Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard A. Williamson, On Behalf of and As Trustee For At Home v. Citrix Online

November 26, 2012

RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, ON BEHALF OF AND AS TRUSTEE FOR AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. A. Howard Matz

JS-6

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT

In the Court's September 4, 2012 Claim Construction Order (ECF No. 353) ("Markman Order"), the Court made the following rulings:

(a) The "distributed learning control module" limitation in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,155,840 ("the '840 patent") is a means-plus-function claim limitation with the following three functions: "(1) receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems, (2) relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system, and (3) coordinating the operation of the streaming data module";

(b) "there is no structure identified in the specification for the final step of 'coordinating' the operation of the streaming data module" and therefore "[t]he 'distributed learning control module' term is indefinite because the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure";

(c) the term "graphical display representative of a classroom" in independent claim 1 of the '840 patent means "a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map"; and

(d) the term "first graphical display comprising . . . a classroom region" in independent claim 17 of the '840 patent means "first graphical display comprising: . . . a display region for a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map."

On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendants made the following stipulations:

(a) None of the Defendants infringe claim 1 of the '840 patent or any of its dependent claims, pursuant to the Court's claim construction rulings set forth above, because, under those rulings, none of the Defendants' accused products includes a "pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map."

(b) None of the Defendants are liable for infringement of claim 8 of the '840 patent or any of its dependent claims 9-16, pursuant to the Court's claim construction rulings set forth above, because, under those rulings, claim 8 and its dependent claims have been held invalid as indefinite.

(c) None of the Defendants infringe claim 17 of the '840 patent or any of its dependent claims, pursuant to the Court's claim construction rulings set forth above, because, under those rulings, none of the Defendants accused products includes a "first graphical display comprising: . . . a display region for a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map." (ECF No. 470.) These stipulations were "to facilitate the immediate appeal of the Court's claim construction rulings," limited to "those claim construction rulings that are case dispositive and specifically discussed in [the] stipulation." (Id.) Defendants further stipulated that they would not move for costs and attorneys' fees until after resolution of the contemplated appeal. (Id.) Defendants contend that there are additional grounds for non-infringement and invalidity of all of the claims of the '840 patent, and reserve their right to assert such additional grounds in the event that the appellate court remands the case to the District Court or refuses to hear the merits of the appeal.

On October 22, 2012, the Court vacated all remaining deadlines pending the Court's decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, and ordered the parties to submit a proposed form of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 consistent with the terms of their stipulation. (ECF No. 472.)

On November 8, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's claim construction rulings. (ECF No. 475.)

In accordance with the above, and good cause having been shown, the Court hereby enters Final Judgment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.