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)

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 Translations.com, 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