`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL. PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`ORDER CLARIFYING NUMBER OF
`TERMS SUBJECT TO CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`[Re: ECF 399]
`
`
`
`On April 8, 2019, PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) filed its opening
`
`claim construction brief. ECF 399. The Patent Local Rules for the Northern District of California
`
`limit claim construction to a maximum of 10 terms. See Patent L.R. 4-3(c). Similar but different
`
`terms that appear in separate claims or separate patents are not the same term. In certain limited
`
`circumstances the Court will construe slightly different terms as one term, but only where the
`
`terms are effectively indistinguishable and each side seeks only one identical construction for the
`
`group of different terms. Put differently, every claim construction “box” in the briefing that
`
`contains each side’s respective proposed construction for that term is counted as one term.
`
`Upon initial review by the Court, PersonalWeb’s opening claim construction brief appears
`
`to include approximately 20 terms. The Court shall analyze and construe only the first 10 terms
`
`that appear in the brief. Alternatively, the parties shall meet and confer to select 10 terms and
`
`PersonalWeb may file a modified opening brief that includes no more than 10 terms, no later
`
`than Friday, April 12, 2019. To the extent that the parties agree that a group of terms is
`
`susceptible of a single construction, the terms may be grouped as one term.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
