Positive Technologies Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc et al

Filing 282

ORDER OF REFERRAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13
14
15

ORDER OF REFERRAL

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. C 11-2226 SI

POSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

v.
SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., DELL, INC.,
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
AMAZON.COM, INC., BARNES & NOBLE,
INC., AND KOBO, INC.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

This matter concerns a discovery dispute in a patent infringement suit brought by plaintiff

18

Positive Technologies, Inc. (“Positive”) against several defendants, including Kobo, Inc. (“Kobo”).

19

Positive accuses Kobo of infringing three of its patents through the manufacture of two devices, the

20

Kobo eReader and the Kobo Wireless eReader. According to Patent Local Rule 3-4(a), in any patent

21

infringement suit, the party accused of such infringement must produce “[s]ource code, specifications,

22

schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of

23

any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality.” Patent L.R. 3-4(a).

24

In response to its Rule 3-4(a) requirements, Kobo has produced only two publically available

25

user manuals related to the two devices at issue. Kobo maintains that it does not possess any additional

26

documents that would be covered by Patent L.R. 3-4(a). Positive claims that it is inconceivable that

27

Kobo, which admits that it develops the graphical user interface (“GUI”) and software for the eReading

28

applications that run on the devices, does not possess additional materials covered by the Local Rule.

1

For example, Positive believes that Kobo must have the source code for the GUI and any documentation

2

related to the ways in which Kobo’s eReading software communicates with the hardware of the two

3

Kobo devices. The Court agrees and joins in questioning how Kobo, as the developer of the GUI and

4

the eReading software, would only have two user manuals responsive to its L. R. 3-4(a) obligations.

5

The Court finds that this issue is appropriate for resolution by a Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,

6

the Court hereby REFERS this discovery dispute, Docket No. 274, to a Magistrate Judge for

7

determination in the first instance.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: April 26, 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