Free Claim Construction Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW

Document 210

Filed 10/20/2004

Page 1 of 4

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

Gary M. Hoffman (Pro Hac Vice) Kenneth W. Brothers (Pro Hac Vice) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP 2101 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1526 Telephone: (202) 785-9700 Facsimile: (202) 887-0689 Edward A. Meilman (Pro Hac Vice) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-2714 Telephone: (212) 835-1400 Facsimile: (212) 997-9880 Jeffrey B. Demain, State Bar No. 126715 Jonathan Weissglass, State Bar No. 185008 ALTSHULER, BERZON, NUSSBAUM, RUBIN & DEMAIN 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 Attorneys for Ricoh Company, Ltd. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. RICOH COMPANY, LTD., Defendant. RICOH COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, vs. AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. C-03-2289-MJJ (EMC) CASE NO. C-03-4669-MJJ (EMC)

RICOH COMPANY, LTD'S SUBMISSION OF TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT

CASE NOS. C-03-2289-MJJ (EMC) and C-03-4669-MJJ (EMC) RICOH COMPANY, LTD'S SUBMISSION OF TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW

Document 210

Filed 10/20/2004

Page 2 of 4

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 definitions

Pursuant to the Court's October 15, 2004 Amended Order, the parties exchanged proposed lists of terms on October 18. Subsequently, the parties met and conferred on October 19, 2004 regarding developing a joint list of ten terms for construction to be proposed to the Court. The parties were able to agree on the following two terms for construction: 1. Architecture independent actions and conditions 2. Specifying for each described action and condition of the series one of said stored

The parties, however, were unable to agree on any other terms for inclusion in the list of terms to be proposed to the Court. Ricoh has understood that the Court's Amended Order to identify terms meant what it said, namely, to identify claim terms rather than set forth broad clauses which included a large number of terms (none of which had been separately proposed for construction). For example, the above second agreed upon term references the "described action and condition" of the first agreed upon term "architecture independent actions and conditions." The parties have agreed these two terms, rather than a broad phrase, are to be separately construed. In contrast, Synopsys and ASIC Defendants (collectively, "Defendants") have proposed phrases that include a large number of individual terms. Ricoh submits that the Defendants' approach is inconsistent with the Court's directive that the parties propose ten terms for construction. Since there was agreement on two terms, leaving eight remaining terms, Ricoh proposed that an equitable approach would be that each party propose an additional four terms to be included in the list to be provided to the Court. In response, Defendants demanded that Ricoh simply agree to Defendants' list. Not only did Defendants reject Ricoh's proposal for compromise, but they also refused to propose or consider any alternative process to narrow the disagreement and comply with the Court's Amended Order. Instead, Defendants announced that they would unilaterally submit their position to the Court. As a result, Ricoh is compelled to submit its own list of proposed terms for construction.

CASE NOS. C-03-2289-MJJ (EMC) and C-03-4669-MJJ (EMC) - Page 1 RICOH COMPANY, LTD'S SUBMISSION OF TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW

Document 210

Filed 10/20/2004

Page 3 of 4

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

Ricoh proposes for construction by the Court the following terms 3 through 10, all of which are terms that Ricoh and the Defendants have differently defined in their proposed claim constructions: 3. Expert system knowledge base1 4. A set of rules2 5. Hardware cells for performing the desired function of the application specific integrated circuit 6. Describing... a series of architecture independent actions and conditions3 7. A set of definitions of architecture independent actions and conditions 8. Selecting . . . a . . . hardware cell 9. Netlist defining the hardware cells 10. Interconnection requirements Ricoh will be prepared at the hearing on October 20 to discuss the proposed terms as may be directed by the Court.

Dated: October 20, 2004

Ricoh Company, Ltd. By: __Gary M. Hoffman__________________ Gary M. Hoffman Ken Brothers DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP 2101 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037-1526 Telephone: (202) 785-9700 Facsimile: (202) 887-0689

Defendants insist that only the words "expert system" be construed even though the words are used as modifiers of "knowledge base." 2 The term "a set of rules" is a discrete term in a broad phrase being proposed by the Defendants. 3 Here, the words proposed by the parties for construction are similar.

1

CASE NOS. C-03-2289-MJJ (EMC) and C-03-4669-MJJ (EMC) - Page 2 RICOH COMPANY, LTD'S SUBMISSION OF TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW

Document 210

Filed 10/20/2004

Page 4 of 4

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

Edward A. Meilman DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 896-5471 Facsimile: (212) 997-9880 Jeffrey B. Demain, State Bar No. 126715 Jonathan Weissglass, State Bar No. 185008 Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 Attorneys for Ricoh Company, Ltd.

CASE NOS. C-03-2289-MJJ (EMC) and C-03-4669-MJJ (EMC) - Page 3 RICOH COMPANY, LTD'S SUBMISSION OF TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT