BlackBerry Limited v. Typo Products LLC

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 92 Ex Parte Application. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
BLACKBERRY LIMITED,

7

Case No. 14-cv-00023-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
TYPO PRODUCTS LLC,

10

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Re: Dkt. No. 92

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Defendant Typo requests a 30-day extension of the claim construction schedule1 and a 30-

13
14

day extension to respond to discovery served by plaintiff BlackBerry. Dkt. No. 92. Typo

15

contends that good cause exists to because Typo has engaged new counsel in this action and seeks

16

time for its new counsel to get up to speed. Typo also states that it believes that additional time

17

will allow the parties to reduce the number of disputed terms submitted to the Court for

18

construction. BlackBerry opposes Typo’s request, arguing that substitution of counsel is not

19

grounds to delay discovery deadlines or to reopen claim construction proceedings. Dkt. No. 95.

20

Blackberry instead proposes a 14-day extension of the claim construction schedule to allow Typo

21

time to reduce the number of disputed terms.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties had a deadline to exchange proposed claim constructions on July 8, 2014. The
parties filed a joint claim construction chart on August 4, 2014. Dkt. No. 80. Claim construction
discovery closed on September 3, 2014 and BlackBerry’s opening claim construction brief is due
September 17, 2014. Typo’s responsive claim construction brief is due on October 1, 2014, and
BlackBerry’s reply is due October 8, 2014.The tutorial is set for October 22, 2014 and the claim
construction hearing is set for October 31, 2014. See Dkt. No. 43 (parties’ proposed schedule);
Dkt. No. 60 (proposed schedule adopted at CMC, apart from dates for tutorial and claim
construction hearing).

1

I.

THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE IS CONTINUED TO ALLOW THE
PARTIES TO REDUCE THE DISPUTED TERMS
Typo requests a 30-day stay of the claim construction schedule and to “allow the parties

2
3

leave to revise the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement and conduct any necessary

4

discovery associated therewith.” Dkt. No. 92 at 4. The joint claim construction statement was

5

already filed on August 4, 2014, over six weeks ago, and claim construction discovery closed on

6

September 3, 2014. Dkt. Nos. 43, 80. Typo has not explained why additional time is warranted.

7

The mere substitution of counsel is not good grounds to reopen claim construction discovery after

8

substantial work has already been undertaken.
However, the Court welcomes an effort to reduce the number of disputed claim terms at

10

issue. Accordingly, by October 1, 2014, Typo shall serve a reduced2 list of disputed terms for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

construction. BlackBerry shall file its opening claim construction brief on October 8, 2014, Typo

12

shall file its response on October 22, 2015, and BlackBerry’s reply is due by October 29, 2014.

13

The Court will hold a technology tutorial on November 7, 2014 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 12 and a

14

claim construction hearing on November 14, 2014 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 12.

15

II. TYPO’S REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE IS DENIED
BlackBerry served discovery on Typo on August 25, 2014 in connection with Blackberry’s

16
17

motion to show cause why Typo should not be held in contempt for violation of the preliminary

18

injunction. Per the Court’s order, Typo was required to respond to the discovery requests within

19

30 days, September 24, 2014. Dkt. No. 87 at 8. Because Typo has not demonstrated good cause,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

I am not granting Typo leave to identify new disputed terms as Typo has not shown good cause
for such relief.
2

1

its request to extend the contempt discovery deadline is DENIED.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: September 18, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

New counsel for Typo states that “[a]lthough Typo Products seeks an extension of the deadline
for responding to that discovery, we do not intend to delay its responses and will seek to address
that discovery while we are getting up to speed on the issues in this case.” Miller Decl. ¶ 3 [Dkt.
No. 92-1]
3