Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.

Filing 286

ORDER GRANTING 262 MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CONTOUR IP HOLDING, LLC,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

GOPRO, INC.,

10

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04738-WHO
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY PENDING INTER PARTES
REVIEW
Re: Dkt. No. 262

12
13

INTRODUCTION
GoPro Inc. (“GoPro”) seeks to stay this patent infringement litigation until its inter partes

14
15

review (“IPR”) petitions are resolved before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).

16

According to GoPro, a stay is appropriate because the IPR process might moot all of Contour IP

17

Holdings, LLC’s (“CIPH”) claims, without undue prejudice to CIPH or disruption at this stage of

18

the case. CIPH opposes any stay, asserting that the PTAB is unaware of recently discovered

19

misrepresentations and fraud allegedly perpetrated by GoPro.1 There is little doubt that a ruling

20

from the PTAB will simplify the issues here, and there is scant prejudice to CIPH in a brief stay

21

while the PTAB considers the claims (again). This case is at an early enough stage to warrant the

22

stay. For the reasons discussed below, GoPro’s motion is GRANTED.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

CIPH filed its opposition under seal, including portions referring to Exhibits 6 and 15 which are
documents designated highly confidential by GoPro. GoPro filed a separate declaration not
seeking to seal portions already cited in CIPH’s opposition, but instead requesting the remaining
portions of Exhibits 6 and 15 be redacted. GoPro simply asserts these portions are “not
insignificant” and “irrelevant,” but has not explained why portions not cited should be sealed. As
GoPro has been apprised already in this litigation, it must provide good cause to preserve sealed
materials attached to non-dispositive briefs. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (“‘good cause’ suffices to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed
discovery material attached to nondispositive motions.”). Accordingly, the motion to file
materials under seal is DENIED. See Dkt. No. 270.

1

BACKGROUND
In November 2014, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 (“the ’954 Patent”)

2
3

and 8,896,694 (“the ’694 Patent”) to non-party Contour LLC. The patents claimed a priority date

4

of September 13, 2010, making the one-year period for prior art September 13, 2009. Contour

5

LLC, as the then-assignee of the patents, sued GoPro in the United States District Court for the

6

District of Utah in January 2015 alleging infringement of the ’694 and ’954 patents. See Contour,

7

LLC v. GoPro, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14–cv–864 (D. Utah 2015).
In response, GoPro filed IPR petitions challenging the validity of the patents in April 2015.

8
9

See Oppo. Ex. 1, GoPro Appeal Brief at 7 (Dkt. No. 270-4). It relied on a 2009 GoPro catalog
(the “Catalog”) as prior art to challenge the validity on obviousness grounds. See id. at 7. It also

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

introduced the declaration of a GoPro employee, Damon Jones, who attested that the Catalog was

12

made available to the public at a Tucker Rocky Dealer Show before September 13, 2009. See

13

Oppo. Ex. 3, Jones Decl. ¶ 9 (Dkt. No. 270-7).
In October 2015, the PTAB granted GoPro’s IPR petitions, finding that it was reasonably

14
15

likely that claims 1, 2, and 11-30 of the ’954 Patent and claims 1-20 of the ’694 Patent were not

16

patentable. When GoPro moved for a stay, Contour LLC voluntarily dismissed the case on

17

November 30, 2015. See Utah Dkt. No. 57. That same day, however, CIPH filed a similar action

18

against GoPro in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. See Contour IP

19

Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Case No. 1:15–cv–1108 (D. Del. 2015). GoPro moved for a stay

20

pending IPR proceedings once again, and the court granted the motion in July 2016. See Del. Dkt.

21

No. 70.

22

In October 2016, the PTAB issued a final decision against GoPro’s allegations that the

23

claims were unpatentable, finding that GoPro did not prove that the Catalog was a prior art printed

24

publication. IPR2015-01080, Paper 55, at 27–28. However, the PTAB stopped short of reaching

25

the merits of GoPro’s unpatentability claims. See id. GoPro appealed the decision to the Federal

26

Circuit. See GoPro, Inc., v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 2017–1894 (Fed. Cir.) (Dkt. No. 1).

