Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455-12/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04455 JSW

ORDER SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE RE CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION

The Court has received the parties’ joint claim construction brief and Plaintiffs’ opening

claim construction brief. 

In the joint claim construction brief, the parties purport to identify ten terms, phrases or

clauses for construction. In that statement the parties’ state that they “have been able to agree in

concept on the ten claim terms to be construed by the Court, the parties have separately

articulated their respective claim terms within the ten numbered groupings in the chart.” (Joint

Claim Construction Statement at 2:12-14.)

It is evident, however, that more than ten terms, phrases or clauses are included. (See,

e.g., Joint Claim Construction Statement, section 3 (re: Gore’s proposed constructions).) In

addition, in Plaintiffs’ opening brief, Plaintiffs state that “Gore has designated a multitude of

phrases that it deems necessary to construct,” but that Plaintiffs “propose the following ten

terms discussed below be construed by the Court.” (Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 5:24-27.)

The Court is concerned that the parties have not, in fact, agreed upon ten terms, phrases

or clauses to be construed. 

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 64 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Moreover, in some cases, it may be appropriate to construe phrases or clauses, rather

than discrete terms. However, in some cases, it may be that only a discrete part of a phrases or

clause truly is in dispute, and the remainder of the phrase or clause provides a party with

context for the meaning of that discrete term. Before engaging in a lengthy claim construction

process, the Court requests that the parties again give serious consideration as to whether only

discrete terms within lengthy phrases are in dispute.

Accordingly, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to meet and confer in a good faith

attempt to further narrow the terms, phrases and clauses, to ten truly disputed terms, phrases or

clauses. With respect to phrases and clauses, if the crux of the dispute is over a discrete term

within the phrase or clause and the remainder of the phrase or clause merely provides context

for the proposed meaning of the term, only the discrete term should be presented for

construction. The parties shall be free to argue how the remainder of the phrase or clause gives

meaning to that term in their argument. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to appear for a status conference on July

13, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. to report on their efforts to narrow the issues to be decided. The parties’

briefing schedule and claim construction tutorial and hearing dates shall not be vacated at this

time. The Court shall revisit the matter of the tutorial and the hearing date, after considering the

parties’ positions on these issues at the status conference. 

If the parties wish to appear by telephone, they shall filed the appropriate request with

the Court setting forth the basis on which they are unable to appear in person.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 64 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2