Joint Appendix (Part 1)

Case 2:10-cv-02225-JAK -JC Document 152-1#:2641Filed 12/10/11 Page 4 of 14 Page ID12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728DEFENDANTS’ POSITION AS TOJURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instruction No. 15 includes the patent claim meaningNos. 9 and 10. The meanings of these phrases have been hotly disputed throughout thislawsuit. These phrases are found in claims 1 and 11 of the ‘936 Patent, respectively.Both of these phrases were in dispute during the claim construction phase of this lawsuit.In its Claim Construction Order, this Court found the following:“The language in the claim and the specification state that the turretshall remain stationary because the turret is heavier than themanifold…” See Claim Construction Order, Docket Item #50, p.5-6.Plaintiff refused to accept this claim construction and proposed different theoriesduring Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Non-Infringement (Docket Item#87) and then again during Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Infringement(Docket Item #89). In both motions, this Court’s order explicitly stated as follows:“This Court has interpreted the plain language of claims 1 and 11 torequire that ‘the turret shall remain stationary because the turret isheavier than the manifold’.” Docket Item #87, p.4 (referencing DocketItem #50, p.5-6); See also Docket Item #89, p.5. Note: the bold anditalicized emphasis was added by this Court).Now, after adjudicating this matter to death, Plaintiff still insists on a differentinterpretation for these phrases. Plaintiff wishes to instruct the jury that these phrases“[do] not mean the turret is maintained in a stationary position relativeto the manifold only by the frictional forces between the turret and themanifold. The phrase does not exclude a pipe that has a ball or spring.”Enough is enough, this Court must not allow Plaintiff to re-argue the claimconstruction of this disputed phrase. This Court has reviewed the construction of thisphrase several times and has always maintained its position that these phrases require theturret to remain stationary because it is heavier than the manifold. As such, Defendantssimply propose that the jury instruction reflect this Court’s repeated construction of thesephrases.- 3 -DISPUTED JURY INSTRUCTIONSCASE NO. CV10-02225-JAK (JCx)-A271-