HVAC Technology LLC v. Southland Industries

Filing 87

ORDER Re November 17, 2016 Hearing. Motion Hearing re 52 , 66 , 67 , 69 set for 12/15/2016 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Tutorial Hearing set for 11/17/2016 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/9/2016. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
HVAC TECHNOLOGY LLC,

7

Case No. 15-cv-02934-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE NOVEMBER 17, 2016
HEARING

9
SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES,

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 66, 67, 69

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Currently pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's motion for partial summary

14

judgment, (2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (3) Defendant's motion for evidentiary

15

sanctions, and (4) Defendant's motion to partially exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's expert.

16

(Docket Nos. 52, 66, 67, 69.) These motions are scheduled for hearing on November 17, 2016.
In light of the fact that this case was reassigned to the undersigned from Judge Grewal, and

17
18

that the undersigned has not had the benefit of a tutorial,1 the Court believes it to be more

19

constructive to schedule a tutorial on November 17, 2016, in lieu of a motions hearing. Each side

20

will be permitted 30-45 minutes to present a summary of the background of the technology

21

involved, an explanation of the nature of the problem the inventor sought to solve, and reference to

22

the prior art in existence at the time of conception. The patent holder will make the first

23

presentation. Visual aids are highly encouraged, and the parties are to provide a copy of any prior

24

art or documents that they rely on. The Court would prefer if someone other than counsel makes

25

the presentation. No argument or examination will be permitted.

26
27
28

1

The lack of a tutorial is particularly challenging in the instant case, where the parties assume the
Court's familiarity with the patents at issue and therefore provide limited explanation of what the
patents entail. (See Dkt. No. 52 at 5; Dkt. No. 78 at 22.)

In addition to the tutorial, the parties must be prepared to address the following matters at

1
2

the November 17, 2016 hearing:
(1) What is the status of the '731 Patent claims, and will Plaintiff be dismissing those

3

claims?

4
5

(2) Is it Defendant's position that certain claims in the '731 and '761 Patents are anticipated

6

by the Viso Application, per 35 U.S.C. § 102? If so, why does Section 102 apply when

7

Section 102(a)(2) concerns an invention that is described in an application or patent

8

published, "in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another

9

inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention"? (Emphasis added.) Isn't Charles J. Viso one of the inventors listed in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

'731 and '761 Patents?

12

(3) What is a Unistrut bracket and how does it relate to the instant case?

13

(4) What settlement efforts are the parties engaged in, given that Plaintiff appears to value
this case at $68,400? (Dkt. No. 78 at 35.)

14

The Court also observes that both parties fail to provide specific pinpoint citations (or any

15
16

citations, in some instances) to the record. Defendant, in particular, cites to wholesale exhibits.

17

(E.g., Dkt. No. 69 at 2:8 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 3, a 275-page exhibit, and Exhibit 8,

18

which consists of over 50 pages of deposition testimony); 14:28-15:1 (citing the entirety of

19

Exhibits 8, 46, and 47); 15:25 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 13, a 120-page expert report); 16:22

20

(citing to the entirety of Exhibit 13); 19:26-10 (providing no citations whatsoever, despite

21

referring to specific portions of Plaintiff's expert's disclosure and Visto's testimony ); 23:5

22

(referring to Markups A and B but providing no explanation of what these are and what exhibits

23

they are found in).2) Plaintiff also makes broad, factual arguments relying on evidence and

24

testimony that Plaintiff then fails to cite. (E.g., Dkt. No. 78 at 27:3-10 (asserting that Plaintiff will

25

produce photographs and testimony, but not citing to any exhibits).)
It is not the Court's role to scour over 1,500 pages of exhibits for the specific portions of

26
27
2

28

To be clear, this is not an exhaustive list. The parties should review the entirety of their briefs
for other instances where there are inadequate citations.
2

1

exhibits that the parties rely on. Thus, to the extent the parties want the Court to consider exhibits,

2

they must provide specific pincites, i.e., the page number for expert reports, the column and line

3

numbers for patents, and the page and line numbers for deposition testimony. At the November

4

17, 2016 hearing, the parties may provide the Court with a list of pincites in the following format:

5
6
7
8
9
10

Brief Page and Line Number:

Proposition Being Cited:

Docket No. 69, Page 14:2815:1

"it is inherent that pipes are
supported by brackets"

The motion hearing on the pending motions is continued to December 15, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2016

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Exhibit No. with Specific
Pincite
Exh. 46 at [col:line], Exh. 47 at
[col:line], Exh. 8 at [page:line]

__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3