27
28

Meanwhile, the Delaware court lifted the stay after the PTAB’s decision, and in November
2016, GoPro filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern
2

1

District of California. See Del. Dkt. No. 83. In July 2017, the motion to transfer was granted and

2

the case was assigned to me. See Del. Dkt. No. 174. GoPro moved to dismiss, which I denied.

3

See Dkt. No. 213. The parties then prepared for claim construction. A technology tutorial and

4

Markman hearing were held in June. On July 16, 2018 I issued an Order Regarding Claim

5

Construction. See Dkt. No. 251.

6

On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s final decision

7

pursuant to GoPro’s appeal. See GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 898 F.3d 1170 (Fed.

8

Cir. 2018). The month before the remand, however, CIPH submitted a Federal Rule of Appellate

9

Procedure 28(j) letter regarding supplemental authority to the Clerk of the Court, attempting to
alert it to a reversal in the testimony of Mr. Jones on the prior art publication—and potential false

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

representations by GoPro. See Oppo. Ex. 26, McDermott Letter. This letter was not referenced in

12

the Federal Circuit opinion. See Oppo. Ex. 28 at 6 (“The parties do not dispute any of the facts or

13

evidence presented by GoPro regarding the distribution of its catalog.”).

14

Shortly thereafter, in August 2018, CIPH filed a combined petition for rehearing and

15

rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s decision to vacate. GoPro, Inc., v. Contour IP Holding

16

LLC, No. 2017–1894 (Fed. Cir.) (Dkt. No. 41). The parties briefed the petition for rehearing, and

17

the Federal Circuit took the matter under submission. The court ultimately denied the petition for

18

rehearing on November 1, 2018. Gopro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 898 F.3d 1170, 1177

19

(Fed. Cir. 2018), opinion modified and superseded, No. 2017-1894, 2018 WL 5660650 (Fed. Cir.

20

Nov. 1, 2018), and opinion withdrawn on denial of reh’g sub nom. GOPRO, INC., v. CONTOUR

21

IP HOLDING LLC, No. 2017–1894, 2018 WL 5777326 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2018) (“On remand, the

22

[PTAB] shall consider the GoPro Catalog as prior art and evaluate the merits of GoPro’s

23

unpatentability claims.”).

24

DISCUSSION

25

Three factors are relevant in deciding whether a civil action should be stayed pending IPR

26

proceedings: “(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether

27

a stay would simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would

28

unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party.” PersonalWeb
3

1

Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“PersonalWeb II”). These

2

factors are “general considerations that are helpful in determining whether to order a stay,” but

3

“ultimately the Court must decide stay requests on a case-by-case basis.” Asetek Holdings, Inc v.

4

Cooler Master Co., Case No. 13–cv–00457–JST, 2014 WL 1350813, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3,

5

2014).

6

I.

STAGE OF THE CASE

7

The earlier the stage of litigation, the more favored the stay. See Telemac Corp. v.

8

Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Courts often weigh a stay for IPR

9

proceedings considering whether: (i) “parties have engaged in costly expert discovery and
dispositive motion practice;” (ii) “the court has issued its claim construction order;” and (iii) “the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

court has set a trial date.” PersonalWeb II. This patent infringement litigation is almost three

12

years old; it is not in its most early stages, but it also has yet to reach the more significant and

13

costly work that lies ahead.

14

The parties give dissimilar accounts of the scope of discovery completed so far, as well as

15

which party bears the blame for any purported tactical delay. CIPH contends that in the past year,

16

five depositions have been taken, sixteen third party subpoenas served, and thousands of

17

documents produced. See Oppo. at 18–19. It claims that expert discovery has begun; its technical

18

expert is reviewing records and the parties exchanged damages contentions from damages experts.

19

Id. at 19. On the other hand, GoPro emphasizes that no expert discovery has begun, no party

20

depositions have been taken, and expert reports have not been served. See Mot. to Stay at 6 (Dkt.

21

No. 262). It also asserts that no third-party depositions have occurred so far in this case. See

22

Reply at 14 (Dkt. No. 278).

