Lotes Co, LTD v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co, Ltd et al

Filing 112

ORDER REGARDING FURTHER BRIEFING AND CONTINUING HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/21/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LOTES CO., LTD.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,

No. C 11-01036 JSW

v.
HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO.,
LTD., et al.,

ORDER REGARDING FURTHER
BRIEFING AND CONTINUING
HEARING

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
16

Now before the Court is the administrative motion filed by Plaintiff and Counterclaim

17

Defendant Lotes Company, Ltd. (“Lotes”) to file a sur-reply. The Court grants Lotes’ motion.

18

Lotes shall file its sur-reply by no later than May 29, 2012.

19

In the event the Court finds that there are disputed issues of fact which preclude

20

summary judgment, the parties appear to agree that the Court should resolve any disputed issues

21

of fact as the trier of fact based upon the parties’ submissions in support of their motions for

22

summary judgment. The parties shall file a stipulation to clarify this point by no later than May

23

31, 2012. If the parties cannot agree and do not file a stipulation by this date, the Court will not

24

resolve any disputed issues of fact as the trier of fact on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

25

judgment.

26

Both parties reference an opinion from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court regarding

27

the parties’ Patent License Agreement. Lotes represents that the opinion from Taiwan

28

Intellectual Property Court has been appealed and, thus, is not binding. The parties shall each

1

file a brief of no more than five pages by June 5, 2012 in which they address what impact, if

2

any, the opinion from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court would have on the pending

3

litigation before this Court once the opinion, or a subsequent opinion from an appellate court in

4

Taiwan, becomes final. If a final opinion from the Taiwanese court would have a res judicata or

5

collateral estoppel effect here, the parties shall address whether this Court should defer ruling

6

on the parties’ dispute regarding the interpretation of the exhibit attached to the Patent

7

Litigation Agreement.

8

The Court notes that where, as here, contract issues are “intimately related with the

v. CRP, Inc., 238 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Circ. 2001). Although the parties seem to agree on this

11
For the Northern District of California

substance of enforcement of a patent right,” Federal Circuit precedent governs. Flex-Foot, Inc.

10

United States District Court

9

legal point, the parties do not provide the Court with any authority from the Federal Circuit

12

regarding the interpretation of a contract that alters a legal rule, such as the burden of proof.

13

The parties shall each file a brief of no more than three pages by June 5, 2012 in which they

14

provide the applicable legal standard under Federal Circuit precedent.

15

Additionally, the Court notes that Defendants and Counter-claimants Hon Hai Precision

16

Industry Co.. Ltd. (“Hon Hai”) and Foxconn Electronics, Inc. (“Foxconn”) (collectively,

17

“Defendants”) have not publicly filed redacted versions of their opposition and cross-motion for

18

summary judgment or of the Declaration by Benjamin Sley in support of their opposition and

19

cross-motion. Defendants shall e-file the redacted versions of these documents by no later than

20

May 25, 2012.

21
22
23

The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on the parties’ motions for summary
judgment to July 20, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: May 21, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2