Longitude Licensing Ltd. et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 82

ORDER Regarding Representative Products by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD., et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-04275-EDL

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING
REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTS

9
10

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The parties have an outstanding dispute about whether and/or when to require Apple to

13

identify representative products. Longitude wants Apple to be required to identify representative

14

products by July 9, 2015. In appropriate cases, courts use representative products to narrow cases

15

where there are numerous related products creating identical or similar issues of infringement.

16

See, e.g., Rambus v. Hynix, Case 05-cv-00334-RMW, Dkt. # 2803 (requesting letter briefs on the

17

issue of identifying representative products); Apple v. Samsung, 12-cv-00630-LHK, Dkt. # 471

18

(“The Court strongly encourages the parties to reach a stipulation on [representative products].”).

19

Longitude contends that the accused products in this case are similar because they utilize a limited

20

number of operating systems and only three different flash translation layer (FTL) software

21

versions. Apple counters that this is not an appropriate case for identifying representative

22

products because the accused functionalities operate differently depending on the hardware,

23

operating system, and which one of the three FTL software versions are used in a given product.

24

Having considered briefing from both sides discussing the deposition testimony of Apple

25

Engineering Manager Matt Byom and having reviewed the deposition transcript in camera, the

26

Court orders as follows: Given the state of the record, there currently appear to be differences

27

even among products with the same name (for example, different iPhone 4s may use different

28

hardware and software) such that it does not now appear that there are numerous related products

1

creating identical or similar issues of infringement. Therefore, it is not appropriate to require

2

Apple to identify representative products at this stage of the case. However, the Court may revisit

3

this issue as the case progresses.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2015

6
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2