Apple, Inc. v. Eforcity Corporation et al

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING MOTION 65 TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on May 5, 2011. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2011)

1
**E-Filed 5/5/2011**

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
EFORCITY CORPORATION, a California
corporation; ACCSTATION, INC., a California
corporation; ITRIMMING, INC., a California
corporation; EVERYDAYSOURCE, INC., a
California corporation; UNITED INTEGRAL, INC.,
a California corporation; CRAZYONDIGITAL,
INC., a California corporation; BOXWAVE
COPORATION, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,

19

Case No. 5:10-cv-03216 JF (HRL)
ORDER1 DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
[Re: Docket No. 65]

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Defendants eForCity Corporation, Accstation, Inc., Itrimming, Inc., and Everydaysource,
Inc. (collectively “Eforcity”) move to strike portions of the complaint filed by Plaintiff Apple,
Inc. (“Apple”). Specifically, Eforcity seeks to strike the phrase “at least” as related to
allegations of infringement. See Compl. ¶¶ 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58, 63 (stating that certain
Eforcity products infringe at least one designated claim of the relevant Apple patents). The
Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See

27
28
1

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Case No. 5:10-cv-03216-JF (HRL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
(JFLC1)

1
2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
In its previous ruling denying Eforcity’s motion to dismiss, the Court indicated that the

3

inclusion of the phrase “at least” does not violate the applicable pleading standards. Order

4

Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint at 5,

5

Dkt. 70. Eforcity’s concern that the phrase amounts to a threat of future infringement

6

accusations is unfounded. As the Court stated previously, “any future expansion of Apple’s

7

claims obviously would be subject to the notice provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.” Id. at 5-6.

8

Likewise, the phrase does not signify that Apple has failed to conduct a reasoned inquiry into

9

Eforcity’s potential infringement of the patents-in-suit as required by Rule 11. See Id. at 5.
IV. ORDER

10
11

Good cause therefor appearing, the motion to strike is DENIED. As the motion does not

12

appear to have been presented for an improper purpose, Apple’s request for attorneys’ fees is

13

DENIED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: May 5, 2011

____________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No. 5:10-cv-03216-JF (HRL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
(JFLC1)