Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

3 active

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

9 active

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

11

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

None at this time

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

15 - 16

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

4 - 6

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

6 - 12

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

8

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

12[1]

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

19; 3 active in last 3 months

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

30[2]

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

10-20

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

1 or 2

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

5 - 10

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

0

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

0

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

0

Hon. William D. Keller:

0

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

0

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

At least 20

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

10 - 50, or more

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

3

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

10 active

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

18 - 20

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

3 - 5

Hon. William J. Rea:

2

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

25

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

3

Hon. Gary L. Taylor:

20 - 25

Hon. Dickran Tevrizian:

10

Hon. Robert J. Timlin:

6 - 10

Hon. Laughlin E. Waters:

0

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson:

10 - 15

Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

Rarely.  Usually as part of summary judgment

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

Typically.  (“Presumptively”)

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

In the past, have only done one, but will do more now with the recognition that they are very necessary and important

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

Decided on case-by-case basis; yes in last 2 cases

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

Typically depending on complexity of case

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

Depends on case complexity

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

Always, unless parties agree on all claim construction issues

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

Rarely, have only done 2-3 in the past two years

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

Always

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

Typically

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

Always

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

Sometimes, depends on case and if requested by party

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

Never.  (All cases have settled or been resolved on summary judgment.)

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

Always

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

See previous response

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

See previous response

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

See previous response

Hon. William D. Keller:

See previous response

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

Never

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

Never needed to have one

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

Typically

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

Always when requested by party

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

Typically

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

Typically, depends on complexity of issues.

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

Rarely

Hon. William J. Rea:

Never

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

Typically, in conjunction with summary judgment

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

Never, but would consider if raised

Hon. Gary L. Taylor:

Rarely, usually only as part of summary judgment

Hon. Dickran Tevrizian:

Rarely

Hon. Robert J. Timlin:

First Markman Hearing scheduled for 03/29/02

Hon. Laughlin E. Waters:

See previous response

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson:

Typically

Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

In conjunction with summary judgment in the past, considering change

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

Separate procedure with time limits

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

In conjunction with summary judgment

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

Separate procedure in last 2 cases

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

Sometimes separate, sometimes in conjunction with summary judgment

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

Separate in appropriate cases; others summary judgment

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

Separately

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

Separately

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

As a separate procedure always

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

Separate procedure per standard minute order derived from simplification of Northern District of California local patent rules

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

Varies depending on case

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

Sometimes separate, if requested by party

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

See previous response

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

Separate procedure always

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. William D. Keller:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

Separate procedure

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

Typically in conjunction with summary judgment

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

Separate procedure usually; summary judgment in simpler cases

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

Separate Markman Hearing if substantial issues, complexity or parties request, otherwise through summary judgment.

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

Considers separate Markman Hearing “wasteful”

Hon. William J. Rea:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

Usually in conjunction with summary judgment

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

See previous response to Question 2 (Would consider if raised in conjunction with summary judgment, or separate procedure requested by party)

Hon. Gary L. Taylor:

As part of summary judgment only

Hon. Dickran Tevrizian:

In conjunction with summary judgment (if not resolved by summary judgment, then conduct Markman Hearing)

Hon. Robert J. Timlin:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Laughlin E. Waters:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson:

Separate procedure

Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

Considering use of separate procedure per Northern District of California

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

As early as practical

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

Having only done one in the past, there is no typical schedule

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

End of discovery

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

Varies depending on case and parties’ requests

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

Varies depending on case

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

When required by activity of the parties, such as filing summary judgment

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

By stipulation and arrangement of the parties, usually right before or right after the close of discovery

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

After discovery and before summary judgment

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

Early in case, well before discovery cut-off

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

Varies depending on complexity; early if issues simple; otherwise, close to or in conjunction with summary judgment.  Typically determined during scheduling conference

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

As requested by parties (before summary judgment)

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

Varies depending on case (“when you have to”)

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. William D. Keller:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

As requested by parties (“lawyers are primary movers”)

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

As requested by parties

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

Varies depending on case

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

During discovery and as early as possible

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

Varies depending on case (“when necessary and before dispositive motions”)

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

See previous response to Question 3

Hon. William J. Rea:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

See previous response (after discovery)

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

Varies depending on case

Hon. Gary L. Taylor:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Dickran Tevrizian:

As requested by parties (See previous response)

Hon. Robert J. Timlin:

Agreed to during Scheduling Conference

Hon. Laughlin E. Waters:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson:

As early as possible

Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

See previous responses

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

Standard law & motion briefing - opening (patentee), opposition (defendant), reply (patentee)

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

Very ad hoc

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

Standard law & motion briefing

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

Standard law & motion briefing

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

Standard law & motion briefing schedule

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

Separate claim construction statements followed by simultaneous briefs.

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

Simultaneous opening briefs, simultaneous oppositions, and no reply briefs; do not require joint claim construction statement but have a de facto one insofar as the parties stipulate that there are certain terms they do not dispute.

