`
`
`
`
`Kumar Maheshwari (SBN 245,010)
`Email: kumar@maheshlaw.com
`Mahesh Law Group, P.C.
`7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
`Irvine, CA 92618
`Tel: 530.400.9246
`
`J. Curtis Edmondson (SBN 236,105)
`E-mail: jcedmondson@edmolaw.com
`Edmondson IP Law
`3699 NE John Olsen Avenue
`Hillsboro, OR 97124
`Tel: 503.336.3769
`
`Stephen M. Lobbin (SBN 181,195)
`E-mail: sml@smlavvocati.com
`SML Avvocati P.C.
`888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Tel: 949.636.1391
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INT’L, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`COSTCO WHOLESALE
`CORPORATION, LOWE’S HOME
`CENTERS, LLC, Z-SHADE CO. LTD.,
`WALMART INC., SHELTERLOGIC
`CORP., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01072-AG-ADS
`Case No. 5:19-cv-01224-AG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06224-AG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06952-AG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06978-AG-ADS
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to SPR 3.4, the parties hereto provide as follows their “Joint
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`Petitioners Exhibit 1010
`Patent 5,944,040
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:919
`
`
`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
`
`SPR 3.4.1—Parties’ Agreed Constructions
`
`None.
`SPR 3.4.2—Each Party’s Proposed Construction of Each Disputed Term
`Attached herewith as Exhibit A is “[a] chart showing each party’s
`proposed construction of each disputed term, together with an identification of
`all references from the specification or prosecution history that support that
`construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence supporting its
`proposed construction or undermining any other party’s proposed construction,
`including, but not limited to, dictionary definitions, citations to learned treatises
`and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert witnesses.” SPR 3.4.2.
`SPR 3.4.3—Most Significant Terms
`As follows are the terms whose construction will be most significant to the
`case: “center pole” and “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.”
`SPR 3.4.4—Time Needed for Presentation
`The parties request one hour per side (two hours total for the entire
`presentation). The parties believe the additional 15 minutes is necessary to take
`into account the fact that several lawyers will likely argue on behalf of the
`various defendants, and to facilitate the orderly presentation of what will likely
`be a telephonic conference.
`
`SPR 3.4.5—Witnesses
`No party proposes to call any witness at the claim construction hearing.
`
`
`Dated: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SML Avvocati P.C.
`By:
`/s/ Stephen M. Lobbin
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:920
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on May 18, 2020, I electronically transmitted the
`foregoing document using the CM/ECF system for filing, which will transmit the
`document electronically to all registered participants as identified on the Notice
`of Electronic Filing, and paper copies have been served on those indicated as
`non-registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen M. Lobbin
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:921
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:922
`Exhibit A – S.P.R. 3.4 Joint Claim Construction Statement – Chart of Disputed Terms
`
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS (S.P.R. 3.4.2)
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`“centrally-disposed, long, slender object”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The claim language of the ‘040 Patent, including:
`“constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`when a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” and “a
`plurality of side poles”/“said side poles.”
`
` •
`
` The specification of the ’040 patent, including, for
`example: 1:11-2:2; 2:5-28; 2:53-66; 3:7-8; 3:16-49; 4:1-4;
`4:9-19, Figures 1-4, and the Abstract.
`
`• The prosecution history of the ’040 Patent, including:
`Office Action dated December 29, 1998; March 29, 1999
`Response to Office Action at pp. 5-8.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`• Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
`English Language (1996) (defining “pole” as “a long,
`cylindrical, often slender piece of wood, metal, etc.”).
`
`• Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition
`(2000) (defining “pole” as “a long slender usu.
`Cylindrical object (as a length of wood)”).
`
`• Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, Second
`Edition (1997) (defining “pole” as “a long, cylindrical,
`
` Claim Limitation Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
` “center pole”
`“Centrally disposed element for
`1.
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s
`roof”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The specification of the ’040
`patent, including, for example:
`2:9-10; 1:54-64; 3:34-37; 4:13-
`18, and Figures 2-4.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`• CIVIL MINUTES from Case No.
`CV 01-6530-SVW(CTx) dated
`April 19, 2002 by Honorable
`Judge Wilson at 1.
`
`• Caravan’s Opening Markman
`Brief dated March 19, 2002,
`including at 23-26.
`
` •
`
` Caravan’s Reply Markman Brief
`dated March 28, 2002.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:923
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`often slender piece of wood, metal, etc.”).
`
` •
`
` The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition
`(1996) (defining “pole” as “a long slender rounded piece
`of wood or metal, esp. with the end placed in the ground
`as a support, etc.”).
`
` •
`
` Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary, Revised Edition
`(1996) (defining “pole” as “1. A long, slender rod. 2. An
`upright post.”)
`
`
`• Aluma Reference Manual, Caravan Canopy, Rev.042018
`(using the term “pole” with its ordinary meaning to refer
`to specified parts and illustration and referencing the
`subject patent).
