MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 569

ORDER DENYING FREESCALE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY re 508 MOTION to Strike or for Leave to File a Reply filed by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/23/14. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

MEDIATEK INC.,

7
8

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 11-cv-5341 YGR
ORDER DENYING FREESCALE’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY (DKT. NO.
508)

9

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant.
Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) brings this Motion to Strike or for
Leave to File a Reply. (Dkt. No. 508.) Freescale moves to strike certain portions of MediaTek’s
Opposition To Freescale’s Brief Regarding Admissibility Of Certain Exhibits (Opposition), Docket
No. 496-5, or, in the alternative, for leave to file a reply. Specifically, Defendant Freescale moves
the Court to strike portions of MediaTek’s Opposition at 1:5-12 and 1:19-6:5, Dkt. No. 496-5,
containing untimely objections and arguments.
First, Freescale argues that MediaTek’s objections to Freescale’s licenses on the ground of
relevance are untimely and filed in contravention of this Court’s pretrial orders. Essentially
Freescale contends that, because MediaTek’s objections were phrased as “beyond the scope of the
expert reports” and “lacking a proper sponsoring witness,” it waived relevance, and particularly the
issue of comparability of the licenses, such that it cannot raise such an objection now.
The motion is DENIED on these grounds. The grounds for objection were sufficiently raised
by MediaTek both in writing and in the argument on the record. (See Dkt. No. 491 [Transcript of
March 7, 2014 Pretrial Conference] at 78-81.)
Second, Freescale argues that MediaTek improperly included additional argument in its
Opposition on the PTX-547 “Crown Jewels” document. The reference to that document as part of
MediaTek’s opposition brief was made in the context of discussion of the admissibility of the license

1

agreements and not on the admissibility of the “Crown Jewels” document itself. The motion to strike

2

the reference is DENIED.

3

Freescale’s request, in the alternative, to file an additional reply is DENIED. The Court

4

permitted each side to file one additional brief on the admissibility issues of certain exhibits, as

5

stated on the record. Freescale has not established good cause to permit any additional briefing.

6

Should the Court find that it needs the parties to submit anything additional on these issues, it will so

7

notify them.

8

This Order terminates Docket No. 508.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Dated: June 23, 2014
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2