Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 204

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (denying (164) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:18-cv-00363-WHA; denying (173) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:18-cv-00360-WHA; denying (194) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA; denying (184) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:18-cv-00572-WHA). Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
UNILOC 2017 LLC, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 18-00360 WHA
No. C 18-00363 WHA
No. C 18-00365 WHA
No. C 18-00572 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
/

16

In deciding motions, a judge often bases his or her ruling on a point that is not precisely

17

briefed by either side. Counsel should always be aware of this judicial necessity and should not

18

only brief the precise points expressly raised by the other side (or themselves), but should also

19

brief those points reasonably in play as a result of the overall dispute. Defendant Apple, Inc.

20

has no one but itself to blame for failing to brief the point it now raises on reconsideration. The

21

Court’s ruling was a foreseeable variation on the points in play. As a concession to the

22

shortness of life, we cannot relitigate every order.

23

The Court has reviewed the voluminous materials submitted on Apple’s motion for

24

reconsideration (Case No. 18-360, Dkt. No. 173). The judge did the best he could to make

25

sense out of the original motion and its record, including the Fortress agreement. The

26

undersigned is not persuaded that he got it wrong, so the order will stand with only this caveat:

27

at the final pretrial conference (and not before), Apple will be allowed to ask that the issue of

28

default and cure be tried to the jury (or possibly the judge). Such a trial issue may or may not

1

be revisited and included. Plaintiffs may oppose the request at that time. In the meantime,

2

discovery will be allowed from plaintiffs and Fortress on the issues of default and cure and

3

those parties’ understandings of the agreement, including its drafting history. Except to this

4

limited extent, Apple’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: August 7, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2