Case 2:14-cv-01991-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 6
`
`THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`AT SEATTLE
`
` Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`(Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL)
`
`
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-9100
`
`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
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01991-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`Pursuant to LPR 132 and the Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. 53), Plaintiff Seymour Levine
`
`and Defendant The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) submit this Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement.
`A.
`The parties agree that the terms “transmitter portable” and “transmitter positionable,” in
`
`LPR 132(a): Terms Proposed for Construction on Which the Parties Agree
`
`claims 4 and 14, respectively, should each be construed to mean “a removable device for
`
`generating radio frequency signals.”
`B.
`
`LPR 132(b): Each Party’s Proposed Claim Constructions and Supporting
`Evidence
`
`A side-by-side comparison of the parties’ respective proposed constructions, an
`
`identification of the party proposing the construction, and an identification of the intrinsic
`
`evidence that each party intends to rely upon supporting that party’s construction, and the extrinsic
`
`evidence that each party intends to rely upon, either to support its proposed construction of the
`
`claim terms or to oppose the other party’s proposed construction, are provided in Exhibit 1.
`
`Each party has served (or, concurrently with this filing, will serve) the extrinsic evidence
`
`on which it intends to rely, and the parties intend to file the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence in conjunction with their claim construction briefs. The parties will provide the Court
`
`with copies of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence before the filing of the claim construction briefs
`
`if the Court so instructs.
`C.
`The parties dispute fewer than ten claim terms.
`
`LPR 132(c): Identification of Significant Terms
`
`The parties believe that construction of the terms identified would be most helpful in
`
`narrowing the infringement and validity issues, and thus the most productive in setting the
`
`groundwork for possible settlement.
`D.
`The parties agree that approximately half a day, divided equally between the parties, would
`
`LPR 132(d): Length of Claim Construction Hearing
`
`be an appropriate and adequate time to set aside for the claim construction hearing.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`(Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL)
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-9100
`
`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
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01991-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`LPR 132(e): Proposed Order of Presentation at Claim Construction Hearing
`
`E.
`The parties suggest a term-by-term order of presentation at the claim construction hearing,
`
`with the party presenting first to alternate from term to term. Specifically, the parties suggest the
`
`following order of presentation:
`•
`
`Plaintiff will address “digital aircraft performance data” and “aircraft performance
`and control parameters,” then Defendant will address those terms, and then Plaintiff
`
`will reply;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Defendant will address the “central station” and “ground based station” terms, then
`Plaintiff will address those terms, and then Defendant will reply;
`
`Plaintiff will address “configuration label,” then Defendant will address that term,
`and then Plaintiff will reply; and
`
`Defendant will address “sensor multiplexer,” then Plaintiff will address that term,
`and then Defendant will reply.
`
`LPR 132(f): Witness and/or Expert Testimony
`
`F.
`Neither party intends to call any witnesses at the claim construction hearing. The parties
`
`agree that the claim construction hearing will not be an evidentiary hearing.
`
`Boeing intends to rely on the declaration of an expert, Professor R. John Hansman, and
`
`will serve Mr. Levine with a copy of Professor Hansman’s declaration concurrently with this
`
`filing.
`
`If the Court decides to consider Boeing’s expert declaration, over Levine’s objection,
`
`Levine intends to offer a declaration from his expert, Mr. John Grabowsky, in response to the
`
`Hansman declaration. The parties have agreed that Levine will serve Boeing with the Grabowsky
`
`declaration no later than August 27, 2015.
`G.
`The parties agree that a tutorial to assist the Court in understanding the underlying
`
`LPR 132(g): Tutorial
`
`technology may be helpful. Each party is available to present its respective tutorial either
`
`immediately before the claim construction hearing, or in advance of the claim construction
`
`hearing, at the Court’s convenience.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`(Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL)
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-9100
`
`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
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01991-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`LPR 132(h): Prehearing Conference
`
`H.
`As stated above, if the Court desires tutorials in advance of the claim construction hearing,
`
`both parties are available at the Court’s convenience before the claim construction hearing.
`
`Otherwise, the parties agree that a prehearing conference before the claim construction hearing
`
`should not be necessary.
`I.
`As previously stated in the Joint Status Report (Dkt. 52 at 8), Levine does not believe that
`
`LPR 132(i): Appointment by the Court of an Independent Expert
`
`the straightforward issues in this case warrant the appointment and expense of a technical advisor.
`
`As previously stated in the Joint Status Report (Dkt. 52 at 8), Boeing believes that the
`
`Court should appoint a technical advisor to aid in understanding the technology underlying the
`
`patent and the specification and claim terms, with the costs to be shared equally between the
`
`parties.
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`(Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL)
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-9100
`
`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
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01991-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: August 6, 2015
`
`
`s/ Bruce R. Zisser
`Jenny A. Durkan, WSBA 15751
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`600 University Street, Suite 2800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`jennydurkan@quinnemanuel.com
`Tel: 206.905.7074
`
`Frederick A. Lorig
`Amar L. Thakur
`Bruce R. Zisser
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Tel: 213.443.3000
`
`Attorneys for Planitiff Seymour Levine
`
`s/ Adam R. Lawton
`Ted Dane (admitted pro hac vice)
`Peter E. Gratzinger (admitted pro hac vice)
`Adam R. Lawton (admitted pro hac vice)
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: 213.683.9100
`ted.dane@mto.com
`peter.gratzinger@mto.com
`adam.lawton@mto.com
`
`Rohit K. Singla (admitted pro hac vice)
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
`Tel: 415.512.4000
`rohit.singla@mto.com
`
`Ryan J. McBrayer WSBA #28338
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Tel: 206.359.3073/Fax: 206.359.4073
`RMcBrayer@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant The Boeing Company
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`(Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL)
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-9100
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01991-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that, on August 6, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
`
`Jenny A. Durkan
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`600 University Street, Suite 2800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`Frederick A. Lorig
`Amar L. Thakur
`Bruce R. Zisser
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Adam R. Lawton
`Adam R. Lawton
`
`DATED: August 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`(Case No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-9100
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2001