23

Even accepting CIPH’s perspective regarding discovery, the stage of this case favors a

24

stay. I have not yet set discovery or dispositive motion deadlines, or a trial date. See Personal

25

Web Technologies, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 13–cv–01356–EJD, 2014 WL 116340, at *4

26

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (“PersonalWeb I”) (granting a stay in part because the “parties have yet

27

to engage in the significant and costly work of conducting expert discovery and preparing

28

summary judgment motions.”); Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 12–cv–
4

1

05501–SI, 2014 WL 121640, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (denying stay in part because “a trial

2

date has been set for February 23, 2015…and discovery is well underway.”). Although claim

3

construction is complete and some substantial discovery has already occurred, several costlier

4

stages of pretrial preparation remain, not to mention the trial itself. As in PersonalWeb I and II,

5

even with a lengthy procedural history in other courts like Utah, Delaware, the PTAB, and the

6

Federal Circuit, the most significant aspects of the litigation are still ahead. This case is not too

7

advanced to make a stay improper or untenable.

8

II.

9

SIMPLIFYING THE ISSUES
A stay is favored under the second factor when “the outcome of the reexamination would

be likely to assist the court in determining patent validity and, if the claims were canceled in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reexamination, would eliminate the need to try the infringement issue.” Evolutionary Intelligence

12

LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 13–cv–04201–WHA, 2014 WL 93954, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014)

13

(internal quotations and citations omitted). CIPH recognizes that in almost every motion to stay

14

pending IPR, courts find the PTAB’s decision is likely to simplify the issues because “if the PTAB

15

invalidates any of the claims at issue in the IPR petition, those claims will be mooted in the

16

litigation.” DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14–cv–05330–HSG, 2015 WL 1967878, at

17

*4 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015).

18

Here, GoPro’s IPR petition met the “reasonable likelihood” standard for claims 1, 2, and

19

11-30 of the ’954 Patent and claims 1-20 of the ’694 Patent, after the PTAB granted the petitions

20

in October 2015. After the PTAB found that GoPro did not establish that the Catalog was a prior

21

art printed publication, the Federal Circuit disagreed and vacated and remanded the case to the

22

PTAB for a merits determination. After the parties briefed the motion to stay in this case, CIPH’s

23

pending petitions for rehearing were denied by the Federal Circuit and the case is again

24

proceeding in the PTAB. See Statement of Recent Decisions, Exs. A–D (Dkt. No. 283).

25

Therefore, “[e]ither the claims, already found reasonably likely to be invalid, will become moot, or

26

the Court will have the benefit of the PTAB’s findings.” PersonalWeb I.

27
28

CIPH contends that because there is a false record before the PTAB, there is no benefit to
its findings and there will not be a simplification of the issues. It insists that in the IPR
5

1

proceedings, GoPro falsely asserted unpatentability in reliance on the GoPro Catalog as a prior art

2

publication based on a declaration from GoPro employee Damon Jones. See Oppo. at 5–6. GoPro

3

claims that the Catalog referenced a wireless remote control. Id. In his declaration, Jones stated

4

that GoPro made the Catalog available to customers through its website, direct mail, and other

5

distributions before the date of September 13, 2009 at the Tucker Rocky Dealer Show. See id. at

6

Ex. 3 Jones Decl. ¶ 11.

7

For whatever reason, CIPH did not take Jones’s deposition during the IPR process. It did

8

during this litigation. Jones testified that he could not remember if the Catalog he distributed at

9

the trade show was on the GoPro website at the time, and he could not remember if GoPro
competitors were at the Tucker Rocky Dealer Show. See id. at Ex. 6, Jones Dep. Tran., at 33:2–

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

35:2, 101:2–102:13, 197:10–17.

12

CIPH contends that it apprised the Federal Circuit of these new facts regarding Jones’s

13

testimony in a letter to supplement the record. See id. at Ex. 26 (“Mr. Jones recently testified,

14

however, he has no such personal knowledge” that the GoPro Catalog distributed at the trade show

15

was on the website after the trade show.). However, the Federal Circuit’s opinion did not

16

reference it. Instead, the court stated, “the parties do not dispute any of the facts or evidence

17

presented by GoPro regarding the distribution of its catalog,” despite CIPH’s statements to the

18

contrary. See id. at Ex. 28 at 6. CIPH raised this issue again in its petition for rehearing, and the

19

court again denied the petition. See Statement of Recent Decisions, Exs. A–D (Dkt. No. 283).

