Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

Filing 113

ORDER RE JUNIPER'S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 100 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 10-04234 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE JUNIPER’S MOTION TO
COMPEL INTERROGATORY
RESPONSES AND MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION

v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

12

Defendant.

/

13
14

Currently before the Court is defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.’s motion to compel further

15

responses to Interrogatories Nos. 11, 14, 15 & 17 [Docket No. 100] and Juniper’s unopposed motion

16

for leave to file a second summary judgment [Docket No. 80]. With respect to Juniper’s unopposed

17

motion for leave to file a second summary judgment, that motion is GRANTED.

18
19

With respect to Juniper’s motion to compel further interrogatory responses, the Court rules as
follows:

20

Interrogatory No. 11.: The Court DENIES the motion to compel Implicit to create a “claim

21

chart” showing how its commercial products map on the claims of the patents in suit, due to undue

22

burden and relevance.

23

Interrogatory No. 14.: The Court DENIES the motion to compel, based on Implicit’s answer

24

that: “Juniper began infringing no later than the ‘date of the ‘163 reexam certificate,’ which is May 4,

25

2010.” See Docket No. 101. However, given Implicit’s use of the “no later than” clause, Implicit will

26

not be able to seek damages for any conduct prior to that date.

27

Interrogatory No. 15.: The motion to compel is GRANTED to the extent that Implicit must

28

provide an answer as to whether it will dispute the publication date of the five (5) references identified

1

in Juniper’s motion to compel and Implicit must provide the factual and legal support for each

2

contention. Docket No. 100 at 2.

3

Interrogatory No. 17.: The motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to internal documents.

4

Implicit shall specifically identify the internal documents already produced, and any to be produced, in

5

a response pursuant to Rule 33(d).

6
7

Consistent with this Order, further interrogatory responses shall be provided within ten (10)
days of the date of this Order.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: July 16, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2