Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC et al v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 125

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Responses due by 12/8/2015 at NOON.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/4/15. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 REMBRANDT PATENT INNOVATIONS LLC, and REMBRANDT SECURE COMPUTING, LP, 12 13 14 15 No. C 14-05094 WHA (lead) No. C 14-05093 WHA (consolidated) Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Defendant. / 16 17 The complaint in this action alleged that Apple infringed the patent-in-suit by making, 18 using, importing, offering for sale, or selling products “including but not limited to” an initial 19 set of eighteen specifically-identified products, plus other “reasonably similar products.” 20 Plaintiffs also accused those products in their initial infringement contentions. Plaintiffs have 21 twice amended their infringement contentions to add products released since commencing this 22 action, and they seek leave to add new products once more (this would be the sixth amendment 23 to the infringement contentions). 24 Rule 15(d) provides that a supplemental complaint, not merely an amended complaint, is 25 necessary to set out “any transaction, transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the 26 date” of the complaint. Plaintiffs have never sought to file a supplemental complaint in 27 connection with their amended infringement contentions. 28 The amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on December 1. The amended rules eliminated Form 18, which had set a bare pleading standard for claims of direct 1 patent infringement, notably allowing a patent claim to survive a Rule 12 motion even if the 2 patent owner did not specifically name the accused products. The amended rules apply to 3 pending cases “insofar as just and practical.” 4 The parties did not address whether plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to their 5 infringement contentions have any implications for their complaint, particularly in light of the 6 elimination of Form 18. 7 By TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8 AT NOON, the parties will please file supplemental briefs 8 NOT TO EXCEED FIVE PAGES 9 above. Please also state whether a junior lawyer four or fewer years out of law school will double-spaced with no footnotes addressing the issues detailed conduct the argument, if allowed, a factor the Court will take into account in deciding whether 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 to submit the motion on the papers or not. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: December 4, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 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?