Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. et al

Filing 234

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying without prejudice 218 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. The hearing on the motion is vacated. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP

8

Case No. 15-cv-04525-EMC

(SINGAPORE) PTE LTD.,,
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Docket No. 218

ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14

Plaintiff Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (“Avago”) has filed a patent

15

infringement suit against Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International

16

(collectively, “ASUS”). Currently pending before the Court is ASUS’s motion for Rule 11

17

sanctions. In its motion, ASUS contends that Avago should be sanctioned because (1) it served

18

deficient preliminary infringement contentions (“PICs”), see, e.g., Mot. at 13 (arguing that

19

Avago’s “infringement claims [have] no reasonable, factual basis, as demonstrated by the

20

significant deficiencies in Avago’s PICs”), and because (2) it did not remove certain products

21

from its accused product list which is inconsistent with a disclaimer related to Intel in its

22

complaint. See, e.g., Mot. at 11, 15 (arguing that 159 of the more than 200 accused products

23

should be removed from the lawsuit based on Avago’s Intel disclaimer, as stated in its complaint).

24

ASUS’s motion is denied because it is procedurally improper and/or premature.1 If Avago

25

served deficient PICs, then ASUS should have filed a discovery motion or even, potentially, a

26

motion for summary judgment. Similarly, if Avago should have removed additional products

27
28

1

For purposes of this opinion, the Court assumes that ASUS’s motion is timely.

1

from its accused product list, then ASUS should have filed a motion for summary judgment. The

2

bottom line is that the Court will not make a judgment on the substantive merits of this case in the

3

context of a motion for sanctions.
Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED and the hearing on the motion

4
5

is VACATED. This ruling does not preclude ASUS from raising the same or similar issues

6

through a different procedural vehicle. Nor does this ruling preclude ASUS from filing a new

7

Rule 11 motion after the merits of this case have been adjudicated. Finally, the Court’s ruling

8

herein casts no prejudgment on any motion to amend the PICs, should such a motion be filed by

9

Avago. To the extent Avago seeks fees for having to oppose the current Rule 11 motion, that

10

request is also denied.2
This order disposes of Docket No. 218.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: August 18, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

The Court shall shortly issue rulings on the motions to file under seal related to the motion for
sanctions.
2