EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc et al

Filing 612

ORDER Re Settlement and Discovery Disputes. Motion Hearing re-set from 3/7/2013 to 3/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Further Case Management Conference re-set from 3/7/2013 to 3/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Joint Further CMC Statement is due by 3/21/2013. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/4/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-1011 EMC

SENSUS USA, INC., et al.,

12

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND
DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket Nos. 610, 611)

13
14
15

Plaintiff in this case has recently concluded a settlement agreement with Defendant T-Mobile

16

USA, Inc. At a case management conference on December 14, 2012, this Court ordered Plaintiff to

17

submit a letter by December 28, 2012 indicating whether it intended to pursue claims against

18

Defendant Kineto, in light of the fact that at least some of these claims were related to the claims

19

against T-Mobile. Docket No. 608. If Plaintiff opted not to abandon its claims against Kineto,

20

Kineto indicated that it would file a motion for summary judgment to be heard on March 7, 2013.

21

The Court also stayed depositions against Kineto until further notice.

22

On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a letter stating that it was unable to determine

23

whether some or all of its claims against Kineto were covered by the settlement agreement because

24

Kineto had not provided certain discovery about Kineto’s sales of allegedly infringing products and

25

services to T-Mobile and to other customers. Docket No. 610. Plaintiff requested that it be allowed

26

to take further discovery of Kineto, including depositions. Kineto disputes that Plaintiff needs any

27

further discovery to determine the application of the T-Mobile settlement agreement to Kineto.

28

Kineto also contends that Plaintiff has not complied with Patent L.R. 3-1 with respect to its

1

infringement contentions against Kineto as to non-T-Mobile customers. Docket No. 611. Kineto

2

further requested that this Court order a mandatory settlement conference on these issues. The

3

parties also dispute whether EON should now be permitted to take Kineto’s deposition.

4
5
6

This case has already been referred to Magistrate Judge Laporte for discovery matters.
Accordingly, this Court refers the following disputes to Judge Laporte:
1.

Whether Plaintiff requires any additional discovery to comply with this Court’s order

7

that it state clearly whether it intends to pursue its T-Mobile claims against Kineto.

8

After making the determination of what, if any, discovery Plaintiff requires, Judge

9

Laporte shall set a date certain for Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s order of
December 14, 2012.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

2.

13

Whether to grant Plaintiff’s requests to take depositions and other discovery prior to
Kineto’s motion for summary judgment.

14
15
16

3.

Whether Plaintiff’s infringement contentions are adequate as to the allegations of
non-T-Mobile related infringement.

17
18

Additionally, this case is hereby referred for assignment to a magistrate judge on an emergency basis

19

for a mandatory settlement conference to take place no later than January 31, 2013. To allow time

20

for the settlement conference, the hearing date for Kineto’s motion for summary judgment, if

21

necessary, is re-set to March 28, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: January 4, 2013

26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28

2