Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corporation et al

Filing 164

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 160 Motion for Leave to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NETFLIX, INC.,

9
10

v.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

ROVI CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 11-cv-6591-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

12
13

Before the court is Rovi’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in opposition

14

to Netflix’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under section 101. The motion sets

15

forth three reasons that attempt to demonstrate good cause to allow a supplemental brief.

16

First, Rovi notes that the court issued various written questions for both parties at

17

the outset of the summary judgment hearing, and requests a supplemental brief to

18

“ensure the court has a full and clear record concerning those questions to assist in its

19

consideration of Netflix’s motion.”

20

Second, Rovi seeks to “update[] the court on factual circumstances that have

21

changed since the hearing on Netflix’s motion.” Specifically, Rovi notes that, at the

22

hearing, Netflix pointed to Rovi’s infringement contentions as support for the argument

23
24
25
26
27
28

that the patents recite generic computer components, and are therefore invalid. Rovi
now informs the court that “[s]ince the hearing, Rovi has provided Netflix with updated
infringement contentions that do not contain the language Netflix cherry-picked for the
hearing.”
Third, Rovi seeks to inform the court of two recent judicial opinions regarding
patentability under section 101, and “submits that it should be granted leave to submit its

1

supplemental brief to ensure the co has the benefit of a complete and current record.”
ourt
e
e

2

The co will add
ourt
dress each of these reasons in tu
urn. First, a to the written
as

3

questions, the court issu those questions to guide the parties’ pre
e
ued
o
esentations at the

4

hearing, not to invite an additional round of briiefing. Both parties ha an equal
o
r
h
ad

5

o
he
ns
he
ur
y-four minu
utes of the
opportunity to address th question during th three hou and thirty

6

hearing. The court finds no need fo a supple mental brie from Rov nor a sur
s
or
ef
vi,
r-rebuttal

7

fro Netflix.
om

8

Second as to the infringeme contentiions, the co agrees with Rovi’s own
d,
e
ent
ourt
s
s

9

arg
gument that infringeme content
ent
tions are no relevant t the section 101 inva
ot
to
alidity

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

analysis. To the extent that Netflix cited Rovi’s contentio as indic
t
s
ons
cative of inv
validity, the
cou did not consider those argume
urt
c
ents. Thus the subst
s,
tance of any updated
y
infr
ringement contentions are similarly irrelevan to the se
c
s
nt
ection 101 a
analysis.
Finally, to the exte that eith party wishes to bri recent judicial opin
ent
her
ing
nions to the
e
cou
urt’s attention, the loca rules pro
al
ovide a mec
chanism for the filing o a “statem
r
of
ment of
rec
cent decisio containi “a citatio to and p
on”
ing
on
providing a copy of the new opinio –
e
on
wit
thout argum
ment.” Civil L.R. 7-3(d)(2). Howe
ever, the rule only allow such sta
ws
atements to
o
be filed “[b]efo the noti
ore
iced hearing date.” Th hearing date has now passed, and the
he
rec
cord is closed.
For the foregoing reasons, Rovi’s motio for leave to file a su
e
R
on
e
upplementa brief is
al

19
ENIED.
DE
20
21
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
22
Da
ated: May 21, 2015
2
23
24
25

__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

26
27
28
2