Nunally v. Shanberg - Can Nunally win the remaining Claims Construction ?
in response to
by
Message: Nunally v. Shanberg - Can Nunally win the remaining Claims Construction ?
STEFANI E. SHANBERG
Partner 
IP Litigation
EXPERIENCE:
Stefani Shanberg is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where she specializes in patent litigation with a particular emphasis on defending technology companies against claims of patent infringement from competitors and non-practicing entities. Under the right circumstances, Stefani also represents clients asserting patents against competitors. She has extensive experience in all areas of intellectual property litigation and complex commercial litigation relating to intellectual property. Stefani has handled matters pending before the federal courts, the International Trade Commission, arbitral tribunals, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Stefani's patent litigation engagements have related to diverse technologies, including smartphone apps, email, network security, wireless communications, and other Internet, hardware, and software products, as well as consumer products. She is currently representing Google, LinkedIn, Netflix, Spotify, Square, and Symantec, among many other clients ranging from venture-backed start-ups to Fortune 100 public companies. Stefani has obtained successful outcomes, often based on creative and novel issues of law, including winning cases at trial, winning cases on summary judgment and on motions to dismiss, prevailing on advantageous claim constructions, winning motions to transfer and stay, and convincing the Ninth Circuit and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal to affirm favorable lower-court rulings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacer :
Identification Of Significant Claim TermsThe parties hereby identify the following terms, in no particular order, whose construction will be most significant to the resolution of this case:
1. “social signature”
2. “social hierarchy”
3. “social template”
4. “unique social signature”
5. “sensor value range”
6. “optical sensor”
1. “social signature”
2. “social hierarchy”
3. “social template”
4. “unique social signature”
5. “sensor value range”
6. “optical sensor”
7. “information”
8. “provide/ provides/ providing differing levels of information”
9. “provided…/ provides/ providing an update”
10. “accurate”
Plaintiff, e.Digital, does not believe construction of any of the above terms will be case or claim dispositive at this time.
IV. Anticipated Length Of Time Necessary For Claim Construction Hearing The parties anticipate they will need four (4) hours for the Claim Construction Hearing.
V. Witnesses Plaintiff may call the inventor, Patrick Nunally, as a witness to testify regarding each of
the disputed terms identified above. Specifically, Mr. Nunally is expected to testify regarding the technology that underlies the invention of the asserted claims and any parent patents; the level of ordinary skill in the art; how the relevant claims would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; the meaning of the disputed claim terms, phrases and limitations, and/or any other
opinions or testimony relevant to the Court in construing the terms, phrases and limitations of the asserted claims of the asserted patents. Plaintiff, e.Digital, reserves the right to introduce additional testimony from the inventor to rebut Dropcam’s claim construction positions, and any
expert testimony introduced by Dropcam.
Defendants may call Dr. Earl Sacerdoti. Dr. Sacerdoti may testify as to the understanding of individuals of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time period for the
Asserted Patents. Specifically, Dr. Sacerdoti may provide testimony regarding background technology or to demonstrate that Dropcam’s constructions of the proposed claim terms and phrases are consistent with the meaning of such terms and phrases in the relevant art during the relevant time period for the Asserted Patents. Such testimony will address both the general understanding of the relevant terms and phrases in the field of the art as well as the understanding of such terms and phrases in the context of the specifications and claims of the Asserted Patents. Dropcam does not plan to bring Dr. Sacerdoti to the claim construction hearing unless the Court requests his presence in advance. Dropcam further reserves the right to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Sacerdoti to rebut e.Digital’s claim construction positions,
and any expert testimony introduced by e.Digital.
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
Dated: May 5, 2015 By: /s/ Gabriel G. Hedrick
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
Dated: May 5, 2015 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
By: /s/ Stefani E. Shanberg
Stefani E. Shanberg
Attorneys for Defendant
DROPCAM, INC
8. “provide/ provides/ providing differing levels of information”
9. “provided…/ provides/ providing an update”
10. “accurate”
Plaintiff, e.Digital, does not believe construction of any of the above terms will be case or claim dispositive at this time.
IV. Anticipated Length Of Time Necessary For Claim Construction Hearing The parties anticipate they will need four (4) hours for the Claim Construction Hearing.
V. Witnesses Plaintiff may call the inventor, Patrick Nunally, as a witness to testify regarding each of
the disputed terms identified above. Specifically, Mr. Nunally is expected to testify regarding the technology that underlies the invention of the asserted claims and any parent patents; the level of ordinary skill in the art; how the relevant claims would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; the meaning of the disputed claim terms, phrases and limitations, and/or any other
opinions or testimony relevant to the Court in construing the terms, phrases and limitations of the asserted claims of the asserted patents. Plaintiff, e.Digital, reserves the right to introduce additional testimony from the inventor to rebut Dropcam’s claim construction positions, and any
expert testimony introduced by Dropcam.
Defendants may call Dr. Earl Sacerdoti. Dr. Sacerdoti may testify as to the understanding of individuals of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time period for the
Asserted Patents. Specifically, Dr. Sacerdoti may provide testimony regarding background technology or to demonstrate that Dropcam’s constructions of the proposed claim terms and phrases are consistent with the meaning of such terms and phrases in the relevant art during the relevant time period for the Asserted Patents. Such testimony will address both the general understanding of the relevant terms and phrases in the field of the art as well as the understanding of such terms and phrases in the context of the specifications and claims of the Asserted Patents. Dropcam does not plan to bring Dr. Sacerdoti to the claim construction hearing unless the Court requests his presence in advance. Dropcam further reserves the right to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Sacerdoti to rebut e.Digital’s claim construction positions,
and any expert testimony introduced by e.Digital.
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
Dated: May 5, 2015 By: /s/ Gabriel G. Hedrick
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
Dated: May 5, 2015 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
By: /s/ Stefani E. Shanberg
Stefani E. Shanberg
Attorneys for Defendant
DROPCAM, INC
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply