Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01998/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01998-1/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

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS—No. C-07-01998 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 4/8/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DISPLAYLINK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAGIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. C-07-01998 RMW

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

PROCEEDINGS

[Re Docket Nos. 46, 47]

The parties in this case are scheduled to conduct a claim construction hearing on April 29,

2008. Defendant Magic Control Technology ("MCT") has also noticed a motion to strike the

declaration of the declaration of Dr. Alan Jones, an expert for plaintiff DisplayLink Corporation

("DisplayLink"). This motion to strike is currently calendared for hearing on April 18, 2008. 

On March 12, 2008, the parties submitted a stipulation to set a case management conference

on March 28, 2008, prior to both the motion to strike and the claim construction hearing. They

subsequently filed a joint case management statement on March 18, 2008, in advance of that

proposed case management hearing. After reviewing the joint case management statement the court

concludes that it is not necessary to set a case management conference until MCT's motion to strike

has been heard. 

Case 5:07-cv-01998-RMW Document 52 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS—No. C-07-01998 RMW

MAG 2

In the joint statement, the parties have requested guidance on four issues: (1) the duration and

format of the technology tutorial; (2) whether live testimony is required; (3) the order in which the

claim construction hearing will be presented; and (4) the timing for exchange of demonstratives to

be presented at the hearing as part of the tutorial and claim construction arguments. The parties

appear to have reached agreement on all issues except whether live testimony is required. The

proposals regarding the following are acceptable to the court as set forth in the parties' March 18,

2008 joint case management statement: the technology tutorial (no more than 15 minutes per side);

the order of presentation (MCT presenting first and discussion of the 11 disputed claim terms in the

order proposed); and the exchange of supporting materials (at least a week in advance of the claim

construction hearing). 

With regard to the remaining issue, DisplayLink believes that live expert witness testimony

is not required. MCT, on the other hand, believes that its motion to strike should inform the decision

whether live expert testimony is received at the claim construction hearing. MCT argues that should

the court deny its motion to strike such that DisplayLink is permitted to present the written

testimony of Dr. Alan Jones, Dr. Jones's testimony should only be received if he is made available

for cross-examination at the claim construction hearing. According to MCT, this necessity arises

because Dr. Jones's written testimony is based in part on materials that were not timely disclosed by

DisplayLink to MCT. MCT offers to make its expert Dr. Min likewise available for crossexamination. 

As set forth above, the parties want to set a case management conference for a date in

advance of the motion to strike Dr. Jones' testimony. However, based on the joint case management

conference statement, the parties only dispute the use of live testimony in the event the court admits

Dr. Jones's declaration. It appears that this issue cannot be addressed until the court has had an

opportunity to review and rule on MCT's motion to strike. 

Accordingly, the court sets a case management conference for the same date as MCT's

motion to strike. The court has previously contacted the parties about its need to move the date for

both the motion to strike and the claim construction hearing. Accordingly, MCT's motion to strike is

renoticed for April 25, 2008. The parties shall also appear on that date at 10:30 for a case

Case 5:07-cv-01998-RMW Document 52 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS—No. C-07-01998 RMW

MAG 3

management conference to discuss any outstanding issues regarding the upcoming claim

construction hearing. The parties should be prepared to discuss what, if any, impact a ruling

permitting all of Dr. Jones's written testimony should have on live testimony at the claim

construction hearing. The claim construction hearing is continued from April 29, 2008 to May 13,

2008 at 2:00 p.m.

DATED: 4/8/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01998-RMW Document 52 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS—No. C-07-01998 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Brian Dietzel bdietzel@wsgr.com

Stefani Elise Shanberg sshanberg@wsgr.com

Ryan R. Smith rsmith@wsgr.com

James Chung-Yul Yoon jyoon@wsgr.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Erick Packard Wolf ewolf@whglawfirm.com

Franklin Eugene Gibbs fgibbs@whglawfirm.com

Richard F. Cauley rcauley@jcpw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/8/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-01998-RMW Document 52 Filed 04/08/08 Page 4 of 4