Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corporation et al

Filing 168

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 138 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
NETFLIX, INC.,

7

Case No. 11-cv-06591-PJH (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTER

9

Re: Dkt. No. 138

ROVI CORPORATION, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Netflix Inc. and Defendant/Counterclaimant Rovi have filed a

12
13

joint discovery letter.1 [Docket No. 138.] Netflix moves for leave to amend its Invalidity

14

Contentions to include its second supplemental Exhibit I-15. Rovi opposes the motion and

15

concurrently moves to strike Exhibit I-15 to Netflix’s original Invalidity Contentions. The court

16

held a hearing on these disputes on May 28, 2015. For the reasons stated below, the court grants

17

Netflix’s motion to amend its Invalidity Contentions.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

Netflix provides an Internet service that permits a subscriber to view movies and television

19
20

shows. Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶ 17. Rovi is a company in the digital entertainment technology

21

field that describes its work as including “research and development of new interactive program

22

guide products and services.” Answer [Docket No. 16] ¶ 21.
On December 21, 2011, Netflix filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a

23
24

determination that Netflix does not infringe any valid claim of five United States patents owned by

25

Rovi, and that those patents are invalid. Compl. ¶ 6. The Rovi patents listed in the Complaint do

26
27
28

1

“Rovi” refers to Defendants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Technologies Corporation, Rovi Guides
Inc. (f/k/a Gemstar-V Guide International), and United Video Properties, Inc., as well as counterclaimants Aptiv Digital, Inc. and Starsight Telecast, Inc.

1

not include United States Patent No. 7,974,962 (“the ’962 Patent”), which is the subject of the

2

current discovery dispute.

3

The invention claimed in the ’962 Patent is a “search engine for a video recorder” that lets

4

the user search for shows. The ’962 Patent was raised for the first time in this case on February

5

17, 2012, when Rovi brought counterclaims for infringement of the five patents identified in the

6

Complaint as well as other patents owned by Rovi, including the ’962 Patent. See Answer ¶ 69-

7

151. Rovi did not identify in this filing which of the claims of the ’962 Patent were allegedly

8

infringed by Netflix, nor what Netflix product or functionality infringed the patent.

9

On March 12, 2012, Netflix filed its Answer to Rovi’s counterclaims. [Docket No. 33.] In
this document, for the first time in this case, Netflix raised an affirmative defense based on

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

invalidity against Rovi’s claim that Netflix infringed the ’962 Patent. Id. at ¶ 168 (“The ’962

12

patent and each of the claims thereof are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the

13

conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code including, without

14

limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103, and/ or 112.”).

15

On May 15, 2012, the case was stayed pending an action filed by Rovi with the United

16

States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). [Docket No. 47.] The parties jointly stipulated to

17

stay the entire case, even though some aspects of the case—e.g., the infringement and invalidity of

18

the ’962 Patent—were not at issue in the ITC action. Id. On July 10, 2014, after the ITC action

19

was completed, the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton lifted the stay in this case. Docket No. 52.2

20

On October 31, 2014, Netflix timely served Rovi with its original Invalidity Contentions.

21

Exhibit I-15 to those contentions purports to show how certain claims of the ’962 Patent “are

22

anticipated and rendered obvious by Netflix.com,” which is Netflix’s website. The filing date of

23
2

24
25
26
27
28

No fact or expert discovery deadlines have been set, nor any trial-related dates. The
parties have, however, engaged in significant motion work relating to Netflix’s motion for
summary judgment and claim construction. Netflix moved for summary judgment on December
15, 2014. See Docket No. 104. On December 19, 2014, the parties filed a joint claim construction
and pretrial hearing statement. On January 30, 2015, Rovi filed its opening claim construction
brief. Docket Nos. 60, 112, 119. On March 25, 2015, Judge Hamilton held a hearing on the
parties’ competing claim constructions. See Docket No. 143. The claim construction and
summary judgment proceedings currently are pending before Judge Hamilton.
2

