Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02669/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02669-2/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 Said Amended Exhibit A is attached hereto.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

McKESSON INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-02-2669 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIDGE MEDICAL, INC.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On November 9, 2004 and April 15, 2005, Magistrate Judge

Mueller filed Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) and

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations (“Supp. F&R”),

respectively, regarding construction of United States Patent No.

4,857,716 (the “‘716 Patent”) covering a Patient Identification

and Verification System and Method. Magistrate Judge Mueller

recommends that the eighteen disputed claim elements be construed

as described in “Amended Exhibit A” to the Supp. F&R.1

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 457 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 5
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 After consideration of the parties’ objections to the

F&R and the oral argument of counsel made at the February 11,

2005 hearing, the court was prepared to adopt the F&R with the

exception of the construction of three claim elements. (Mem. &

Order, filed Feb. 22, 2005.) As to those elements, the court

referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Mueller for further

review of the “base station means,” “means for only allowing

communication,” and “means for programming” elements. The

parties submitted additional briefing on the subject terms. 

After consideration of that briefing, and without further

hearing, Magistrate Judge Mueller filed the Supp. F&R, rendering

her final decision on these elements. (Supp. F&R, filed April

15, 2005.) The Supp. F&R superceded those portions of the

original F&R, filed November 9, 2004, with regard to the three

claim elements.

3 Said objections and replies thereto were filed on April

29 and May 13, 2005, respectively.

4 The court is unaware of any circuit court authority

determining whether claim construction is a dispositive or nondispositive matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Absent that

authority, the court finds persuasive and has followed herein Tom

Hayden Enterprises, Inc. v. Southern Oregon Hot Bikes, Inc., 2004

WL 1686937 (D. Or. July 27, 2004) which found that claim

construction is a non-dispositive pretrial matter. However, the

court acknowledges that there is contrary district court

authority finding claim construction a dispositive pretrial

matter. See e.g., ADE Corp. V. KLA-Tencor Corp., 288 F. Supp. 2d

590 (D. Del. 2003). Accordingly, the court notes that even were

it to apply a de novo standard of review, its decision would

remain the same–-it would adopt in full Magistrate Judge

Mueller’s recommended decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

Both parties filed objections to the F&R2 and Supp. F&R.3

When either party timely objects to any portion of a magistrate

judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter,4 the

district court may set aside any portion of the ruling found to

be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Given the complexity of the patent claim at issue and

Magistrate Judge Mueller’s careful and thorough review of the

parties’ proposed constructions, both by way of written

submissions and lengthy hearing, the court cannot find that

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 457 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge Mueller’s construction of the ‘716 Patent is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The F&R and Supp. F&R are

supported by the record and by proper analysis. In particular,

with respect to the three claim elements addressed in the Supp.

F&R, the court emphasizes the following:

First, as to the “base station means” construction,

Magistrate Judge Mueller supports her conclusion with reference

to several federal circuit court opinions (see e.g. Summit

Technology Inc. v. Nidek Co., Ltd., 363 F.3d 1219, 1224 (Fed.

Cir. 2004); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Deere & Co., Inc., 224 F.3d

1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) and persuasively distinguishes the

case of Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d

1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999), heavily relied upon by plaintiff. 

Moreover, her decision to construe this element under § 112, ¶ 6

is well supported because the claim language, clearly, does not

reveal sufficient structure to perform all the recited functions

of the base station. Finally, Magistrate Judge Mueller properly

identifies the corresponding structure of the base station means

as each structure is described with its respective function so as

to fully demonstrate how the relevant structure actually performs

the recited functions of the base station. (Supp. F&R at 6:9-

7:5.)

Second, with respect to the “means for only allowing

communication” claim element, Magistrate Judge Mueller properly

identified the corresponding structure as a “microprocessor with

the capability of processing messages that do contain an

identifier that corresponds to the base station’s identifier and

not processing messages that do not contain an identifier that

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 457 Filed 06/07/05 Page 3 of 5
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

corresponds to the base station’s identifier.” (Supp. F&R at

10:9-12.) The “means for only allowing communication” claim

element relates to the base station’s capacity to detect incoming

messages transmitted by the portable terminals and to respond

only to those messages containing the base station’s unique

identifier. (‘716 Patent, Col. 24:15-17.) Magistrate Judge

Mueller describes that for the base station to perform this

function, to “ignore” transmissions from some portable terminals

and “only communicate” with portable terminals having the same

address, it requires some structure that actually performs this

function. She correctly derives that structure from the drawings

included in the specification section of the patent (Figs. 5, 8

and 32), each of which shows the base station as including a

“microprocessor.” Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419,

1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, a microprocessor with the abovedescribed specialized capabilities is the corresponding structure

of the recited function of “only allowing communication.”

Third, as to the “means for programming” claim element,

again Magistrate Judge Mueller’s identification of the

corresponding structure is well supported with reference to the

claim language. She properly finds that the patent requires

interconnection for transfer of the unique identifier; in other

words, a wireless embodiment is not contemplated by the patent. 

“In each [of the] embodiment[s] [preferred and alternative], the

patent describes the structural features required to perform the

recited function, including a point of insertion or mounting of

the handheld device in the base station to facilitate an

interconnection, which the invention teaches is necessary for

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 457 Filed 06/07/05 Page 4 of 5
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

downloading or transferring the base station’s unique identifier

into the memory of the portable handheld terminal.” (Emphasis

added.) (Supp. F&R at 12:2-6; see also Supp. F&R at 12 n. 10.) 

Further, she correctly found that the RF modem and antenna do not

perform the function of “programming.” Rather, the claim

language consistently and exclusively associates the RF modem and

antenna with the communication function performed by the base

station means. (Supp. F&R at 12:16-13:10.)

Accordingly, the court hereby ADOPTS in full the F&R, filed

November 9, 2004, as amended by the Supp. F&R, filed April 15,

2005. The eighteen disputed claim elements are construed as set

forth in the attached exhibit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 7, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 457 Filed 06/07/05 Page 5 of 5