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