Intertrust Technologies Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.

Good Law

275 F. Supp. 2d 1031·2003 WL 21802076·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19117

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2003C 01-1640 SBACalifornia20,291 words

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CONSTRUING “MINI-MARK- MAN” CLAIMS

This matter comes before the Court for two related proceedings. The first is a “mim-Markman” (limited claim construction) proceeding in which the Court shall construe thirty terms and phrases appearing in twelve claims selected by the parties from the numerous claims at issue in this action. The second is Microsoft’s Motion for Summary Judgment that Certain “Mini-Markman” Claims Are Invalid for Indefiniteness (the “Indefiniteness Motion”). The Court held a claim construction hearing on June 11 and 12, 2003, and heard oral argument on the Indefiniteness Motion on June 12, 2003. Having read and considered the papers submitted, having considered the parties’ arguments at the hearings, and being fully informed, the Court DENIES the Indefiniteness Motion and CONSTRUES the disputed terms and phrases as set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff and counterdefendant Inter-Trust Technologies Corp. (“InterTrust”) filed its Complaint in case number C 01-1640 SBA on April 26, 2001, its First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2001, its Second Amended Complaint on July 30, 2001, and its…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.