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

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup granting 67 Motion for Leave to File; denying 70 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; finding as moot 79 Motion for Leave to File (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SKYNET ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 12-06317 WHA

v.
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL
LTD., et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND VACATING
HEARING

16
17

In this patent infringement action involving power converter technology, defendants

18

move for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether a certificate of correction for the

19

patent-in-suit is valid. Specifically, defendants object that the certificate impermissibly

20

broadened the scope of claim 1 of the patent-in-suit.

21

Upon review of the parties’ submissions, it is clear that resolution of this dispute will

22

depend on how the patent claim terms are construed. The deadline for summary judgment

23

motions in the case management order — and, thus, the expected time for claim construction —

24

is still at least seven months away (Dkt. No. 43 ¶ 10). The parties do not agree on which terms

25

must be construed in order to resolve the instant dispute, and as a result their claim construction

26

briefing is both incomplete and out of line with the normal procedures used by the Court. The

27

parties also disagree on whether resolution of this partial summary judgment motion will have

28

any effect on the underlying infringement allegations — a question that also appears to depend
on claim construction.

1

This order concludes that conducting a piecemeal claim construction midway through the

2

fact-discovery period — without the benefit of a tutorial, full briefing on all disputed terms, and

3

a fully-developed record — would be inadvisable. Consistent with the case management

4

scheduling order, the instant claim construction issues will be “done on summary judgment or at

5

trial in setting the jury instructions. In this way, the Court will better understand the as-applied

6

meaning of terms advanced by counsel as claim constructions” (id. ¶ 14). Accordingly,

7

defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED AS PREMATURE. The related

8

evidentiary objections and sur-reply request are DENIED AS MOOT.

proposed complaint adds additional allegedly-infringing products. Although the parties quibble

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The

10

United States District Court

9

over the precise meaning of statements by counsel at a case management conference, defendants

12

expressly state that they do not oppose the motion (Dkt. No. 68 at 1). The motion is accordingly

13

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint by OCTOBER 24 AT NOON. The answer

14

will be due by NOVEMBER 4 AT NOON.

15

The October 31 hearing on these motions is VACATED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: October 23, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2