`EXHIBIT 2015
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2015
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-00271-CE Document 229 Filed 09/09/10 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:07-CV-271-CE
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`vs.
`
`MENUSOFT SYSTEMS CORPORATION
`and CASH REGISTER SALES &
`SERVICE OF HOUSTON, INC.
`
`Currently before the Court is paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine. (Dkt. No.
`
`188). Contained within paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s motion are three sub-motions addressed to
`
`testimony inconsistent with the Court’s claim construction order. Plaintiff seeks to exclude
`
`evidence, testimony, and argument that (5a) “transmitting ... to a web page” is not transmitting to
`
`a traditional web client; (5b) that “actual transmission” is required; and (5c) that data must reside on
`
`or be stored on a client device.
`
`With regard to part 5a of Plaintiff’s motion in limine, the Court has ordered the parties to
`
`provide supplemental briefing for the purpose of construing the term “transmitting ... to a web page.”
`
`Until the Court construes this term, neither party is to argue or offer evidence or testimony to the jury
`
`that the claim limitation at issue requires anything more than transmitting to a traditional web client
`
`without first approaching the bench. In the event that the Court construes the term more narrowly,
`
`the jury will receive an appropriate instruction.
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-00271-CE Document 229 Filed 09/09/10 Page 2 of 2
`
`With regard to part 5b of Plaintiff’s motion in limine, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
`
`Limitation g of the asserted independent claims requires “software for generating ... and
`
`transmitting,” not actual transmission.
`
`With regard to part 5c of Plaintiff’s motion in limine, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
`
`The Court’s construction requires that “a change to data made on a central server is updated on client
`
`devices and vice versa” which implicitly, if not explicitly, requires data on the client devices. In the
`
`context of the invention, the client devices must have some capacity for data storage, even if only
`
`temporary, because the systems of the independent claims require software capable of transmitting
`
`data in the form of menus to the client devices. However, Defendant is cautioned against presenting
`
`evidence, testimony, or argument to the jury that any kind of permanent data storage capability is
`
`required in the client devices without first approaching the bench. The Court’s construction does
`
`not require the client device to contain a database or to retain a complete copy of the data from the
`
`central server.
`
`2
`
`