Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 135

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 134 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:16-cv-00119-HSG (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 7/19/17 JOINT
LETTER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 134
DROPBOX INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On July 19, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter seeking guidance concerning the timing of

14

disclosures under the Patent Local Rules. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 134.) Specifically, the parties

15

dispute whether the expert declarations the parties intend to use in support of their respective

16

claim construction positions must be served on the disclosure date for Patent Local Rule 4-2 or 4-

17

3. (Joint Letter at 1.) Upon review of the joint letter, the Court finds this matter suitable for

18

resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth

19

below, finds that the Markman-related expert declarations must be served with the Joint Claim

20

Construction and Prehearing Statement, in accordance with Patent Local Rule 4-3.

21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2017, the parties exchanged proposed claim terms for construction pursuant to

23

Patent Local Rule 4-1. (Joint Letter at 1.) Three weeks later, on July 14, 2017, the parties served

24

disclosures pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2. Id. Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, the Joint

25

Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement is due on August 8, 2017. Id. The deadline to

26

complete discovery related to claim construction is September 7, 2017. Id. Synchronoss’s opening

27

claim construction brief is due September 22, 2017. Id.

28

On June 29, 2017, Dropbox wrote Synchronoss to negotiate a schedule for the exchange of

1

Markman-related expert declarations. Id. Synchronoss indicated that it did not believe such a

2

schedule was necessary, because it believed that expert declarations, if any, were due on the date

3

of the 4-2 exchanges, which occurred on June 23, 2017. Id. The parties met and conferred and

4

were unable to resolve the instant dispute without court intervention. Id.

5
6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Northern District adopted the Patent Local Rules to streamline patent cases. Patent
Local Rule 4-2 requires the parties to exchange their preliminary proposed constructions for

8

disputed claim terms, as well as the support for those proposed constructions. Patent L.R. 4-2(b).

9

The rule requires parties who may rely on expert testimony to “provide a description of the

10

substance of that witness’ proposed testimony that includes a listing of any opinions to be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

rendered in connection with claim construction.” Patent L.R. 4-2(b).

12

Patent Local Rule 4-3 sets forth the requirements for the Joint Claim Construction and

13

Prehearing Statement. The rule similarly requires the identification of “any extrinsic evidence

14

known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its construction or to oppose any

15

other party’s proposed construction,” including “testimony of percipient and expert witnesses.”

16

Patent L.R. 4-3(b).

17
18

III.

DISCUSSION

Here, the parties disagree on when Markman-related expert declarations must be

19

exchanged. Dropbox contends that the Rule 4-3 deadline applies, because to require the parties to

20

exchange full declarations prior to the narrowing of the number of construed terms would require

21

them to expend resources addressing terms that may be undisputed. (Joint Letter at 2-3.)

22

Synchronoss argues that the Rule 4-2 deadline applies, because the requirement to provide

23

a “description” of the proposed testimony and opinions to be rendered is actually a requirement to

24

produce the “the declarations or expert reports that the party intends to rely on to support its

25

constructions.” (Joint letter at 4.) Otherwise, it would be impossible to offer a rebuttal expert

26

report without reviewing the initial expert report that is to be rebutted. Id.

27
28

To the contrary, courts in this district have found that Patent Local Rule 4-3(b) requires the
filing of any expert report or declaration simultaneously with the Joint Claim Construction and
2

1

Prehearing Statement.” Tristrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11-CV-03797-JST, 2013 WL

2

12172909, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2013)(citing Largan Precision Co. v. Fujifilm Corp., No. C

3

10-01318 SBA, 2012 WL 4097719, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012)); see also GoPro, Inc. v.

4

C&A Mktg., Inc., No. 16-CV-03590-JST, 2017 WL 2335377, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2017).

5

While Synchronoss’s position is well taken, Rule 4-2(b)’s requirement that all potential experts be

6

identified—along with a description of the substance of the proposed testimony and any opinions

7

to be rendered in connection with claim construction—should be sufficient to offer a rebuttal

8

expert report.1 Moreover, the failure of either party to comply with Rule 4-2 could be grounds for

9

a future motion to strike. Accordingly, the undersigned declines to depart from this district’s view
that expert reports and declarations must be filed simultaneously with the Joint Claim

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Construction and Prehearing Statement, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3.

12

IV.

CONCLUSION

13

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that claim construction-related expert reports and

14

declarations, if any, must be served by August 8, 2017, the Patent Local Rule 4-3 disclosure date,

15

such that they are not yet delinquent. Accordingly, Synchronoss’s motion to strike the expert

16

declarations is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: July 31, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If the parties believe they require more time for rebuttal, they are welcome to meet and confer on
an alternate schedule. Any requests to alter the claim construction briefing schedule, however,
must be approved by the presiding judge.
3