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

Let the lawyers lead me and reason it with them together on an ad hoc or case-by-case basis.

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

Meet & confer, joint claim construction statement, briefs

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

Joint submissions required sometimes depending on complexity, then standard briefing (flexible), may consider limiting no. of terms/phrases construed.

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

Amenable to what parties want

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

Simultaneous briefs and responses

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. William D. Keller:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

Standard law & motion briefing

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

Joint claim construction statement, then standard law & motion briefing

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

Standard law & motion briefing

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

Meet & confer; joint Claim Construction Chart followed by briefs

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

Joint claim construction statement (optional), then standard briefs (reply sometimes)

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

Same as regular trial briefing if not resolved by summary judgment (See previous response)

Hon. William J. Rea:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

Joint submission not required but welcome, then standard briefs

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

Standard briefs but would consider simultaneous briefing if requested

Hon. Gary L. Taylor:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Dickran Tevrizian:

Standard briefing

Hon. Robert J. Timlin:

Standard briefing, joint submission not required

Hon. Laughlin E. Waters:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson:

Standard briefs

Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

Allows all forms; live testimony if necessary

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

Will consider all forms of evidence, including live witnesses

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

Not necessarily with Markman, but do get expert testimony with the tutorials

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

Will consider all forms of evidence

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

Allows in tutorials, during Markman Hearing attorneys may argue expert testimony and dictionary definitions

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

Will consider all forms of evidence

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

Dictionary definitions and technical experts will always come in with hearing in declarations.  Live testimony depends on a case by case basis; does not permit patent law experts

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

Only if the plain language of the claims is ambiguous; if so, allow all sources -- expert testimony, file history, dictionary definitions, etc.

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

Because there is always ambiguity, allow insight from any source that may provide it -- expert testimony, case law, dictionaries

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

Will consider; somewhat skeptical of expert testimony; no “legal” expert testimony

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

Sometimes by stipulation, but generally tries to avoid

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

Inclined to look at only intrinsic, depends on complexity; more inclined to consider dictionary definitions than expert testimony

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

Will consider and accord due weight

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. William D. Keller:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

Will consider and accord due weight

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

Will consider, dictionary definitions may be considered for “plain meaning.”  (“No hard and fast rules.”)

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

Will consider only what is “necessary”

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

If there is demonstrable need; careful per Vitronics

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

Discouraged unless parties give good reason

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

Will consider “if relevant and helpful” and accord due weight.

Hon. William J. Rea:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

Look at intrinsic first, if still ambiguous will consider extrinsic

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

Would consider depending on case and accord due weight

Hon. Gary L. Taylor:

No response

Hon. Dickran Tevrizian:

Will consider and accord due weight

Hon. Robert J. Timlin:

Will consider if helpful and accord due weight.  Would also consider court-appointed expert and allowing attorneys to cross-examine and provide input as to who should be expert

Hon. Laughlin E. Waters:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Stephen V. Wilson:

Often

Hon. Marilyn L. Huff:

Summary judgment

Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez:

See previous responses to Questions 3 and 4

Hon. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr.:

Does not recall any substitute

Hon. Judith N. Keep:

See previous responses to Questions 3 and 4

Hon. M. James Lorenz:

Summary judgment

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller:

See previous responses to Questions 3 and 4

Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz:

Always have Markman Hearing unless the lawyers agree that there is no dispute, which has not happened yet

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan:

Have parties submit written briefs and do a written order within about thirty days after the briefing

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster:

Have yet to have a case proceed to summary judgment or trial without a Markman Hearing

Hon. Lourdes G. Baird:

See previous response

Hon. William Matthew Byrne, Jr.:

No response

Hon. David O. Carter:

Summary judgment

Hon. Audrey B. Collins:

Summary judgment

Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Gary A. Feess:

No response

Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.:

See previous responses to Questions 2 and 3

Hon. A. Andrew Hauk:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Harry L. Hupp:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. Robert J. Kelleher:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. William D. Keller:

See previous response to Question 1

Hon. George H. King:

No response

Hon. J. Spencer Letts:

Informal process in conjunction with settlement using court-appointed expert

Hon. Ronald S.W. Lew:

Summary judgment

Hon. Nora M. Manella:

See previous responses to Questions 3 and 4

Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall:

Summary judgment or at trial

Hon. A. Howard Matz:

No response

Hon. Margaret M. Morrow:

See previous responses to Questions 3 and 4

Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer:

Summary judgment

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips:

No response

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson:

No response

Hon. Edward Rafeedie:

At summary judgment stage or at trial

Hon. William J. Rea:

See previous response to Question 2

Hon. Manuel L. Real:

No response

Hon. Christina A. Snyder:

No response

Hon. Alicemarie H. Stotler:

Summary judgment

Hon. Robert M. Takasugi:

See previous response to Question 3