was filed in conjunction with the summary judgment motions. In addition, the 

parties may attach new expert declarations to the letter briefs if they wish. Upon submission of 

the letter briefs, the Court will take the matter under submission and issue an order regarding 

claim construction shortly thereafter. 

After the Court issues the supplemental claim construction order, the Court will issue a 

separate order regarding the proper “direction” of the OTDP analysis. The Court will also address 

whether any further proceedings are necessary to resolve the OTDP matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2017 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

 The Court recognizes that in its prior summary judgment motions, defendant argued that 

these terms do not require construction. In the most recent case management conference 

statement, defendant suggested that in light of the Court’s order on summary judgment, claim 

construction may be necessary. The Court finds that defendant is not precluded from advancing 

constructions for these terms (or from arguing that the terms should be construed according to 

their plain and ordinary meaning). 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 140 Filed 07/18/17 Page 2 of 2