Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817-5/pdf.json

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

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COOK INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-03817 JSW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ PARTIALLY

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL

CLAIM TERMS

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the Administrative Motion for

Leave to Designate Additional Claim Terms filed by Defendants Cook Incorporated and W. L.

Gore & Associates, Inc. and Plaintiffs’ partial opposition thereto. Defendants request the Court

to construe ten terms they have proposed and to conduct a further Markman hearing on

additional terms, if necessary. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ request to construe

additional terms at the Markman hearing, but disagree with the terms proposed by Defendants

and do not believe an additional Markman hearing is warranted.

The Court understands, based on its involvement in related litigation, that there are

significant interests at stake in this case for all parties. It further appreciates that counsel are

required to advocate zealously on behalf of their clients. However, the Court expects counsel to

cooperate and interact with one another civilly and to accommodate one another when the need

arises, for instance with respect to the meet and confer process on designating terms for

construction. 

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 362 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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 Court also notes that the instant motion was submitted to the Court less than two

weeks before the parties Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement was due to be filed. 

The Court hereby puts all parties on notice that it will not tolerate unnecessary delays in this

litigation. Therefore, the parties are forewarned that they should engage in any meet and confer

proceedings required sufficiently in advance of Court deadlines such that if a dispute arises, the

parties can seek relief from the Court well in advance of the set deadlines. Finally, the Court

also puts all parties on notice that if it finds it necessary, it will not hesitate to require counsel

and their respective clients to appear at a status conference to address the manner in which the

litigation is being conducted.

With that preface, the Court concludes that the present record does not demonstrate that

a second Markman hearing is required, and Defendants request for a second hearing is

DENIED.

To the extent Defendants request leave to designate additional terms, their motion is

GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer by no later than September 6, 2006, by

telephone, in an effort to agree upon twelve (12) terms to be construed at the Markman hearing. 

If the parties are unable to agree on 12 terms, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to designate six terms

for construction and Defendants shall be entitled to jointly designate six terms for construction. 

The parties shall include in their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement a

certification that they have met and conferred as required by the terms of this Order.

It is further ordered that the deadlines set in this case are modified as follows:

The parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement is now due on

September 12, 2006.

Plaintiffs’ Expert Disclosures and Reports on Claim Construction are now due on

September 15, 2006.

Defendants’ Responsive Disclosures and Reports on Claim Construction are now due on

October 6, 2006.

Completion of Claim Construction Discovery is extended to October 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief is now due on November 6. 2006.

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 362 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief is now due on November 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs’ Reply Claim Construction Brief is now due on December 4, 2006.

The parties Amended Joint Claim Construction Brief is due on December 4, 2006.

The Claim Construction Tutorial and Claim Construction Hearing remain set for hearing

on January 17, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and January 24, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 362 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 3