Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

1

The Court finds it is unnecessary to conduct a prehearing conference.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVA MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NANOMETRICS, INC.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-0986 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR

GUIDANCE REGARDING CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Administrative Motion for Guidance Regarding Claim

Construction Hearing or, in the Alternative, Requesting Prehearing Conference, filed May 8,

2006. Defendant has filed a response, in which it agrees guidance is necessary. Having

reviewed the parties’ respective submissions, the Court deems the matter suitable for

decision on the papers, and hereby GRANTS the motion.1

 Specifically, the Court answers

the parties’ questions as to the claim construction hearing, as follows.

1. The Court will construe six terms at the claim construction hearing, and the

parties’ respective briefs shall be limited to the six terms to be construed. In the event the

parties are unable reach agreement as to which six terms should be construed, each party

shall select three terms to be construed.

2. In addition to construing six terms at the hearing, the Court will consider the

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 146 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 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

2

issues of whether the Certification of Correction issued July 19, 2005 by the Patent and

Trademark Office is applicable to the instant action and whether the Court can correct the

asserted typographical error. (See Joint Claim Construction Statement, filed May 1, 2006,

at 8:26-27.)

3. Plaintiff’s opening brief and defendant’s responsive brief shall each be limited to

25 pages; plaintiff’s reply shall be limited to 15 pages.

4. The parties may present live expert testimony in connection with the tutorial, but

may not present live expert testimony at the claim construction hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 146 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2