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)

Download PDF
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?