Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01328/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01328-1/pdf.json

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

ORDER—No. C-07-01328 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 10/25/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SERIOUS MATERIALS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPRESS PRODUCTS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. C-07-01328 RMW

ORDER

[Re Docket No. 28]

On October 12, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement

as required pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3. The parties have agreed that the claim construction

hearing will take from two to four hours, but the Statement indicated that the parties have

disagreement as to whether a prehearing conference is necessary in advance of the claim

construction hearing scheduled for January 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant does not believe a

prehearing conference is required; plaintiff asserts that a prehearing conference is necessary to

present a tutorial and to clarify the court's presentation preferences and whether dispositive motions

will be argued contemporaneously. 

Based upon the Statement, it would appear that U.S. Patent 7,181,891 involves technology

that is relatively accessible to the court and that only two claim terms, "laminated structure" and

"floors," are disputed (although the parties have also agreed to reserve the option of requesting

Case 5:07-cv-01328-RMW Document 30 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER—No. C-07-01328 RMW

MAG 2

construction of the term "non-honeycomb"). Accordingly, should the parties wish to present a

tutorial, the tutorial should be given as part of the claim construction hearing, rather than as part of a

separate prehearing conference. The tutorial should be no more than one hour. The parties may, if

necessary, add one hour to the estimated time for the claim construction hearing to accommodate for

the presentation of a tutorial. Any motion for summary judgment for infringement,

non-infringement, validity or invalidity which is dependent upon claim construction (which the court

ordered be filed by November 26, 2007 along with the opening claim construction brief pursuant to

its August 20, 2007 case management order) shall be argued at the claim construction hearing.

DATED: 10/19/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01328-RMW Document 30 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER—No. C-07-01328 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John L. Cooper jcooper@fbm.com

Jeffrey M. Fisher jfisher@fbm.com

June Tsu-Ain Tai jtai@fbm.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Jonah Dylan Mitchell jmitchell@reedsmith.com

Morgan William Tovey mtovey@reedsmith.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 10/25/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-01328-RMW Document 30 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 3