MedioStream Inc v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 903

ORDER RE SCOPE OF TRIAL AND RE HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/4/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013)

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 SCOPE OF TRIAL AND
RE HEARING DATE

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,

16

Case No. C 11-2525 RS

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

In light of all the circumstances and in the interests of justice, the trial scheduled for June 24,

19

2013 shall be limited to plaintiff’s claims against Microsoft. Although liability for induced

20

infringement turns on the existence of direct infringement, plaintiff has not shown that any

21

advantages or efficiencies to having an alleged direct infringer participate in this phase of the trial

22

outweigh the disadvantages and inefficiencies that would result. While there are some scenarios in

23

which plaintiff potentially will have to defend the validity of the patent claims in successive

24

proceedings and/or litigate some issues of direct infringement more than once, there is nothing

25

inherently unfair in such an outcome, given that plaintiff is seeking judgments against many

26

defendants. Furthermore, it is equally, if not more, probable that an outcome in either plaintiff’s or

27

Microsoft’s favor will eliminate or minimize the need for further proceedings, under several

28

possible scenarios.

1

Furthermore, the suggestion that Dell participate as a defendant but only with respect to claims

2

arising from its use of Microsoft products would impose an undue burden on Dell, while the

3

alternative of including Sonic as a party at this juncture would be unworkable.

4

Plaintiff’s request for an adjustment to the May 9, 2013 hearing date on defendants’

5

forthcoming summary judgment motion will be accommodated, though as previously noted, that

6

motion may ultimately be taken under submission without oral argument. A new date will be set at

7

the upcoming hearing on March 14, 2013. The parties should meet and confer prior to that hearing

8

regarding possible dates to propose, and may consider days other than the regular Thursday law and

9

motion calendar.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: 3/4/13

14
15

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2