1

the ’962 Patent is January 6, 2005. The original Exhibit I-15 includes what appears to be a

2

screenshot of Netflix’s website, illustrating certain functionality. The image is undated and no

3

further description is provided. See Docket No. 138-1 at 3 (Original Invalidity Contentions Ex. I-

4

15). The original Exhibit I-15 notes that “Netflix is investigating the pre-2005 operation of

5

Netflix.com, including but not limited to, its relevant functionality, date of availability, and

6

additional documentation. The information herein is provided for the purpose of timely disclosing

7

Netflix’s invalidity contentions as to its product, consistent with the Patent Local Rules.

8

Accordingly, Netflix will supplement its contentions as appropriate.” Id.
Netflix served its first supplemental Exhibit I-15 on December 3, 2014, approximately one

9

month after it served its original Invalidity Contentions. In addition to the single screenshot that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

appeared in the original, the first supplemental Exhibit I-15 includes five additional screenshots of

12

the Netflix website dating from 2004. Docket No. 138-1 at 38-147 (First Supplemental Invalidity

13

Contentions Ex. I-15). It also includes a citation to a document from 2002.
On January 30, 2015, Netflix served its second supplemental Exhibit I-15. This version

14
15

differs from its immediate predecessor in that Netflix has removed the undated screenshot from its

16

original Exhibit I-15. The five screenshots and document citation that were added during the first

17

supplement still appear in the second supplement. Docket No. 138-1 at 148-238 (Second

18

Supplemental Invalidity Contentions Ex. I-15, redacted public version). The second supplement

19

also includes citations to Netflix’s source code from 2004.

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
3

1
2
3
4
5
6

The table below summarizes the evidence in the different versions of Exhibit I-15:
Invalidity
Contentions

Includes

Original
Ex. I-15



Undated screenshot of Netflix website



Undated screenshot of Netflix website



Five screenshots dated 2004



Citation to document dated 2002



Removed: Undated screenshot of Netflix website



Five screenshots dated 2004




Citation to document dated 2002
Citations to source code dated 2004

Date Served:
October 31,
2014

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

First Supp.
Ex. I-15
Date Served:
December 3,
2014

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Second Supp.
Ex. I-15
Date Served:
January 30,
2015

23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

The local rules of the Northern District of California require parties to define their theories
2
of patent infringement and invalidity early on in the course of litigation. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v.
3
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “In contrast to the more
4
liberal policy for amending pleadings, the philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly
5
conservative, and designed to prevent the shifting sands approach to claim construction.” Positive
6
Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No. C. 11-2226-SI, 2013 WL 322556 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28,
7
2013) (quotation and citation omitted). Thus this district’s Patent Local Rules permit parties to
8
amend their infringement and invalidity contentions “only by order of the Court upon a timely
9
showing of good cause.” See Patent L.R. 3-6. “By requiring the non-moving party to show good
10
cause, Local Rule 3-6 serves to balance the parties’ rights to develop new information in discovery
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

along with the need for certainty in legal theories at the start of the case.” Open DNS, Inc. v.
12
Select Notifications Media, LLC, No. C-11-5101 EJD (HRL), 2013 WL 2422623 at *2 (N.D. Cal.
13
June 3, 2013) (citing O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366).
14
In determining good cause, the court not only considers a party’s diligence in searching for
15
prior art or in moving to amend when new information is discovered, see O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at
16
1366, but “also considers such factors as the relevance of the new prior art and the difficulty of
17
locating the prior art.” Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 12-CV-03587-WHO, 2014
18
WL 491745 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) (citation omitted). “The good cause requirement does
19
not require perfect diligence. Although hindsight is often ‘20/20,’ identifying and evaluating prior
20
art can be difficult, and new information learned in discovery can lead a party to understandably
21
reevaluate evidence found earlier.” Id. at *4; see also Positive Techs., 2013 WL 322556 at *3
22
(diligence standard does not require defendant to“identify all relevant prior art references that may
23
become relevant to all possible claim constructions”). Indeed, the Patent Local Rules specifically
24
acknowledge the possibility that a party may need to supplement invalidity contentions with
25
information found during discovery. See Patent L.R. 3-6 (“Non-exhaustive examples of
26
circumstances that may . . . support a finding of good cause include: (a) a claim construction order
27
by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment; (b) recent discovery of
28
5

