Opinion
No. C 09-01550 JSW No. C 10-01325 JSW No. C 10-05740 JSW
11-14-2011
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, et al., Defendants. TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TANDBERG, INC., et al., Defendants. TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., et al., Defendants.
ORDER VACATING HEARING
The Court scheduled a hearing to construe the terms of the patent at issue and set the hearing for November 14, 2011. However, after reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, the Court has determined that a hearing is not necessary. The construction of a patent claim is a matter of law exclusively for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-89, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Courts may hold a hearing on the issue of claim construction, but such a procedure is not necessary:
Markman does not require a district court to follow any particular procedure in conducting claim construction. It merely holds that claim construction is the province of the court, not a jury. To perform that task, some courts have found it useful to hold hearings and issue orders comprehensively construing the claims in issue. Such a procedure is not always necessary, however. ... District courts have wide latitude in how they conduct the proceedings before them, and there is nothing unique about claim construction that requires the court to proceed according to any particular protocol. As long as the trial court construes the claims to the extent necessary to determine whether the accused device infringes, the court may approach the task in any way that it deems best.Ballard Medical Products v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 268 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and is deemed submitted. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for November 14, 2011 is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE