Free Supplement/Amendment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-02229-JLK-KLM

Document 56

Filed 07/11/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00-cv-02229-JLK CAUGHT FISH ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and METAL ROOF INNOVATIONS, LTD., a Colorado corporation Plaintiffs, v. CONTEK, INC., d/b/a SNOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, a Vermont corporation Defendant.

DEFENDANT CONTEK'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR MARKMAN HEARING

Defendant Contek Inc. respectfully submits the following supplemental authority to its Markman briefing: 1. Pall Corp. v. PTI Technologies, Inc., 71 Fed. Appx. 842 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

(vacating the judgment set forth in the Pall decision cited by Plaintiffs (259 F.3d 1383)); 2. Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.I. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 05-1233, 2006 WL

1277815, at *2-6 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2006) ("Although claims need not be limited to the preferred embodiment when the invention is more broadly described, `neither do the claims enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has described as the invention.'") (attached as Exhibit 1);

Case 1:00-cv-02229-JLK-KLM

Document 56

Filed 07/11/2006

Page 2 of 3

3.

In re Compression Labs, Inc., No. C 05-01654 JF (RS), 2006 WL 1795127, at *2-

7 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2006) ("Considered together, the explanation that `processed signals' typically are comprised of plural frames, the language of the abstract, the purpose of the invention, and the absence of any example expressly identified as applying to still images all point to the conclusion that the `672 patent applies exclusively to video data.") (attached as Exhibit 2); 4. Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm., 342 F.3d 1361, 1368-72 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[T]he

specification or the prosecution history of a patent may alter the meaning of a claim term from its conventional usage. * * * [W]here the specification makes clear at various points that the claimed invention is narrower than the claim language might imply, it is entirely permissible and proper to limit the claims."). 5. Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc., 25 Fed. Appx. 837, 839-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim term

extending into "must mean . . . partially outside and partially inside the opening, and thus extends from one location into the openings. . . . Thus, the claim requires that the resilient securing means, i.e., the screw and pad assembly, extend from a position on the adjustment member into the bores . . . ."). Plaintiffs do not oppose the filing of this Supplement.

-2-

Case 1:00-cv-02229-JLK-KLM

Document 56

Filed 07/11/2006

Page 3 of 3

Dated: July 11, 2006 Respectfully submitted: s/ Joseph T. Jaros Donald A. Degnan Joseph T. Jaros Holland & Hart LLP 1800 Broadway, Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Telephone: (303) 473-2700 Facsimile: (303) 473-2720 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on July 11, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address: Robert R. Brunelli Sheridan Ross P.C. [email protected] s/ Joseph T. Jaros Joseph T. Jaros

3577197_1.DOC

-3-