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