AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. et al v. TiVo, Inc.

Filing 78

ORDER, Motions terminated: 64 MOTION for an Order Scheduling an Earlier Hearing on TiVo's Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination (Dkt. No. 63) MOTION for an Order Scheduling an Earlier Hearing on TiVo's Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination (Dkt. No. 63) filed by TiVo, Inc... Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/29/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2010)

AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. et al v. TiVo, Inc.

Doc. 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I, et al., 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case No: C 10-01059 SBA ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR ORDER SCHEDULING AN EARLIER HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO STAY PENDING REEXAMINATION Dkt. 64

Plaintiffs, vs.

9 TIVO, INC., 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant.

Plaintiffs filed this patent infringement suit against Defendant on March 12, 2010. The claim construction hearing in this matter is scheduled for January 27, 2011. Presently before the Court is Defendant's Administrative Request for Order Scheduling an Earlier Hearing on its Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination ("Request"), filed on December 6, 2010. Dkt. 64. Defendant requests that the hearing on its Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination ("Motion to Stay"), which Defendant filed simultaneously with its Request and noticed for hearing on March 8, 2011, be set for hearing prior to the January 27, 2011 claim construction hearing, on the ground that the Motion for Stay "seeks to save judicial resources that will be expended on tasks that the reexaminations may render moot, including the claim construction hearing ...." Id. at 2. In its Request, Defendant indicates that on December 3, 2010, it filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office petitions for reexamination of all four patents-in-suit. The Court notes that Defendant filed its Request on the same day that Plaintiffs filed their Opening Claim Construction Brief, and Defendant has failed to explain why it waited until December 3, 2010 to file their reexamination petitions. As noted by Plaintiffs in their opposition to Defendant's Request, Defendant's unexplained delay has forced it to seek an expedited hearing on its Motion to Stay, in view of the upcoming claim construction hearing.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Nevertheless, if it is determined that Defendant's Motion to Stay has merit, it could obviate the need to proceed with the claim construction hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendant's Administrative Request for Order Scheduling an Earlier Hearing on its Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination is DENIED. Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay shall be filed by January 14, 2011. Defendant's reply in support of its Motion to Stay shall be filed by January 21, 2011. 2. The March 8, 2011 motion hearing on Defendant's Motion to Stay is VACATED. In the event the Court determines that a hearing on the motion is necessary, it will notify the parties accordingly. Otherwise, this matter will be deemed under submission on the date Defendant's reply is due. 3. The January 27, 2011 claim construction hearing is VACATED. After adjudication of Defendant's Motion to Stay, the Court will schedule a further case management conference, if necessary, to discuss a new hearing date for the claim construction hearing. The January 7, 2011 deadline for Plaintiff to file its Reply Claim Construction Brief remains unchanged. 4. This Order terminates Docket 64. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 29, 2010 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-2-