TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 621

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/6/15. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC., 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING Plaintiffs, 7 8 No. C 10-2590 CW v. MOTIONPOINT CORP., Defendant. ________________________________/ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs TransPerfect Global, Inc.; TransPerfect Translations International, Inc.; and, Inc. (collectively, TransPerfect) move for an order to show cause why Defendant MotionPoint Corporation should not be held in civil contempt for violations of this Court’s permanent injunction prohibiting infringement of TransPerfect’s U.S. Patent No. 6,857,022, the Scanlan patent. On April 2, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the matter. Following the hearing, the Court ordered MotionPoint to provide TransPerfect with documentation of its compliance monitoring and to submit declarations or other documentation attesting to its control of the implementation of the re-design. The parties were further directed to file briefs addressing the documentation produced by TransPerfect. In its post-hearing briefing, MotionPoint states that it has already rolled out TransMotion 3.0, its further re-design 1 fashioned to address both the JavaScript and reliability concerns. 2 According to MotionPoint, the confirmation pop-up appears whether 3 or not JavaScript is enabled. 4 Docket No. 599, at ¶ 24-33. In addition, MotionPoint contends that 5 TransMotion 3.0 is less susceptible to technical failures and that 6 its “automated scripts now visit customer websites twice per day 7 on average” to ensure that the re-design is working properly. 8 at 24-37. 9 Travieso April 30, 2015 Dec., TransPerfect argues that this is not sufficient. Id. It United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 describes MotionPoint’s contention that its latest re-design is 11 less susceptible to failure as a “conclusory assertion.” 12 TransPerfect Brief, Docket No. 616 at 8. 13 respond to this argument in its brief and simply cites to the same 14 portions of Travieso’s declaration that TransPerfect contends are 15 deficient. 16 automated scripts are deficient because they fail to catch all 17 pop-up failures that are identified by other reports or manual 18 testing.1 19 arguments. 20 MotionPoint does not TransPerfect further argues that MotionPoint’s Again, MotionPoint does not respond to TransPerfect’s MotionPoint has failed to provide sufficient information to 21 determine whether its further re-design coupled with its automated 22 scripts are sufficient to prevent future non-compliance. 23 Accordingly, MotionPoint is directed to provide additional 24 information detailing the re-design and how it prevents 25 26 27 28 The Court notes that TransPerfect’s citations for this proposition and many others in its briefs are to entire documents, which comprise hundreds of pages. Such citations do little to assist the Court in assessing the merits of its arguments. 1 2 1 infringement. 2 further information regarding its automated scripts, their 3 efficacy and how frequently they check each website. 4 week of the date of this order, MotionPoint shall file a brief of 5 no more than ten pages along with supporting declarations 6 providing this information. 7 brief of no more than ten pages within one week thereafter. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 In addition, MotionPoint is directed to provide Within one Transperfect shall file a responsive IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 11 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?