Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corporation et al

Filing 102

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion to Dismiss; denying 98 Motion for Leave to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

NETFLIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO DISMISS AND VACATING HEARING

ROVI CORPORATION, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-6591 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

On December 4, 2014, the parties submitted a stipulation indicating that Netflix does

14

not oppose Rovi’s motion to dismiss Netflix’s first and second causes of action (for

15

declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’185 patent). See Dkt. 98-2.

16

While the court appreciates the parties’ resolution of the motion, the court also advises the

17

parties that it has already expended the resources to review this matter, and urges them to

18

make efforts to resolve future disputes before engaging in unnecessary motion practice –

19

or at the very least, to resolve such disputes more than six days before a scheduled

20

hearing, so that the court does not expend unnecessary resources in preparation for the

21

hearing.

22

Moreover, the court is unclear as to the purpose of Netflix’s motion for leave to file a

23

sur-reply. Through their stipulation, the parties have informed the court that Netflix no

24

longer opposes Rovi’s motion. The proposed sur-reply does not appear to serve any

25

purpose other than to burden the court with more paper (including 13 pages of emails

26

between opposing counsel).

27
28

Netflix’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED. However, given the parties’
stipulation, Rovi’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, to the extent that it seeks dismissal of

1

Netflix’s first and second causes of action. The December 10, 2014 hearing date is

2

vacated. As provided in the parties’ stipulation, the dismissal shall be without prejudice. To

3

the extent that Rovi’s motion seeks dismissal of any of Netflix’s claims or counterclaims

4

related to the ’016 patent or the ’776 patent, the motion is denied as moot.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated: December 8, 2014
7

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2