Articles Posted in N.D. California

Published on:

During this patent infringement action, Apple filed a motion for discovery sanctions based on a failure to produce documents after a remand. The parties apparently had agreed to limited discovery post-remand, but a dispute arose over whether discovery before remand should be supplemented or corrected.

Continue reading

Published on:

After filing an ex parte reexamination with the Patent Office, the defendant filed a motion to stay the action pending the ex parte reexamination.

In analyzing the request to stay the action, the district court noted that “[t]he decision of whether to stay this case during the potential ex parte reexamination is discretionary.” The district court also explained that courts have inherent power to manage their dockets, including by ordering a stay during a patent reexamination. See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Other cases in this district have considered, in deciding whether to stay a case pending patent reexamination or review, “(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
Continue reading

Published on:

In this patent infringement action, IBM filed a motion to compel production of certain documents that were withheld as privileged. IBM contend that time was of the essence when it filed its motion.

The district court was not persuaded by the urgency of the request or that time “was of the essence” because the motion was filed late. As explained by the district court, “IBM’s urgency is belied by the fact that its request is late. Fact discovery closed November 18. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, IBM’s motion to compel discovery was due within 7 days after the fact discovery deadline. Yet IBM filed its discovery motion on December 13, more than two weeks late.”
Continue reading

Published on:

Plaintiff, D Now, Inc. (D-Now), obtained an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 8,795,020, which claims a bubble blowing tube. D Now filed a patent infringement action against defendants TPF Toys Limited and TPF Toys LLC (collectively “TPF”). As explained by the district court, “[b]oth parties sell the bubble blowing tube in bouncing bubble kits, wherein the consumer can blow a bubble with the tube then use either gloves (in D Now’s product) or paddles (TPF’s product) to bounce the bubble.”
Continue reading

Published on:

After the district court conducted a claim construction hearing (but before it issued an order), the district court stayed the litigation between Finjan and Symantec pending a decision by the PTAB regarding whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) over the asserted patents. When the district court lifted the stay and issued a new scheduling order, Symantec filed a motion seeking additional claim construction briefing another hearing.
Continue reading

Published on:

In this long standing litigation between Oracle and Google, a dispute arose over the protective order and whether the disclosure of certain information violated the terms of the protective order when it was disclosed in open court. The district court explained that “[b]y long tradition, when a lawyer wishes to reveal in open court information whose disclosure is restricted by a protective order, the lawyer must first explain the restriction to the judge and (i) ask to seal the courtroom and transcript or (ii) hand up a copy of the restricted information to the judge.”

The district court then acknowledge that this practice “is not explicitly stated in our model protective order (or in the similar protective order adopted in this case), but this practice necessarily flows from the restrictions that are explicit, namely a limited list of allowed recipients that plainly omits the public. Of course, ‘the court and its personnel’ are usually allowed recipients but that phrase does not mean ‘the court, its personnel, and the public.’ Otherwise, the recipe for Coca-Cola or any other highly private information could be blurted out in open court. No one has ever claimed otherwise — until this case.”
Continue reading

Published on:

The Plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against the defendant, Netskope, accusing Netskope of infringing U.S. Patent Number 7,305,707 (the “707 Patent”). Netskope filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted finding that the asserted claims for the 707 Patent were unpatentable abstract ideas. The district court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Netskope, invalidating the ‘707 Patent.

After the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit, the parties settled the case and the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court. The Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion to vacate the district court’s judgment invalidating the ‘707 Patent.
Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff, [24]7 Customer, Inc. (“[24]/7”), filed a lawsuit against Defendant LivePerson, Inc. (“LivePerson”) alleging that LivePerson infringed several patents pertaining to a customer engagement software platform. After the lawsuit was filed, the parties entered into a stipulated protective order in which the parties agreed that “[a]ny source code produced in discovery shall be made available for inspection, in a format allowing it to be reasonably reviewed and searched, during normal business hours or at other mutually agreed times, at an office of the Producing Party’s Counsel or another mutually agreed upon location.”

Furthermore, the Protective Order provided that “[a]ll source code shall be made available by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record and/or experts on a secured computer in a secured room without Internet access or network access to other computers, as necessary and appropriate to prevent and protect against any unauthorized copying, transmission, removal or other transfer of any source code outside or away from the computer on which the source code is provided for inspection (the “Source Code Computer” in the “Source Code Review Room”).
Continue reading

Published on:

Apple filed an objection to EON’s plan to present a technology tutorial through its expert consultant. Apple asserted that the consultant was not disclosed as an expert on whom EON intended to rely upon during claim constructions, as required by the Local Patent Rules. Apple also asserted that the disclosure, which came only two days before the tutorial, was prejudicial because Apple did not have sufficient time to learn about and/or test the consultant’s opinions and credentials.

EON opposed the objection on the ground that Apple already knew of the consultant because he was disclosed under the protective order as someone who would have access to technical information. EON also argued that the consultant did not need to be disclosed because he was not testifying in support of EON’s claim construction positions. EON also argued that it would be prejudiced if the consultant was disclosed since it would be too late for EON to use another expert or present the tutorial through its counsel.
Continue reading

Published on:

As the re-trial in the Oracle v. Google case approaches, both parties requested an opportunity to use a jury questionnaire followed by a limited, one hour oral voir dire. The district court reviewed the proposed questionnaire and found that it would not save time and was likely suggested to permit the parties to learn the jurors names and addresses in order to perform Internet research on the backgrounds of the prospective jurors.

The district court explained that “[t]he joint questionnaire and procedure proposed by counsel, however, will not save time. At a minimum, it will add an extra day to the jury-selection procedure while the parties’ neutral vendor collects, copies, and distributes the responses. The proposed questionnaire, moreover, includes vague questions that seem more likely to generate vague answers than accurate answers, which will lead to the need for verbal follow-up and consume even more time.”
Continue reading