Finisar Corporation v. Oplink Communications Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/22/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011)

**E-filed 7/22/11**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

FINISAR CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC, et al.,

15

No. C 10-5617 RS

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment in conjunction with the

18

claims construction briefing in this matter. Plaintiffs’ proposed motion would seek to establish that

19

any devices that comply with certain published industry standards infringe claims of the patents-in-

20

suit. The decision in Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear, Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) permits courts, in

21

appropriate cases, to analyze the existence of infringement with reference to an industry standard,

22

rather than by examining the details of each accused device. Defendants insist that such an analysis

23

will not be appropriate here because, they contend, the particular industry standards are such that

24

compliance may be achieved through methods and structures that do not necessarily infringe.

25

At this juncture, plaintiff has not demonstrated that judicial efficiency will be served by

26

considering its proposed motion in conjunction with claim construction proceedings. Accordingly,

27

plaintiffs’ request is denied, without prejudice to its right to invoke the principles of Fujitsu in any

28

summary judgment motion it may bring at an appropriate point in time subsequent to issuance of a

1

claims construction order. The parties shall submit a joint proposed schedule extending through the

2

claim construction hearing no later than July 29, 2011, and a case scheduling order will issue

3

thereafter.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 7/22/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2