Coopervision, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, No. 2:06-cv-00149 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2007)

Before the court is Defendant CIBA Vision Corporation’s Objections to Memorandum and Order Construing Claim Terms of United States Patent Nos. 6,431,706; 6,923,538; 6,467,903; 6,857,740; 6,971,746; 7,133,174; and 7,134,753 [Doc. # 141 in 2:06cv149 and Doc. #73 in 9:06cv149].¹ Defendant asks this court to reconsider certain portions of Magistrate Judge Earl Hine’s order signed July 16, 2007. See Doc. # 129 in 2:06cv149 and Doc. #71 in 9:06cv149. This is a ruling on a non-dispositive matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on any non-dispositive matter “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996) (“Markman II”). “The duty of the trial judge is to determine the meaning of the claims at issue, and to instruct the jury accordingly.” Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizoil Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).

2Judge Hines recited the correct standard and made specific findings on each of the claim terms at issue in a detailed thirty-three (33) page order. CIBA agrees that Judge Hines reached the constructions “after careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions.” CIBA simply disagrees with the conclusions reached by Judge Hines. After reviewing his findings, under the circumstances of this case, the court cannot conclude that Judge Hine’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant CIBA Vision Corporation’s Objections to Memorandum and Order Construing Claim Terms of United States Patent Nos. 6,431,706; 6,923,538; 6,467,903; 6,857,740; 6,971,746; 7,133,174; and 7,134,753 [Doc. # 141] is DENIED.