Skynet Electronic Co., Ltd v. Flextronics International, LTD.

Filing 117

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING RE PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERY DISPUTE [re 116 Letter filed by Skynet Electronic Co., Ltd ] Response due by 9:00 a.m. on 3/11/2014. 3-Hour meet-and-confer from 7:30--10:30 AM 3/12/2014 in Court's jury room. Discovery Hearing set for 3/12/2014 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 7, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
SKYNET ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,

10

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13
14

v.
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL,
LTD., and POWER SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.,

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY
HEARING RE PLAINTIFF’S
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 12-06317 WHA

In this patent-infringement action, on March 6, plaintiff filed a letter requesting FRCP 37

17

sanctions for defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the stipulated discovery order. This

18

order sets forth how this alleged dispute will be handled.

19
20

*

*

*

In December 2012, plaintiff Skynet Electronic Co., Ltd. filed this patent-infringement

21

action. Defendants Flextronics International Ltd. and Power Systems Technologies, Ltd.

22

answered and asserted counterclaims. The operative March 2013 case management order set

23

forth the April 30, 2014, fact discovery deadline and the September 8, 2014, jury trial date

24

(Dkt. No. 43). An October 2013 order denied as premature defendant’s motion for partial

25

summary judgment and granted leave to file a third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 85).

26

In October 2013, plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint alleging

27

infringement of one asserted patent. Defendants answered and asserted three counterclaims:

28

non-infringement, invalidity (“each and every claim thereof, is invalid under 35 U.S.C § 1 et

1

seq., including without limitation §§ 102, 103, and/or 112”), and “invalidity of the August 14,

2

2012 certificate of correction” (Dkt. Nos. 86, 90).

3

In December 2013, after full briefing and oral argument, defendants’ motion to compel

4

was denied (Dkt. No. 106). Four days later, plaintiff filed a discovery letter. The parties then

5

appeared for a discovery hearing. At that time, the parties informed the undersigned judge that

6

they had resolved their disputes and would file a stipulation and proposed order. The stipulation

7

was filed and approved (Dkt. Nos. 111, 112).

8
9

*

*

Plaintiff’s letter brief states:
Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A), Skynet requests at least the
following sanctions:

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

*

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1) in that Defendants failed to provide discovery relevant to
35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically, secondary considerations,
Defendants shall not be permitted to challenge the validity of the
‘318 patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
2) in that Defendants failed to provide substantive discovery
regarding its sales process with Apple and other documents and
information related to Apple, to the extent that infringement is
otherwise found, Defendants shall be found to have induced Apple
to infringe the ‘318 patent;
3) given Defendants’ ongoing failure to comply with the terms of
the SDO, to the extent the patent is found valid and the products
covered by the claims, Defendants shall be found to have directly
infringed the ‘318 patent;

19
20

4) Skynet’s fact discovery shall be extended for two months
without any extension for Defendants; and

21

5) attorneys’ fees incurred in seeking sanctions and compliance
with the SDO shall be awarded to Skynet.

22
(Dkt. No. 116). The SDO is the stipulated discovery order. Defendants’ response is due by 9:00
23
A.M. ON MARCH 11.

The Court SETS a three-hour meet-and-confer starting AT 7:30 A.M. AND

24
CONTINUING TO 10:30 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014,

in the Court’s jury room

25
located in the San Francisco courthouse concerning plaintiff’s discovery dispute. At 10:30 A.M.,
26
the Court shall hold a hearing to resolve any remaining issue(s). Please buzz chambers on
27
March 12 at 7:30 a.m. to be let into the Court’s jury room. Only those lawyers who personally
28
participate in the meet-and-confer in the jury room may be heard at the hearing. In the
2

1

meantime, both sides should be prepared to fully brief these issues if the undersigned judge finds

2

it necessary at the March 12 hearing.

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5

Dated:

March 7, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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