`“made to heighten and hold up the tent covering”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The claim language of the ’040 Patent, including: “center
`pole” and “when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.”
`
`• The specification of the ’040 Patent, including, for
`example: 1:5-10, 1:11-2:2; 2:5-28; 2:64-66; 3:4-6; 3:13-
`14; 3:16-49; 4:1-19; Figures 1-4, and the Abstract.
`
`• The prosecution history of the ’040 Patent, including:
`Office Action dated December 29, 1998; March 29, 1999
`Response to Office Action at pp. 5-8.
`
`2
`
` Claim Limitation Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
`
`2.
`
` “constructed for
`stretching and
`sustaining a tent’s
`roof”
`
`
`
`
`Ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The specification of the ’040
`patent, including, for example:
`3:26-28; 3:34-37; 4:13-18, and
`Figures 2-4.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`• Caravan’s Opening Markman
`Brief dated March 19, 2002,
`including at 23-26.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:924
`
` Claim Limitation Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`• Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, Second
`Edition (1997) (defining “stretch” as “1. to spread out
`fully … 2. to extend to the limit … 3. to cause to extend
`from one point or place to another ... 4. to draw tight or
`taut … 5. to distend or enlarge by tension … .”).
`
`• The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition
`(1996) (defining “stretch” as “1. tr. & intr. draw or be
`drawn or admit of being drawn out into greater length or
`size. 2. tr. & intr. make or become taut. 3. tr. & intr. place
`or lie at full length or spread out (with a canopy stretched
`over them).”) (italics in original).
`
`• Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary, Revised Edition
`(1996) (defining “stretch” as “1. a. To draw out to the full
`or a fuller length, breadth, or extent. … 2. To extend or
`cause to extend, as from one place to another.”).
`
`• Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, Second
`Edition (1997) (defining “sustain” as “to support, hold, or
`bear up from below; bear the weight of.”).
`
`• The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition
`(1996) (defining “sustain” as “support, bear the weight of,
`esp. for a long period.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:925
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`• Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary, Revised Edition
`(1996) (defining “sustain” as “To hold up : support.”).
`“when the tent frame is collapsed, the center pole ribs bend at
`the hinge joint, and the slider slides along the side pole”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The claim language of the ’040 Patent, including: “said
`center pole ribs individually comprising two rib members
`coupled to each other through a hinge joint and being
`hinged to the slider of an associated side pole through a
`support link” and “sliders moveably fitted over said side
`poles.”
`
`• The specification of the ’040 Patent, including, for
`example: 2:59-63; 2:66-3:6; 3:8-10; 3:11-49; 4:1-9;
`Figures 1-4, and the Abstract.
`
` •
`
` The prosecution history of the ’040 Patent, including:
`Office Action dated December 29, 1998; March 29, 1999
`Response to Office Action at pp. 5-8.
`“a connector that pivots to raise or lower the collapsible tent
`frame”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The claim language of the ‘040 Patent, including: “when
`a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” “two rib members
`couple to each other” and “thus being collapsible at the
`hinge joint in accordance with a sliding motion of said
`slider along the side pole.”
`
`4
`
` Claim Limitation Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
`
`3.
`
` “[being]
`collapsible at the
`hinge joint in
`accordance with a
`sliding motion of
`said slider along
`the side pole”
`
`Ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The specification of the ’040
`patent, including, for example:
`2:66-3:1; 3:23-28; 3:38-49, and
`Figures 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
` “[a] hinge joint”
`
`Ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The specification of the ’040
`patent, including, for example:
`2:66- 3:1; 3:23-28; 3:38-49, and
`Figures 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 90-1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:926
`
` Claim Limitation Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`
`
`• The specification of the ‘040 Patent, including, for
`example: 1:5-10; 1:11-2:2; 2:5-28; 2:64-3:6; 3:11-49;
`4:12-19; FIGS 1-4, and the Abstract.
`
`• The prosecution history of the ‘040 Patent, including:
`Office Action dated December 29, 1998; March 29, 1999
`Response to Office Action at pp. 5-8.
`“a structure that connects a rib member with a slider
`associated with a side pole”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The claim language of the ‘040 Patent, including: “center
`pole ribs . . . being hinged to the slider of an associated
`side pole through a support link.”
`
`• The specification of the ‘040 Patent, including, for
`example: 1:11-2:2; 2:5-28; 2:64-3:6; 3:11-49; 4:1-19;
`FIGS 3-4, and the Abstract.
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`5.
`
` “[a] support link” Ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The specification of the ’040
`patent, including, for example:
`3:1-3; 3:23-28; 3:38-49; 4:7-9,
`and Figures 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
` “[a] substantially
`equal length”
`
`Ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• The specification of the ’040
`patent, including, for example:
`2:66- 3:1; 3:23-28; 3:38-49, and
`Figures 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`