eBay Inc. et al v. PartsRiver, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS (94 in 4:10-cv-04947-CW),, (57 in 4:11-cv-01398-CW), (361 in 4:11-cv-01548-CW), (70 in 4:11-cv-02284-CW) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SETTING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Supplemental brief due by 1/13/2012. Responses due by 1/20/2012. Replies due by 1/25/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/6/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 EBAY INC.; and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, 6 7 8 v. KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 ________________________________/ CABELA’S INC., 14 v. KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. 15 16 17 ________________________________/ KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. C 11-1398 CW Plaintiff, 12 13 No. C 10-4947 CW v. TARGET CORPORATION; OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED; ROCKLER COMPANIES, INC.; 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM, INC.; DELL, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; NEWEGG INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; CIRCUITCITY.COM INC; AUDIBLE, INC.; and ZAPPOS.COM, INC., Defendants. ________________________________/ No. C 11-1548 CW 1 NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART, INC., 2 Plaintiff, 3 No. C 11-2284 CW ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SETTING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 4 KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, 5 Defendant. 6 ________________________________/ 7 8 9 AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS / 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants eBay, Inc., Microsoft 11 Corporation, Cabela’s Inc. and Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc., 12 Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Target Corporation, Office 13 Max, Incorporated, Rockler Companies, Inc., 1-800-Flowers.com, 14 Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Dell, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Newegg, 15 Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, 16 CircuitCity.com Inc., Audible, Inc. and Zappos.com, Inc. 17 (collectively, Defendants) move for summary judgment on the claims 18 filed against them by Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff and 19 Plaintiff/Counter-claim Defendant Kelora Systems, LLC (Kelora), 20 based on arguments of non-infringement and invalidity of Kelora’s 21 U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 (’821 patent) due to obviousness and 22 broadening during re-examination. 23 Having considered the papers filed by the parties and their 24 oral arguments, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ 25 motion for summary judgment to the extent that it argues that the 26 ’821 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to obviousness. 27 28 2 1 While it is true that expert testimony is not always required 2 for this inquiry, the Federal Circuit has also held that, in some 3 circumstances, expert testimony may be essential to assist the 4 Court in determining obviousness. 5 616 F.3d 1231, 1239, 1239 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“KSR and our later 6 cases establish that the legal determination of obviousness may 7 include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense, in lieu of 8 expert testimony,” though in some cases, expert testimony may be 9 “essential”). See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., The Court finds that, without the assistance of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 expert testimony, Defendants have not met their burden to 11 demonstrate that “resubmission” was obvious at the time of 12 invention. 13 Defendants are granted leave to supplement their motion for 14 summary judgment. 15 obviousness of “resubmission” and shall not repeat any other 16 arguments or facts already provided in their original filings. 17 The parties are limited to addressing the The parties may refer to the exhibits submitted in connection 18 with their prior filings. 19 additional evidence beyond an expert declaration and supporting 20 documents thereto, and Kelora may not submit additional evidence 21 beyond a rebuttal expert declaration and supporting documents 22 thereto, if Kelora desires to make such a submission. 23 shall disclose the identity and report of their expert witness 24 within fourteen days of the date of this order, and Kelora shall 25 disclose its rebuttal expert report, if any, within one week 26 thereafter. 27 two weeks after the deadline for Kelora’s disclosure. Defendants may not submit any Defendants The parties shall complete expert discovery within 28 3 1 Defendants shall file their supplemental brief on their 2 motion for summary judgment, which may not exceed ten pages, by 3 January 13, 2012. 4 renewed motion, if any, which may not exceed ten pages, by January 5 20, 2012. 6 opposition, if any, which may not exceed five pages, by January 7 25, 2012. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Kelora shall file its opposition to Defendants’ Defendants shall file their reply to Kelora’s The Court will decide the renewed motion on the papers. The remaining issues raised by Defendants in their motion for summary judgment are under submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 Dated: 12/6/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4