Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SLOT SPEAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

APPLE, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 13-cv-01161-HSG 

ORDER SUPERSEDING AND 

STRIKING DKT. NO. 234 AND 

GRANTING MOTION TO 

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 234, 237 

This Order hereby supersedes and strikes from the record the Court’s previous order 

granting Plaintiff Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc.’s (“SST”) motion to supplement record on 

claim construction. Dkt. No. 234. 

On November 1, 2016, SST filed a motion to supplement the record on claim construction 

with testimony of Justin Crosby (“Motion to Supplement”). Dkt. Nos. 202, 237. On November 4, 

2016, before the briefing on the Motion to Supplement was complete, the Court issued its claim 

construction order. See Dkt. No. 206. The Court’s claim construction order ruled in SST’s favor 

with respect to the term addressed by Crosby’s testimony. See id. However, the parties were 

unable to stipulate to the withdrawal of SST’s Motion to Supplement. See Dkt. No. 210 at 4. 

* * * 

SST represents that Crosby’s testimony is relevant to the construction of “narrow sound 

duct” and that SST acted diligently in pursuing the Crosby testimony and moving the Court to 

supplement the record once Crosby’s testimony was obtained. See generally Dkt. No. 237. 

Courts in this district have permitted supplementation of the claim construction record with 

documents produced in discovery after the claim construction hearing has occurred. See e.g., 

Tristrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11-CV-03797-JST, 2013 WL 5645984, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 239 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Oc

tes

see

Sup

ulti

Da

ct. 16, 2013),

timony wou

eing little pra

pplement. T

imate signifi

IT IS S

ated: January

, aff’d, 594 F

uld not have a

actical impor

The Court lea

ficance (if an

SO ORDER

y 6, 2017 

F. App’x 653

affected its c

rt for the tria

aves to the c

ny) of the tes

RED. 

2

3 (Fed. Cir. 2

construction

al court litiga

court of appe

stimony in co

___

HA

Un

2014). The 

n of “narrow 

ation, the Co

eals the decis

onstruing the

__________

AYWOOD S

nited States D

Court notes 

sound duct.

ourt GRANT

sion of whet

e claim at is

___________

S. GILLIAM

District Judg

that the Cro

” However,

TS the Motio

ther to asses

sue. 

__________

M, JR. 

ge 

osby 

, despite 

on to 

s the 

________ 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 239 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2