Free Claim Construction Chart - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 87.0 kB
Pages: 4
Date: February 22, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 763 Words, 4,947 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8610/274-1.pdf

Download Claim Construction Chart - District Court of Delaware ( 87.0 kB)


Preview Claim Construction Chart - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01258-SLR Document 274 Filed O2/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TI—IE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1258-SLR
)
v. )
)
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
PLAINTIFF MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LLC’S
MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT DURING THE FEBRUARY 16, 2006 HEARING
Thomas I. Allingham II (#0476)
Michael A. Barlow (#3928)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & From LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 651-3000
Attorneys for Plaintiff McKesson
Information Solutions LLC
OF COUNSEL:
Jeffery G. Randall
David W. Hansen
Michael C. Hendershot
I on V. Swenson
SKADDEN, AR1=·s, SLATB,
MEAGHER & From LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite II00
Palo Alto, California 94301
(650) 470-4500
DATED: February 22, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 274 Filed O2/22/2006 Page 2 ot 4
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Claim Construction Chart Mcliesson provided to the
Court during the February 16, 2006 hearing. l\/[cKesson continues to believe that its proposed
claim constructions of the means-plus-function elements are appropriate and should be adopted
by the Court. However, should the Court conclude that a more detailed identification of
structure is necessary, McK.esson has submitted the attached Chart in the hopes of narrowing the
scope of the disputes before the Court.
The Chart provides a construction of the means-plus—function claim elements tied directly
to the rules set forth in Appendix B of the 'I64 patent (the "Appendix B Rules"). TriZetto
emphasized in its Answering Claim Construction Brief and during the February 16 hearing that
the Appendix B Rules are the heart of the claimed inventions and their point of novelty. For
example, in its Answering Claim Construction Brief, TriZetto focused its argument regarding the
algorithms corresponding to the various means—plus—function elements on the Appendix B Rules
and argued that those Rules were the inventions point of novelty. See, ag., D.I. 257 at 5, 8-10.
TriZetto also acknowledged that McKesson's Opening Claim Construction Brief identified
"specific rules from Appendix B" and related sections of the specification and figures as
supporting structure for the claimed "determining," "authorizing," and "rejecting" functions but
criticized McKesson's construction for not expressly reciting the Appendix B rules as
corresponding structure. See id. at 35.
McKesson therefore believes that the constructions set forth in the Chart — which tie the
means—plus-function elements to the corresponding algorithms disclosed in the Appendix B
Rules — resolve many of the claim construction disputes before the Court should it conclude a
more detailed definition of structure is necessary. These constructions are fully supported by the

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 274 Filed O2/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
arguments made in McKesson's Opening Claim Construction Brief. See, ag., D.l. 170 at 20, 22,
25, 30-33, 36-37.
In contrast, TriZetto`s proposed construction for these claim elements is unhelpful even
under its own theories. Although TriZetto has repeatedly emphasized that the means-plus-
function elements should be limited to the corresponding algorithms disclosed in the
specification, TriZetto has never identified an algorithm for most of those elements. Rather,
TriZetto merely cites to multiple, lengthy passages from the specification — often including the
exemplary software code — as the corresponding "structure." TriZetto leaves it to the Court to
glean an algorithm from its collection of patent cites, and appears to suggest that TriZetto‘s
products can only infringe the *164 patent if they include the portions of the specification and
those particular lines of code referenced by TriZetto. Such an approach is contrary to settled law
and the algorithms disclosed in the Appendix B Rules.
As noted, McKesson continues to believe that its proposed constructions are correct and
should be adopted by the Court. McKesson has only submitted the Chart in an effort to simplify
the Court's claim construction duties should the Court conclude that a more detailed
identification of structure is required, and it is submitted without waiver of McKesson's right to
argue for its initial construction on appeal, if necessary. - J
By, · ·==f;(_____,
omas J. Allingham H (#0476)
Michael A. Barlow (#3928)
SKADDEN, Aars, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLoM LLP
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 651-3000
Attorneys for Plaintiff McKesson
Information Solutions LLC

Case 1:04-cv—O1258-SLR Document 274 Filed O2/22/2006 Page 4 of 4
OF COUNSEL:
Jeffery G. Randall l
David W. Hansen
Michael C. Hendershot
J on V. Swenson
SKADDEN, Anas, SLATE,
MEAGHER & From LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Palo Alto, California 94301
(650) 470—4500
DATED: February 22, 2006