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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?