U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 1110

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenSUMMARIZING RULINGS ON (docket nos. 947, and 951 in case 4:10-cv-03724-CW and docket no. 481 in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW) MOTION TO LIMIT ASSERTED CLAIMS AND (484 in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW) MOTION TO ENJOIN. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC, No. C 10-3724 CW Plaintiff, ORDER SUMMARIZING RULINGS ON MOTION TO LIMIT ASSERTED CLAIMS AND MOTION TO ENJOIN (Docket Nos. 947, 951) 5 6 7 v. ACER, INC., et al., Defendants, 8 ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 Intervenors. 11 ________________________________/ 12 U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al., 16 Defendants, ________________________________/ 17 18 No. C 10-5254 CW ORDER SUMMARIZING RULINGS ON MOTION TO LIMIT ASSERTED CLAIMS, MOTION TO ENJOIN, AND MOTION TO STRIKE (Docket Nos. 481, 484) In these patent infringement suits, on February 27, 2014, the 19 Court held a case management conference and ruled on several 20 motions brought by several Intervenors1 and Defendants2 in these 21 cases. The rulings are summarized below. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Intel Corporation, Marvell Semiconductor Inc., Atheros Communications Inc., and Sigma Designs, Inc. 2 Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation, Apple, Inc., ASUS Computer International, Asustek Computer Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., Dell Inc., Fujitsu Ltd., Fujitsu America, Inc., Gateway Inc., Hewlett Packard Co., Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. 1 In both Case No. 10-3724 (the Acer case) and Case No. 10-5254 (the AT&T case), Defendants and Intervenors move to limit the 3 number of asserted claims asserted by Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet 4 Innovations, LLC (USEI). 5 limitation is appropriate. 6 close of fact discovery, USEI shall make an Initial Election of 7 Asserted Claims limited to sixteen claims per chip supplier 8 implicated in USEI’s infringement contentions in these cases,3 9 including those who are parties to the suit (Intervenors Intel, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 2 Marvell, Atheros, and Sigma) and those who are not (Oracle, SiS, 11 and National Semiconductor). 12 exceed thirty claims total. 13 The Court finds that a two-tiered Accordingly, seven days after the USEI’s initial election shall not Ten days after USEI has made its Initial Election of Asserted 14 Claims, Defendants shall make a Prior Art References Election of 15 no more than twenty-five prior art references total. 16 Fourteen days after all dispositive orders have issued, USEI 17 will further narrow its case to no more than twelve claims per 18 chip supplier, whether present or not, for a total of no more than 19 twenty claims against all parties. 20 The limits set by the Court are not immutable. Claims may be 21 reintroduced upon a good cause showing by USEI that those claims 22 raise distinct issues of infringement and invalidity. 23 Next, Intervenor Intel and non-party Lenovo move to enjoin 24 USEI from pursuing duplicative claims in the Eastern District of 25 Texas against Lenovo (Lenovo case). 26 stayed at the parties’ request, subject to either party reopening The Lenovo case is currently 27 3 28 See Acer case, Docket No. 1009, Ex. A. 2 1 the case.4 2 liability to USEI in the Lenovo case would depend wholly on 3 Lenovo’s use of Intel’s chip, and thus agreed to be bound by the 4 infringement and invalidity findings in the Northern District of 5 California litigation. 6 to enjoin USEI from seeking to reopen the Lenovo case without 7 first seeking this Court’s approval. 8 transfer the Lenovo case to this district, however, they may do 9 so. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 At the hearing, Lenovo asserted that its potential Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate If the parties agree to Lastly, Sigma moves to strike as untimely USEI’s infringement 11 contentions served on January 13, 2014. 12 infringement contentions exceed the bounds of Sigma’s counterclaim 13 for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and USEI has not 14 shown good cause for amending its infringement theories. 15 Accordingly, the Court grants Sigma’s motion to strike. 16 USEI’s January 13, 2014 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 5/20/2014 19 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-00612-JDL (E.D. Tex. 2013), Docket Nos. 63, 64. The Texas court stayed the Lenovo case because the Northern District of California litigation before the undersigned “involves the same patents-in-suit and . . . is likely to moot . . . or, at a minimum, streamline the issues presented” in the Lenovo case. Id., Docket No. 64 at 1. 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?