1

material, prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of nonpublic information

2

about the [a]ccused [i]nstrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the

3

service of the [i]nfringement [c]ontentions.”).
The court may deny a motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions if it would cause

4
5

“undue prejudice to the non-moving party.” Patent L.R. 3-6. Where the moving party is unable to

6

show diligence, there is “no need to consider the question of prejudice,” see O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at

7

1368, although a court in its discretion may elect to do so, see, e.g., Dynetix Design Solutions Inc.

8

v. Synopsys Inc., No. Cv-11-5973-PSG, 2012 WL 6019898 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012). The

9

moving party bears the burden of establishing diligence. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366.

10

III.

Netflix moves for leave to amend its Invalidity Contentions to include its second

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DISCUSSION

supplemental Exhibit I-15.

13

A.

14

“[T]he diligence required for a showing of good cause has two phases: (1) diligence in

Diligence

15

discovering the basis for amendment; and (2) diligence in seeking amendment once the basis for

16

amendment has been discovered.”3 Positive Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., No. C

17

11-2226 SI, 2013 WL 322556, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013).

18

Netflix contends that it acted diligently in discovering the basis for its proposed

19

amendment. According to Netflix, “the passage of nine years and the attendant loss of

20

knowledgeable employees left Netflix without an easy way to identify legacy website

21

functionality.” Thus, Netflix explains that it was required to investigate whether the accused

22

features debuted to the public before January 2005 (the filing date of the ’962 Patent) by

23

interviewing its employees about their knowledge of the pre-2005 website. Netflix notes that this

24

investigation began shortly after Rovi served its Infringement Contentions on August 28, 2014,

25

which was the first time Rovi identified the accused features of the Netflix website that allegedly

26

infringe the ‘962 patent.

27
28

3

Rovi appears to take issue with Netflix’s actions with respect to the first phase only.
6

1

Before filing its original Invalidity Contentions on October 31, 2014, Netflix interviewed

2

five employees, including one of its longest-tenured employees, two vice presidents, and two

3

directors, all of whom did not have knowledge of the pre-2005 functionality of the accused

4

features. One of the employees interviewed was Todd Yellin, a vice president who did not have

5

knowledge of pre-2005 operation of the accused features, but who did have unsorted archival

6

paper files, which included the undated screenshot that Netflix disclosed in its original Exhibit I-

7

15. This screenshot “led Netflix to believe that prior to 2005 it had indeed publicly debuted the

8

same feature Rovi accuses of infringement.” Letter at 2-3.

9

Thereafter, Netflix continued its investigation. It interviewed Sam Pan, a director of user
interface engineering who had been working at Netflix since before 2005, who consulted

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

numerous times with two other employees (Gary Chan and Joel Sass) who had been employed by

12

Netflix since before 2005. Pan identified and authenticated the five additional screenshots that

13

Netflix disclosed to Rovi in its first supplemental Exhibit I-15 on December 3, 2014.

14

After it served its first supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Netflix interviewed Sass, who

15

directed Netflix to interview Josh Evans, who directed Netflix to Raju Alluri, a senior tools

16

engineer. Alluri was able to obtain access to copies of Netflix’s archival source code and identify

17

the portions of code that implemented the accused features on the Netflix website prior to 2005.

18

Netflix then disclosed this source code to Rovi in its second supplemental Exhibit I-15 on January

19

30, 2015.

20

Rovi argues that Netflix did not act diligently because the information about Netflix’s pre-

21

2005 website was already in Netflix’s possession. It is true that in some circumstances, a party

22

may fail to show diligence when it could have discovered materials in its own possession sooner.

