Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.

Filing 466

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING ( 457 , 462 ) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS JANUARY 15, 2014 ORDER. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC.,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

No. C 11-6121 CW
ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTIONS
FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S
JANUARY 15, 2014
ORDER

v.
TESSERA, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

(Docket Nos. 457,
462)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/

12
Tessera has requested leave to file a motion for
13
clarification of the Court’s January 15, 2014 order addressing the
14
parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.

In that order, the

15
Court noted that there was no motion for summary judgment
16
regarding PTI’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good
17
faith and fair dealing, and so only that claim from PTI’s
18
complaint remains in the case.

Docket No. 447.

19
Tessera contends that it did in fact move for summary
20
judgment on this claim.

Tessera’s notice of motion requests

21
summary judgment on “PTI’s Second Claim for breach of contract and
22
Third Claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
23
fair dealing,” and its memorandum of points and authorities states
24
that summary judgment should be granted on PTI’s implied covenant
25
claim for the same reasons as on PTI’s breach of contract claim.
26
See Docket No. 407.

However, neither PTI nor Tessera’s opposition

27
and reply briefs discuss the issue further.
28

1

At oral argument, the Court questioned the parties about

2

their respective motions for summary judgment.

3

unequivocally stated it was not pursuing a motion for summary

4

judgment against PTI’s breach of the implied covenant claim.1

5

Accordingly, both the Court and presumably PTI understood

6

Tessera’s response to indicate that Tessera was no longer

7

challenging PTI’s breach of the implied covenant claim.

8

has now clarified that it did not intend to waive its challenge at

9

all, despite its statement at oral argument to the contrary.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Tessera

Tessera

The Court finds that Tessera has raised material facts that

11

ought to be considered.

12

file a brief not exceeding five pages to support its motion for

13

summary judgment on PTI’s breach of the implied covenant of good

14

faith and fair dealing claim.

15

seven pages and Tessera may file a reply of up to two pages.

As a result, the Court allows Tessera to

PTI may file an opposition of up to
The

16
17
18

1

20

THE COURT: On the breach of the covenant, I’m having a hard
time keeping track of who moved on whose cause of action, but
you each have a breach of the covenant claim against each
other.

21

MS. SEIGLE (Counsel for Tessera): Correct.

22

THE COURT: Did you move on theirs or on yours?

19

23
24

MS. SEIGLE: We did not move on PTI’s claim for breach of the
implied covenant. They moved on our claim for breach of the
implied covenant.

25
COURT: Okay.
26
27
28

MR. GUY (Counsel for PTI): That’s correct.
Docket No. 444.
2

1

Court will then decide on the papers whether the summary judgment

2

order should be modified.

3

PTI also seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

4

the Court’s January 15, 2014 order.

5

did not consider the possibility that Tessera’s arguments made in

6

seeking a General Exclusion Order (GEO) in 2009 constituted a

7

breach of the TCC License.

8

that time.

9

in the U.S. International Trade Commission” would be a breach, TCC

PTI contends that the Court

PTI contends it was not in breach at

But the TCC License states that “bring[ing] an action

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

License § XIV.A, not making miscellaneous arguments during the

11

course of litigation against others.

12

for a brief period in 2008 to 2009, it is undisputed that PTI

13

willfully withheld royalties, and so “PTI was not a non-breaching

14

party when Tessera purportedly breached, when PTI attempted to

15

terminate, or even now.”

16

not have a right to terminate when it attempted to do so and

17

cannot do so now.

18

reconsideration is denied.

19
20
21

The Court noted that, except

Docket No. 447 at 12.

PTI therefore did

PTI’s request to file a motion for

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

1/28/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3