20

In addition to the letter to the Federal Circuit regarding Jones’s deposition, CIPH engaged

21

in other investigations about which it did not and allegedly could not make a part of the record at

22

the PTAB or Federal Circuit. For instance, CIPH examined the GoPro Catalog and found that the

23

Internet Archive had no record of the Catalog during an image capture in June 2009 or August

24

2009. See id. at Ex. 9, Decl. of C. Butler, at Ex. A at 73–74 (June 26, 2009 capture); 70–72 (June

25

29, 2009 capture); 67–69 (August 3, 2009 capture). A nearly identical catalog to the one at issue

26

was identified in October 2009, and its metadata showed the page was created on September 22,

27

2009. See id. at Ex. 10.

28

When CIPH requested an original electronic version of the Catalog, GoPro objected. See
6

1

id. at Ex. 12, GoPro’s Responses at 6 (Response to RFP No. 87). CIPH then had a private

2

investigator attempt to locate the wireless remote control image on the internet by applying

3

proprietary techniques, without success. See id. at Ex. 13, May 24, 2018 Pipkins Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.

4

The investigator concluded that “there was no wireless remote control available in 2009-2011 as it

5

was shown in the GoPro July 2009 Sales Catalog.” Id.

6

CIPH also investigated the printed paper Catalog to determine if it was authentically

7

printed during the period that GoPro claims it was. CIPH hired a forensic chemist to

8

microscopically examine the document; he concluded that it was unlikely the Catalog was printed

9

in 2009 as GoPro asserted. See id. at Ex. 19, Speckin Decl. ¶ 16. Specifically, the forensic
chemist explained that before 2000, certain printers embedded a code identifying the machine and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the date as a counterfeit protection, which was absent on the inspection of the Catalog. See id. ¶

12

12. He also concluded that it was unlikely that a FedEx/Kinkos, where the Catalog was allegedly

13

printed, would have printers without the counterfeit protection. Id. ¶ 14.

14

As I have just summarized, CIPH extensively described the fraud and misrepresentations

15

that GoPro allegedly committed during the IPR process. GoPro vigorously opposes the entire

16

exercise as an excuse to relitigate the authenticity of the Catalog. The Federal Circuit had the

17

opportunity to review CIPH’s characterization of Jones’s “recanted” testimony and did not change

18

its view of the case. Similarly, I do not find the argument compelling at this stage. Nor do I agree

19

with the significance CIPH gives to its expert declarations.

20

Jones’s testimony does not demonstrate that he recanted his prior statements or was

21

intentionally misrepresenting his understanding of the Catalog during the IPR process. He

22

testified that he could not remember if there were competitors at the trade show or exactly when in

23

2009 GoPro put the Catalog on the website. See Oppo. at Ex. 6, Jones Dep. Tran., at 101:2–

24

102:13, 197:10–17; see also Reply Ex. E at 33:1–24. But he repeatedly stated that he distributed

25

the Catalog at issue during the Trucker Rocky Dealer Show and explained why he was certain of

26

that fact. See Reply, Ex. E. at 121:15–122:7 (stating he recognized Ronnie Renner on the cover

27

and “The contents of [the Catalog] as well.”); 229:2–9 (stating he recognized the picture of Ronnie

28

Renner); 232:12–233:10 (confirming he had a specific memory of talking with customers); 247:6–
7

1

8 (“I recognize the contents of this catalog…as being what we had at the show, what we passed

2

out.”); 340:18–341:7 (confirming he handed out the Catalog to customers).

3

As for the expert opinions, CIPH draws much broader conclusions than I would. First,
Pipkin’s declaration describes using “specialized proprietary technologies” to try and locate web

5

artifacts related to the GoPro wireless remote control. See Oppo. at Ex. 13, Pipkin Decl. ¶ 4. That

6

this search using undisclosed “proprietary technologies” was not successful for finding the remote

7

control while other product part numbers used in the Catalog were located (without more

8

explanation) does not mean that the Catalog was not posted on the internet. CIPH ignores that

9

Jones was sure he distributed the Catalog to trade show attendees. Second, Speckin’s declaration

10

identified a lack of an embedded code on the Catalog that is used with certain printers and copiers

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

and presumed that a FedEx/Kinkos would have that type of printer; he did not explain why. See

12

id. at Ex. 19 Speckin Decl. ¶ 12. Even accepting this presumption, Speckin only concludes that it

13

was “unlikely” that the Catalog was printed where GoPro claims it was. See id. ¶¶ 14–15. This

14

provides little evidentiary basis to assert an intentional misrepresentation to the PTAB and says

15

nothing about whether the Catalog was distributed at the trade show.

