Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04636/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04636-18/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

SEER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEATNIK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-04636 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 11, 2006:

The Court tentatively RESERVES RULING on the motion filed by plaintiff Seer

Systems, Inc.’s (“Seer Systems”) to amend its Final Infringement Contentions. The Court has

reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters

addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs,

they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in

advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such

additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only,

without argument or additional briefing. C.f. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be

given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. 

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 228 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) In Seer Systems’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions, it stated: “The DirectMusic

System includes the DirectMusic and DirectSound API (application program interface).” 

(Declaration of Aexander M. Weyand, Ex. B, p. 54.) On what basis Microsoft contend

that DirectMusic was the only technology accused in Seer Systems’ Preliminary

Infringement Contentions?

(2) Microsoft states that to the extent Seer Systems seeks to add DirectX Audio, it has no

objection. (Opp. at 2.) Given this statement of non-opposition, is there any remaining

dispute with respect to DirectX Audio?

(3) Is Seer Systems seeking to accuse DirectX Audio, or the entire DirectX, which includes

files used to store graphics?

(4) When was DirectX Audio, as contained in DirectX 9.0, released?

(5) Seer Systems contests the type of evidence Microsoft uses to demonstrate that earlier

versions of its Windows Media Player integrated Digital Rights Management. Did

Windows Media Player version 7, as well as versions 8, 9 and 10, have Digital Rights

Management built into it? If not, on what basis does Microsoft argue that the versions

prior to version 11 contained the same technology that Seer Systems now contends

infringes it patent?

(6) Microsoft argues it is prejudiced by the proposed amendments because if Seer Systems

had accused these additional technologies earlier, “Microsoft would have sought

different constructions for terms such as ‘sample bank’ and ‘musical work file’ to

exclude graphical technologies and prior art MIDI and wave file formats.” (Opp. at 12.) 

Does Seer Systems contend that “sample bank” and “musical work file” should be

construed to include graphical technologies and prior art MIDI and wave file formats? 

Does Seer Systems’ offer to add the word “sound” to the agreed upon construction of

“sample bank” alleviate Microsoft’s concerns?

(7) Microsoft does not respond to Seer System’s request to amend section (e) of its

contentions regarding the priority date. Does Microsoft have any opposition to this

proposed amendment? If so, what is Microsoft’s argument against allowing this

amendment?

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 228 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

(8) If the Court were to allow Seer Systems to file its proposed amended Final Invalidity

Contentions, how much additional time would Microsoft need to conduct discovery as to

the proposed additional technologies? Are there any other changes to the current

schedule for this matter that Microsoft would request?

(9) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 228 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

Dated: August 9, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 228 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 4