McNulty

McNulty v. Taser International Inc.

Good Law
217 F. Supp. 2d 1058·2002 WL 1940252·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17125
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 29, 2002SACV 01-0395 DOCCalifornia10,320 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carter, J.

ORDER

MARKMAN HEARING CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff James F. McNulty’s motion for summary adjudication of the issue of patent infringement and Defendant Taser International Inc.’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Beginning on March 19, 2002, the parties presented evidence in a proceeding commonly known as a Markman hearing to facilitate claim construction of claim 39 of United States Patent 5,193,048 (’048 patent). After the close of the Markman hearing the Court requested that both parties file motions for summary judgment. The parties had presented extensive evidence at the Markman hearing regarding both the proper interpretation of the patent and the alleged infringement . of the ’048 patent by Defendant’s products. Therefore, the parties agreed that motions for summary adjudication of infringement would be appropriate and would allow the Court to determine both the claim interpretation and the infringement issue at the same time. The parties waived their rights to additional oral argument. Thus, upon consideration of all papers submitted…

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.