On December 4, 2008, the court granted Oracle's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on both the '554 and '335 patents on the ground that the accused Web cache products did not meet the "releasing" limitation of the claims.

Aside from validity, both parties agree that disputes 3Specifically, prior to trial, plaintiffs assert that the court need revisit its motion for summary judgment that defendant meets the "intercepting" and "releasing" limitations of the claims, and for indirect infringement.

432 at 5-6) This may be the case, but it cannot reasonably be argued that the generally prejudicial to Parallel's investment in trial preparation and does not comport with the notion of judicial efficiency.

On or before that date, the parties shall submit duplicate copies of the papers relating to the unresolved summary judgment motions regarding infringement identified in their letter of August 5,2010.8 (D.1.

Also in advance of the teleconference, the parties shall jointly submit a letter providing an estimation of the number of trial days needed to resolve the outstanding issues.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC’s Agreed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits for its Surreply to Doyle’s and Vedder Price’s Alternative Motion for Scheduling Order and Request for Evidentiary Hearing.

Finding that Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC’s Agreed Motion is justified, the Court further finds that the Motion should be GRANTED.

The Court orders that the Surreply shall not exceed 10 pages in length.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC’s Agreed Motion for Leave

to Exceed Page Limits for its Motion for Sanctions for Violations of the Court’s Protective Order and Brief in Support.

Finding that Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC’s Agreed Motion is justified, the Court further finds that the Motion should be GRANTED.

The Court orders that the Motion and Response shall not exceed 20 pages in length each.

The Court further orders that the Response shall be filed by December 9, 2009.

At Vwlmington this 4th day of December, 2008, having heard oral argument on, and having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with, the parties’ proposed claim construction; IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language of the patents in suit,‘ as identified by the above referenced parties, shall be construed consistent with the tenets of claim construction set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), as follows: 1.

Although the specification arguably describes the preferred embodiment as being a separate, executable software program (see, e.g., figure 4; col. 5, ll. 8-36), the preferred embodiment of the invention “is implemented as a software module, which may be executed on a computer system ... Col. 3, II.

make an informed selection of which page server should process the request based on a variety of information (both static and dynamic), and sending the request to the selected page server.” This construction is supported by the specification (col. 5, ll. 51- 59; col. 6, ll. 1-19; col. 8, II.

Given the mutable nature of the technology underlying the instant patent, however, the court declines to impose the restriction requested by plaintiffs.

Structure: a processor of a computer that runs software for generating dynamic Web pages, or equivalents thereof.