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
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?