Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 1478


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 TESSERA, INC., Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 No. C 05-4063 CW v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et. al., Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE (Docket No. 1473) AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS / 11 On June 16, 2014, Defendants STMicroelectronics, Inc. and 12 STMicroelectronics N.V. filed a motion to submit a ten page 13 supplemental brief addressing the Supreme Court’s June 2, 2014 14 decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 15 2120 (2014). In Nautilus, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal 16 Circuit’s decision and articulated a new standard on 17 indefiniteness. Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. opposes the motion or, in 18 the alternative, requests that it be afforded the opportunity to 19 respond to the newly-asserted arguments. 20 By Defendants’ own description, presently before the Court 21 are: the parties’ competing proposals for claim construction, 22 Tessera’s motion for summary judgment on indefiniteness, and 23 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The 24 Supreme Court’s new standard on indefiniteness impacts Tessera’s 25 motion for summary judgment on indefiniteness and Defendants’ 26 response to that motion. 27 is warranted. 28 Thus, supplemental briefing on the issue 1 However, Defendants’ proposed supplemental brief not only 2 rebuts Tessera’s summary judgment motion, but also urges the Court 3 to “grant summary judgment that the asserted claims of Tessera’s 4 patents are invalid as indefinite,” which the Court construes as 5 an affirmative summary judgment motion of indefiniteness raised 6 for the first time. 7 to make an additional summary judgment motion after briefing has 8 concluded, they generally must show good cause for the argument’s 9 late inclusion. Docket No. 1473-1 at 8. If Defendants wish Tessera opposes the motion on much the same United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 grounds, arguing that ST never raised an indefiniteness defense 11 during fact or expert discovery and such a defense should be 12 barred under Rule 37. 13 v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)). Docket No. 1476 (citing Yeti By Molly Ltd. 14 Although ST should have made explicit its intention to bring 15 an affirmative summary judgment motion and shown good cause, ST’s 16 justification for not bringing this motion sooner is readily 17 apparent. 18 indefiniteness findings on Tessera’s patents reached by this Court 19 and others. 20 completed summary judgment briefing, and Defendants sought leave 21 to address the issue shortly thereafter, Defendants were justified 22 in not disclosing this defense earlier. 23 F.3d at 1106 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)) (“The information 24 may be introduced if the parties' failure to disclose the required 25 information is substantially justified or harmless.”). 26 Defendants’ new indefiniteness argument will be substantially 27 harmless because Tessera themselves brought a motion on The new indefiniteness standard might alter the Because the new law emerged only after the parties 28 2 Yeti by Molly, Ltd., 259 Allowing 1 indefiniteness, and so both experts should already have examined 2 the issue. 3 Id. Even though ST’s motion for leave to file is not strictly 4 proper procedurally, in the interest of efficiency, the Court 5 admits Defendants’ supplemental brief. 6 page supplemental brief in response no later than ten days after 7 entry of this order. 8 Tessera may file a ten No replies will be permitted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Dated: 6/30/2014 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?