23

See, e.g., Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics, Inc., No. 12-cv-6467-MMC (DMR), 2014 WL

24

1477917 at *4 (denying defendant’s motion to amend invalidity contentions to add a reference to

25

defendant’s own software product, where product had been known to defendant but defendant did

26

not attempt to run the software until five months after serving its original invalidity contentions).

27

But in this case Netflix has provided a detailed account of its difficulties in finding evidence that

28

illustrates how a currently-active website functioned a decade ago.
7

1

Rovi also argues that Netflix did not act diligently because “Netflix had over 31 months

2

prior to serving its original invalidity contentions in which to collect [evidence]” of the invalidity

3

of the ’962 Patent, because Rovi filed its Answer and Counterclaims on February 17, 2012 and

4

notified Netflix of its claim that Netflix had infringed the ’962 Patent. Letter at 7. This curious

5

argument omits the fact that at the parties’ joint request, the case was stayed from May 2012 until

6

July 2014, during which time all proceedings were stayed, all deadlines were vacated, and the

7

parties did not (and were not expected to) conduct discovery. Docket No. 47 at 2. The stay went

8

into effect only two months after Netflix had asserted its affirmative defense of invalidity of the

9

’962 Patent in its Answer to Netflix’s counterclaims. Once the case resumed in July of 2014,
Netflix timely filed its original Invalidity Contentions and provided supplemental contentions a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

little over a month later.

12

Rovi also argues that when Netflix raised its invalidity defense in March 2012, it must

13

have already known that one of its theories would be that the Netflix website prior to 2005

14

anticipated or rendered obvious the ’962 Patent. At the hearing, Netflix’s counsel averred that it

15

had not developed this theory in March 2012. Instead, Netflix’s assertion of the invalidity

16

affirmative defense at that time was based on a different theory—namely, that publicly available

17

documents (i.e., other patents with priority dates before 2005) anticipated or rendered the ’962

18

Patent obvious.

19

Netflix has credibly explained its difficulties in locating the five additional screenshots,

20

which were added to the Invalidity Contentions just over a month after Netflix served its original

21

Invalidity Contentions, and the source code references, which Netflix added two months later.

22

The court is not persuaded by Rovi’s argument that Netflix failed to act diligently by taking more

23

than thirty months to identify material in its own possession. When viewed in the context of the

24

events that took place during that period of time, the court finds that Netflix acted with sufficient

25

diligence in amending its Invalidity Contentions.

26

B.

27

Rovi argues that granting Netflix leave to amend its Invalidity Contentions would result in

28

prejudice to Rovi in two ways. First, Rovi contends that Netflix’s addition of evidence in its first

Prejudice

8

1

and second supplemental Exhibit I-15 amounts to “adding complete new theories of invalidity.”

2

Letter at 5.
Much of this argument focuses on the undated screenshot that Netflix included in the

3
4

original Exhibit I-15. Rovi contends that Netflix’s original Exhibit I-15 “included no evidence of

5

the pre-2005 operation of its alleged Netflix.com prior art reference,” simply because the

6

screenshot in the original Exhibit I-15 was undated. But it is clear that Netflix’s invalidity theory

7

has consistently asserted that its pre-2005 website anticipates or renders obvious the claims of the

8

’962 Patent. This theory is stated in identical terms on the introductory pages of the original, first

9

supplemental, and second supplemental Exhibits I-15. Netflix has explained how, at the time it
served its original Exhibit I-15, it believed the undated screenshot to be evidence that Netflix had

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

debuted the accused features on its website prior to 2005. Letter at 3. Netflix’s inability to

12

ascertain the exact date of the screenshot it included in the original Exhibit I-15 does not

13

undermine the clarity of its theory of invalidity as set forth in that document. In any event, Netflix

14

has removed the undated screenshot from Exhibit I-15 and is no longer offering it as evidence to

15

support its invalidity theory, presumably because it has added better, more detailed screenshots

16

whose dates can be ascertained.

