Kelora Systems, LLC v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 449

ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER 437 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 1/24/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 Oakland Division KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 11-01548 CW (LB) Plaintiff, v. 13 ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER TARGET CORPORATION, et al., 14 15 16 [ECF No. 437] Defendants. _____________________________________/ The district court has referred all discovery matters in the above-captioned patent case and the 17 related cases to the undersigned. Referral Order, ECF No. 333 at 2.1 On December 27, 2011, 18 Kelora Systems, LLC and Defendants2 submitted a joint discovery letter in which Kelora seeks to 19 compel Defendants to produce documents in response to discovery requests for the subdomains and 20 subdirectories of the parent web sites identified in its infringement contentions. 12/27/2011 Joint 21 Discovery Letter, ECF No. 437 at 1. 22 At a telephonic hearing, the parties resolved the dispute. Defendants explained that some of the 23 subdomains and subdirectories – specifically discussing the Hewlet-Packard sites – have different 24 appearances, functionality, and manner of communicating with the servers than the charted sites. 25 Plaintiff agreed that the preliminary infringement contentions do not cover the subdomains and 26 27 28 1 Citations are to the clerk’s electronic case file (ECF) with pin cites to the electronic page numbers at the top (as opposed to the bottom) of the page. 2 Defendants are Amazon.com, Inc., Costco, Hewlet-Packard Co., Office Depot, Target, Zappos.com, and Audible. ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER C 11-01548 CW (LB) 1 subdirectories that (1) are not specifically charted in their preliminary infringement contentions and 2 (2) implement what might be considered “guided parametric search” using different hardware or 3 software than that used by the sites identified in the preliminary infringement contentions. 4 Defendants reiterated their commitment to producing source code and technical documents on the 5 accused functionality, regardless of the dynamically-generated host URL, where the Defendants’ 6 sites implement the accused functionality in the same manner as the sites described in Plaintiff’s 7 preliminary infringement contentions. 8 9 Given the parties’ representations at the hearing, the court denies Kelora’s motion to compel as moot. This disposes of ECF No. 437. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 Dated: January 24, 2012 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER C 11-01548 CW (LB) 2