Lantiq North America, Inc. et al v. Ralink Technology Corporation et al
Filing
245
ORDER CLARIFYING 236 JULY 17, 2012 ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on July 31, 2012. (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD
ORDER CLARIFYING JULY 17, 2012
ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 236)
16
On July 6, 2012, Defendant MediaTek, Inc., Defendant MediaTek USA, Inc., and
17
Defendant MediaTek Wireless, Inc. (collectively “MediaTek”) filed a motion requesting that the
18
court suspend “the dates currently set in its Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 71), and all applicable
19
dates under the Patent Local Rules, with respect to the ‘799 and ‘904 patents, pending resolution of the
20
MediaTek’s motion to dismiss Lantiq’s complaint with respect to those patents.” Docket No. 230 at
21
3:21-24. MediaTek did not notice a hearing for the motion pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2.
22
The court regarded MediaTek’s unnoticed motion as an administrative motion pursuant to
23
Civil L.R. 7-11. In light of MediaTek’s representation that the other parties did not oppose the
24
motion to amend the scheduling order and the fact that no opposition was filed within the time
25
permitted by Rule 7-11, the court granted MediaTek’s motion. On July 17, 2012, the court issued
26
the order proposed by MediaTek that “MediaTek’s Motion for Relief from the Current Case
27
Management Schedule and for Expedited Consideration is GRANTED. All upcoming discovery and
28
1
Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD
ORDER CLARIFYING JULY 17, 2012 ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
pretrial dates set forth in the case management schedule and all claim construction dates set forth in the
2
Local Patent Rules are hereby suspended until resolution of MediaTek’s Motion to Dismiss Lantiq’s
3
Second Amended Complaint.” Order Regarding MediaTek Defs.’ Mot Relief Current Case Mgmt.
4
Sched, Docket No. 236 (“July 17 Order”).
5
On July 20, 2012, Defendant Ralink Technology Corporation (“Ralink”) submitted a
6
response to the court’s order arguing that the suspension of the case schedule should apply only to
7
Lantiq’s claims on the ‘799 and ’904 patents and not to Ralink’s claims on the ‘116 patent.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff Lantiq Deutschland GMBH (“Lantiq”) filed a rebuttal to that
response arguing that Ralink’s response was an improperly-filed motion for reconsideration of the
court’s order granting MediaTek’s motion.
In light of the confusion caused by the lack of specificity in the court’s order granting
12
MediaTek’s motion for relief from the case management schedule, the court finds it appropriate to
13
clarify its prior order. The court intended to grant only the relief sought by MediaTek — that the
14
court suspend the dates “set in its Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 71), and all applicable dates
15
under the Patent Local Rules, with respect to the ‘799 and ‘904 patents, pending resolution of the
16
MediaTek’s motion to dismiss Lantiq’s complaint with respect to those patents .” Docket No. 230 at
17
3:21-24. The court did not intend to suspend deadlines pertaining to the ‘116 patent.
18
The court, however, improperly treated MediaTek’s motion to amend the scheduling order
19
as an administrative motion pursuant to Rule 7-11 rather than a motion pursuant to Rule 7-2. Thus,
20
the court did not provide the full opportunity for any opposition to the motion to be filed. See Civil
21
L.R. 7-3. It, however, is not clear to the court whether either Ralink or Lantiq would have opposed
22
MediaTek’s motion to suspend the deadlines pertaining to the ‘799 and ‘904 patents. Because the
23
court erred in applying the in correct Local Rule and thus failed to provide the parties an
24
opportunity to oppose MediaTek’s motion, the court grants Ralink and Lantiq leave to file a motion
25
for reconsideration of the July 17 Order as clarified in this order. Accordingly,
26
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all upcoming discovery and pretrial dates set forth in the case
27
management schedule and all claim construction dates set forth in the Local Patent Rules pertaining the
28
2
Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD
ORDER CLARIFYING JULY 17, 2012 ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
‘799 and ‘904 patents are suspended until resolution of MediaTek’s Motion to Dismiss Lantiq’s Second
2
Amended Complaint. The dates and deadlines pertaining to the ‘116 patent claims are not suspended
3
and were not suspended by the July 17 Order.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ralink and Lantiq are granted leave to file a motion for
5
reconsideration of the July 17 Order. Any motion for reconsideration must be filed no later than 7 days
6
from the date of this order is issued.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall include in their joint preliminary pretrial
8
conference statement, to be filed no later than August 10, 2012, a proposed schedule for the ‘799 and
9
the ‘904 patent claims.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Dated:
_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD
ORDER CLARIFYING JULY 17, 2012 ORDER AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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?