16

The more difficult question that neither party addressed directly during the hearing is

17

whether CIPH’s new evidence will ever be introduced in the PTAB proceedings. CIPH exercised

18

its own strategic judgment not to conduct Jones’s deposition until after the record was closed in

19

that case. After denying CIPH’s rehearing petitions, and having been informed of CIPH’s new

20

evidence, the Federal Circuit modified its opinion but reached the same outcome. The court still

21

stated, “based upon Mr. Jones’ testimony [that the dealer show was attended by dealers, retailers,

22

and customers of POV video cameras], the evidence provided by GoPro regarding the Trucker

23

Rocky Dealer Show, and the evidence of the Tucker Rocky Distributing website, we conclude that

24

GoPro met its burden to show that its catalog is a printed publication under § 102(b).” Statement

25

of Recent Decisions, Ex. B at 10. CIPH’s new evidence goes to Jones’s credibility, but mainly

26

addresses the Catalog’s web presence. The Federal Circuit’s conclusion considered more than

27

whether the Catalog on the internet.

28

CIPH’s arguments suggest caution in accepting the ruling of the PTAB on a record that is
8

1

not the same here. However, none of CIPH’s arguments undermine my conclusion that a PTAB

2

decision would still be at least somewhat helpful. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of

3

granting a stay.

4

III.

UNDUE PREJUDICE OR TACTICAL ADVANTAGE

5

The third factor is whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical

6

disadvantage to the nonmoving party. This district applies a four sub-factor analysis considering:

7

(i) “the timing of the reexamination request;” (ii) “the timing of the request for stay;” (iii) “the

8

status of reexamination proceedings;” and (iv) “the relationship of the parties.” Asetek Holdings,

9

Inc, 2014 WL 1350813, at *4. CIPH does not argue directly within the context of these factors.
Instead it asserts prejudice stemming from both the lack of documents that GoPro has produced in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

this litigation and evidence that allegedly was purposefully wiped from Jones’s computer by

12

GoPro. See Oppo. at 21. CIPH also claims that Contour LLC is a direct competitor to GoPro and

13

will be harmed by a stay.

14

I am not convinced that undue prejudice will result from a stay. First, there is almost

15

always a risk of prejudice from delay because evidence can be lost or witnesses’ memories can be

16

forgotten. See Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12–cv–3970–RMW, 2013

17

WL 5225522, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) (stating there is “no question that a delay of a year

18

or longer…could result in prejudice.”) (emphasis in original). Apart from Jones’s computer data

19

that was already lost, however, CIPH does not argue that other evidence will be lost, or is at risk

20

of loss, and cannot be accessed elsewhere. Even if this was the case, CIPH has not demonstrated

21

that “the risk of evidence loss is greater here than in any other case and that it amounts to more

22

than the delay inherent to the reexamination process.” Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Yelp Inc,

23

No. 13–cv–03587–DMR, 2013 WL 6672451, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013).

24

Second, CIPH is not a direct competitor to GoPro. CIPH is a non-practicing entity that

25

does not compete in any market with GoPro and therefore it “cannot be prejudiced by a stay

26

because monetary damages provide adequate redress for infringement.” Pragmatus AV, LLC v.

27

Facebook, Inc., No. 11–cv–02168–EJD, 2011 WL 4802958, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011).

28

CIPH briefly remarks that because Contour LLC is a direct competitor with GoPro, this
9

1

consideration disfavors a stay. It is not clear that the undue prejudice factor considers the status of

2

non-parties, but assuming Contour LLC was a direct competitor with GoPro, this district still

3

“require[s] evidence to substantiate an argument that direct competition will result in prejudice to

4

the non-moving party.” Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., No. 13–cv–03133–SBA, 2017 WL 1150283,

5

at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted). CIPH does not

6

provide evidence that Contour LLC is in direct competition with GoPro besides making the claim

7

in its opposition, and it fails to show that CIPH’s competitive position would be prejudiced. Id.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, GoPro’s motion to stay the case is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2018

12
13
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10