17

Rovi also argues that “the new evidence in the supplemental contentions show different

18

functionality than that provided in Netflix’s original contentions. For instance, the image in the

19

original contentions did not show that characters are matched to database entries and do not show

20

any results of the searches, including selectable categories.4 Instead, they only show that a

21

keyword search was possible.” Letter at 6. But the fact that the additional evidence is better

22

evidence (i.e., it shows in greater detail the functionalities claimed by the ’962 Patent than the

23

original evidence) does not mean that the invalidity theory itself is different.
In sum, Rovi’s argument that the supplemental Exhibits I-15 raise new theories of

24
25
4

26
27
28

The ’962 claims “a method for selecting shows” that includes a search engine function in which
users can input alphanumeric characters, which are then matched to database entries, resulting in
the provision of search results with show listings “and one or more selectable categories of
shows.” ’962 Patent Claims 1, 1(a)-(d). Rovi’s argument appears to be that the undated
screenshot does not show that a search on Netflix’s search engine will provide results with
“selectable categories.”
9

1

inv
validity is un
npersuasive. Netflix’s or
riginal Exhib I-15 supp
bit
ports Netflix theory tha certain
x’s
at

2

cla
aims of the ’9 Patent are anticipate and rende
962
a
ed
ered obvious by Netflix’s pre-2005 w
s
s
website. The
e

3

firs and second supplemen Exhibits I-15 are bas on the sa theory o invalidity— only
st
d
ntal
s
sed
ame
of
—the

4

sig
gnificant chan
nges are the addition of evidence.

5

Finally, Rovi claim that the tim
,
ms
ming of Netf
flix’s second supplemen Invalidity
d
ntal
y

6

Contentions, which were se
w
erved on Jan
nuary 30, 20 15 (the same day that Rovi filed its opening
e

7

cla construct
aim
tion brief), prevented Ro from add
p
ovi
dressing Net
tflix’s “new [invalidity] t
theories in

8

its brief or prop
pose new cla terms fo constructio
aim
or
on.” Letter a 8. Howev as expla
at
ver,
ained above,

9

Ne
etflix’s theory of invalidi has not ch
y
ity
hanged since it served it original In
e
ts
nfringement Contentions
s;
wh has chang is that Netflix has ad
hat
ged
N
dded better e
evidence to s
support that theory. Rov has not
vi

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

exp
plained how the addition of new evid
n
dence on the same theor affected its claim con
e
ries
nstruction

12

pos
sition, nor ha it provide any concrete example of what it might have done differe
as
ed
es
ently.

13

Fur
rthermore, Netflix had served both its original an first supp
N
nd
plemental In
nvalidity Con
ntentions by

14

De
ecember 3, 2014, which predated the parties’ join claim con
p
nt
nstruction bri which w filed on
ief,
was

15

De
ecember 19, 2014. Acco
2
ordingly, the court finds t
that Rovi ha not demon
as
nstrated that it will suffer
r

16

pre
ejudice if Ne
etflix is perm
mitted to ame its Invali
end
idity Conten
ntions.

17
18

IV
V.

CONC
CLUSION

For the reasons stat above, th court find that Netflix has demon
ted
he
ds
nstrated good cause for
d

19

am
mending its In
nvalidity Contentions to include the second supp
plemental Ex
xhibit I-15, a Rovi has
and
s

20

not shown that it will suffe undue prej
t
er
judice if the amendment is permitted Netflix’s motion is
t
d.

21

gra
anted. Beca
ause Netflix’ second sup
’s
pplemental E
Exhibit I-15 removes the portions of the
e
f

22

Inv
validity Cont
tentions that Rovi seeks to strike, Ro
t
ovi’s motion to strike the undated sc
n
e
creenshot

23

from the origin Exhibit I- is denied as moot.
nal
-15
d

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 2, 2015
___
__________
___________
__________
________
Do
onna M. Ryu
u
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge

28
10
0