Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-11/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-01830 CRB

ORDER RE: MARKMAN HEARING

The Court hereby notifies the parties that the Markman hearing scheduled for Friday,

January 20, 2006, will be at 10:00 am in Courtroom 8 on the 19th floor. The hearing will

conclude by 12 noon. The Court directs the parties to respond to the following questions at

the hearing:

‘218 Patent: “Comprising . . . a capacitor” 

1. Daewoo: Assume that “comprising ... a” commonly means “one or more” when used 

to describe an element or list of elements in a claim term. Is there case law in the Federal Circuit

that addresses whether that common meaning is altered if another element is modified by “at least

one” or another modifier that indicates a quantity greater than one?

‘332 Patent: “Magnetic Shielding”

2. Daewoo: Why doesn’t the frequency range where eddy current damping results in 

effective shielding correspond to the “high frequency” of transformers used in VCRs? 

3. Both Parties: Is eddy current damping commonly used as magnetic shielding in 

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 225 Filed 01/18/06 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

VCRs?

4. Both Parties: Assume shield plate 7 in figure 1 is not a magnetic enclosure because it 

does not contain an internal cavity. Assume also that a physical enclosure may be formed if shield

plate 7 is sufficiently connected to other components in figure 1. Do these other components

contribute to forming a magnetic enclosure?

5. Both Parties: Present arguments against the following proposed construction 

of “magnetic shielding,” if any: “a structure separating a source of magnetic flux and a component

to be protected from magnetic flux that operates to redirect magnetic flux through the structure

thereby reducing magnetic flux at the component for the purpose of enabling effective operation of

the component.”

‘210 Patent: “Insulating Material”

6. Funai: If “insulating material” is defined by its ability to suppress switching noise, is 

this essentially defining a genus by a function in violation of the written description requirement?

See Regents of Univ. of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

7. Funai: Under your proposed definition, if the switching noise produced by the motor 

is sufficiently small or if only minimal switching noise actually propagates to the bearing holder,

then even a material with low resistivity, such as copper, could be capable of suppressing the

switching noise. Does the intrinsic evidence preclude a situation where minimal switching noise is

either produced by the motor or propagated to the bearing holder?

8. Daewoo: In light of the general public notice function of patent law, 

should the insulating material resistivity range start at the lowest value cited for insulators or at the

highest value cited for semiconductors?

‘209 Patent: “Chrominance Signal Circuit”

9. Both Parties: What is the difference between a color difference signal and a RGB 

signal? Between a color difference signal and a chrominance signal?

10. Both Parties: Assume the specification does not require the chrominance signal circuit 

to generate a RGB signal. Does the specification at least require the chrominance signal circuit to

generate a color difference signal?

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 225 Filed 01/18/06 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

G:\CRBALL\2004\1830\orderremarkman.wpd 3

‘538 Patent: “Bias Means”

11. Daewoo: Respond to Funai’s argument in the Reply brief that the 

Court can correct “given” to read “giving”?

12. Funai: If “[t]he specification must be read to determine the structure capable of 

performing the claimed function,” Buddle v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir.

2001), then may other claims establish that structure?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 225 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 3