Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04941-24/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Award Metals, Inc.
Counter-claimant
United States Gypsum Company
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 PACIFIC AWARD METALS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04941 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JUNE 2, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS USG’s motion for summary judgment and reserves

issuing a tentative ruling on the motion to strike the Shores Declaration.

1. a. Award proffers testimony from Mr. Dunham that he told USG/BeadeX

management that he viewed the products at issue to be outside the scope of the

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 216 Filed 05/30/06 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

‘198 Patent. Absent a showing that they agreed with him, why is that fact

sufficient to show the requisite intent to deceive?

b. Award contends that Mr. Ritchie believed that the products did not fall within the

scope of the ‘198 Patent. Does Award dispute Mr. Dunham’s testimony that he

believed Mr. Ritchie to be the person responsible for determining whether to

mark? If not, and taking into account testimony proffered by Award with respect

to Mr. Ritchie’s interpretation of the ‘198 Patent claims, why would that fact that

Mr. Ritchie continued to mark the paper-faced corner bead products with the

‘198 Patent not undercut Award’s argument on intent to deceive, especially when

Mr. Ritchie’s current belief is apparently based on what Award told him? See

Ritchie Depo. at 33:15-21. 

c. Is it USG’s position that Mr. Dunham’s declaration is a sham and should be

disregarded because it contradicts his deposition testimony? See, e.g., Kennedy

v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266-67 (9th Cir. 1991).

2. The Court denied Award’s request for an order of waiver and to submit testimony from

Mr. Dunham. The Court does, however, have questions about the proposed testimony.

a. Was Award going to proffer testimony from Mr. Dunham told Mr. Lorenzen that

he believed USG’s products were not covered by the ‘198 Patent? If so, why is

that not adequately presented in the current record? (See Deposition of Wesley

Dunham at 46:6-10.) 

b. Or, was Award going to proffer testimony that Mr. Lorenzen concurred with Mr.

Dunham’s views? 

c. Why is any testimony on this point not cumulative of what is in the current

record?

3. What is Award’s response to USG’s contention that the Shores Declaration should not

be considered because it contains opinions that should have been disclosed by February

24, 2006?

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 216 Filed 05/30/06 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

4. Award contends that USG’s position with respect to the scope of coverage of the ‘198

Patent was unreasonable after the Court issued its Claim Construction Order. The record

suggests that USG continued to mark its products with the ‘198 Patent based on its view

that the ‘198 Patent could be infringed by way of equivalence, even if such a product did

not literally meet the thickness limitation, because the “protective coating” of an accused

product functioned in substantially the same manner. What is the impact of the Court’s

construction of the term “protective coating” on Award’s position? (See Claim

Construction Order at 7-8 (construing “protective coating” to mean “[t]he material

applied to the front paper layer to reinforce said front paper layer and to provide surface

protection against abrasion”).

5. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: May 30, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04941-JSW Document 216 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3