ASUS Computer International et al v. ExoTablet LTD
Filing
21
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 18 Motion (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
ASUS COMPUTER INT’L, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
v.
EXOTABLET LTD.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 14-1743 PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENLARGE TIME AND FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Defendant.
_______________________________/
12
13
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to enlarge time for hearing and briefing for
14
defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction, and for expedited discovery, filed on May 23,
15
2014. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on May 27, 2014.
16
As an initial matter, the court notes that any discovery related to the accused
17
infringing product would lie with the accused infringer – and in this declaratory judgment
18
case, plaintiffs are the accused infringers. Thus, the court does not see how plaintiffs
19
would need additional time to obtain discovery which is already in their own possession,
20
and thus DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery.
21
However, the court does find it reasonably likely that claim construction proceedings
22
may need to be conducted before defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction may be
23
resolved. Defendant represents that “no formal claim construction is necessary because
24
the claims of the [patent-in-suit] use simple, clear terms that should all be accorded their
25
plain and ordinary meaning,” but the court will be unable to evaluate the merits of that
26
representation until after plaintiffs have filed their opposition to the preliminary injunction
27
motion. If, indeed, plaintiffs’ opposition raises claim construction disputes that must be
28
resolved before resolution of the preliminary injunction motion, the court may, at that time,
1
continue the briefing and hearing schedule to allow abbreviated claim construction
2
proceedings. Thus, while plaintiffs’ motion to enlarge time is DENIED at this time, the court
3
will revisit the issue after plaintiffs’ opposition brief is filed, at which time any claim
4
construction disputes will be properly identified.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
7
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?