Jones v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/20/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
ALBERT C JONES,

11

Case No. 16-cv-00714-RS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
APPLE, INC., et al.,

14

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AND CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Defendants.
15
16
17

Defendants in this patent infringement action have filed five separate motions to dismiss.1

18

Each of the motions contends, in essence, that plaintiff has failed to allege a viable claim because

19

the patent in suit claims an apparatus that has “a headset portion housing and generally comprising

20

. . . a remote unit worn as a watch . . . .” whereas the allegations of the complaint reveal that none

21

of the accused devices include headsets that “house” or “comprise” a watch. Some of the motions

22

to dismiss raise an additional argument that plaintiff has not, and purportedly cannot, allege that

23

the accused devices include headsets that are “communicably linked” to mobile phones, as they

24

contend the patent requires.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the motions argues that defendants are misconstruing the claims,

25
26
27
28

1

A sixth motion to dismiss, filed by defendant Pebble Technology, Corp., has been mooted by a
settlement and the dismissal of Pebble.

1

but more fundamentally that it would be inappropriate to engage in claim construction at the

2

motion to dismiss stage, for a number of reasons, including that doing so would undermine the

3

intent and structure of the local patent rules. Defendants, in turn, argue the meaning of the claim

4

language is so “readily apparent” that it would not actually be an exercise in claim construction to

5

rule in their favor.

6

District Courts have inherent power to manage their own docket, see, e.g., Ryan v.

7

Gonzales, 133 S.Ct. 696, 708 (2013); Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426 (Fed.Cir. 1988),

8

and are authorized to “consider and take appropriate action” to facilitate the “just, speedy, and

9

inexpensive disposition” of all matters before them, Fed.R.Civ.P. 16; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.
Local Patent Rule 1-3 expressly provides “[t]he Court may modify the obligations or deadlines set

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

forth in these Patent Local Rules based on the circumstances of any particular case . . . .”

12

Under the unique circumstances of this case, it is apparent there are one or two discrete and

13

narrow issues, arguably properly characterized as involving “claim construction” that are

14

potentially dispositive of this action if resolved in defendants’ favor. Additionally, a ruling in

15

plaintiff’s favor on those issues, while not dispositive of the case, likely would advance its

16

ultimate resolution. Additionally, taking up such issues in the context of claim construction rather

17

than under the rubric of motions to dismiss will eliminate any potential procedural prejudice to

18

plaintiff.

19

Accordingly, further consideration of the pending motions to dismiss will be deferred, and

20

proceedings to construe the relevant claim terms will be held, in advance of the time that such

21

matters would ordinarily be taken up under the local patent rules. At a minimum, the Court will

22

entertain claim construction arguments regarding the issues arising from the language, “a headset

23

portion housing and generally comprising . . . a remote unit worn as a watch . . . .” In the event

24

the parties reach agreement that it would appropriate at this juncture also to address the

25

“communicably linked” language, the Court will do so, but in the absence of such an agreement,

26

that issue will be deferred until any further claim construction proceedings that may become

27

necessary.

28

CASE NO.

2

16-cv-00714-RS

Within 15 days of the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer to attempt to

1
2

reach agreement regarding the particular terms to be construed with respect to the “housing and

3

generally comprising” issue, and to determine whether the “communicably linked” issue will also

4

be addressed at this juncture or not. Within 20 days thereafter, plaintiff shall serve and file a claim

5

construction brief, to supplement the arguments he has presented in his oppositions to the motions

6

to dismiss. With 14 days thereafter, defendants may file opposing claim construction briefs,2 with

7

any reply(ies) from plaintiff due 7 days thereafter. The matter will then be set for hearing or

8

submitted for decision, in the Court’s discretion.
The motion hearing set for June 30, 2016 is vacated. The initial case management

9
10

conference is continued to September 22, 2016.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: June 20, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

As contemplated by Patent Local Rule 4-5(b) “each” opposing party may file a response.
Defendants are nevertheless strongly encouraged to file a single, joint brief.

28

CASE NO.

3

16-cv-00714-RS