Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02367/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02367-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYSCAN, INC,

Plaintiff,

v

PORTABLE PERIPHERAL CO, LTD, et

al,

Defendants. /

No C-03-2367 VRW

ORDER

On October 14, 2005, the court held a claim construction

hearing pursuant to Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc, 517 US 370

(1996). At that time, plaintiff for the first time expressed

disagreement with the constructions of two claim terms upon which

the parties had previously agreed (the “previously undisputed claim

terms”): (1) “An interface module coupling * * * to a computing

device and receiving * * * from the computing device” (in the ’309

patent) and (2) “main case” (in the ’506 patent). The court

granted plaintiff leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

claim construction order (ultimately filed on March 27, 2006, Doc

#57) as a vehicle for seeking construction of the previously

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 61 Filed 04/20/06 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

2

undisputed claim terms —— and only those terms —— in the event

plaintiff continued to feel such construction was necessary in

light of the claim construction order. 10/14/05 Tr at 5-6; see

also Doc #55. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on

April 6, 2006. Doc #58. 

In addition to the previously undisputed claim terms,

plaintiff seeks reconsideration of terms that were the subject of

earlier claim construction briefing and have already been construed

by the court. See Doc #58-2 at 3-10. The court did not grant

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of disputed terms that

were the subject of the claim construction order. In order to file

a motion for reconsideration of the court’s claim constructions,

plaintiff must first obtain leave of court. See Civ L R 7-9(a). 

The portion of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration dealing with

terms already construed by the court is therefore STRICKEN. If

plaintiff chooses to file a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of terms already construed by the court, plaintiff

would be well advised to review Civ L R 7-9 in its entirety.

Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of the previously undisputed claim terms shall be

filed on or before May 12, 2006. Defendants’ opposition need deal

only with the two terms as to which reconsideration has been

allowed. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before

May 19, 2006. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 61 Filed 04/20/06 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

3

The parties will be notified by the clerk in the event

that the hearing noticed for June 29, 2006, is rescheduled or

vacated. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02367-VRW Document 61 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 3