MedioStream Inc v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 882

ORDER RE MOTIONS AND TRIAL SCHEDULING. Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/15/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13
14

MEDIOSTREAM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

15

ORDER RE MOTIONS AND TRIAL
SCHEDULING

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,

16

Case No. C 11-2525 RS

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

As requested at the Case Management Conference held on February 7, 2013, the parties have

19

submitted concise and useful statements outlining their respective proposals for scheduling motion

20

practice and trial proceedings. After review of those statements and the pending severance motions,

21

under all of the circumstances the interests of justice and efficient case management warrant the

22

conclusion that the best use of the trial window available in June of this year is to proceed first with

23

trial of plaintiff’s claims against Apple. Accordingly, that trial will commence on June 24, 2013.

24

While Apple’s market share may be comparatively small, and any findings as to

25

infringement or non-infringement in the Apple operating system environment would not be

26

dispositive of infringement issues in the PC environment, it appears likely that resolving the claims

27

against Apple would have at least some benefit in the subsequent adjudication of the remaining

28

1

claims.1 Additionally, the size and scope of a trial limited to Apple makes it particularly well-suited

2

for disposition first, and within the extant scheduling constraints. Plaintiff’s preferred alternative of

3

proceeding initially against only Dell does not appear sufficiently feasible, given the role of

4

software supplied by others in the infringement analysis. While a trial involving only Dell and

5

Microsoft might address that concern, the better course is to proceed with Apple instead.
Further trial scheduling decisions will be deferred until after the trial against Apple is held.

6

judgment (Docket No. 831) is hereby submitted for decision without oral argument, pursuant to

9

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Sony’s invalidity motion (Docket No. 734) will be heard on March 7, 2013

10

at 1:30 p.m. This order disposes of Apple’s severance motion (Docket No. 725). For administrative

11
For the Northern District of California

With the agreement of the parties, the motion of defendant Sonic Solutions, LLC for summary

8

United States District Court

7

purposes, all remaining non-discovery pending motions are denied, without prejudice. When and if

12

it becomes appropriate to re-set any of them for hearing, the moving parties may simply file notices,

13

without re-filing all of the briefing and supporting papers.

14

Microsoft and Apple suggest that it would be appropriate to permit the filing of an additional

15

summary judgment motion on invalidity jointly on behalf of all defendants. The relationship of this

16

proposed motion to the existing Sony motion is unclear, but given the page length limits requested,

17

it seems likely defendants contemplate a motion that goes substantially beyond the arguments made

18

by Sony. If in light of this order defendants still believe such an additional motion is necessary and

19

can reasonably be heard and decided prior to the Apple trial, no later than February 21, 2013, they

20

may submit one letter brief, not to exceed 3 pages, explaining how the motion would differ from the

21

Sony motion, why they believe it should be heard, and a proposed briefing and hearing schedule.

22

Plaintiffs may file a response no later than February 26, 2013.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Some potential outcomes in the Apple trial would have substantially more effect on the remaining
claims than others.
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/15/13

3
4

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
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

3