EIT Holdings, LLC v. Linkedin Corporation

Filing 27

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Report filed by EIT Holdings, LLC, Linkedin Corporation. (Goldstein, Edward) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Daralyn Durie (SBN 169825)
Ryan M. Kent (SBN 220441)
Eugene Novikov (SBN 257849)
Durie Tangri LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA. 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Mark W. Good (SBN 218809)
Benedict O’Mahoney (SBN 152447
TERRA Law L.L.P.
117 Park Avenue, Third Floor
San Jose, California 95113
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Edward W. Goldstein (TX Bar No. 08099500)
Goldstein & Lipski PLLC
1177 West Loop South, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77027
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant
LinkedIn Corporation

Attorneys for Plaintiff
EIT Holdings LLC

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17 EIT HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware company
18
Plaintiff,
19

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-02465-PSG
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
26(F) REPORT

vs.

20 LINKEDIN CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation,
21
22

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant.

23
24

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of September 6, 2011 (Doc. 23), Plaintiff EIT Holdings,

25 LLC (“EIT”) and Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) submit this Supplemental Joint
26 Case Management Statement and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Report.
27
28
Supplemental Joint Case Management
Statement and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) Report

-1-

1

DESCRIPTION OF SUBSEQUENT CASE DEVELOPMENTS

2

On September 6, 2011, the parties came before the Court for their initial case management

3 conference. At that conference and in their joint case management statement (ECF No. 22), the
4 parties explained the procedural history of the ligitation. In particular, the parties explained that
5 EIT filed a patent infringement action against multiple Defendants in the Northern District of
6 California before the Honorable William H. Alsup (C-10-05623-WHA) and that Judge Alsup
7 dismissed all except the first-named Defendant Yelp! Inc. based on misjoinder. The parties further
8 explained that this case follows from Judge Alsup’s order and involves the same patent as the
9 prior-filed Yelp case—United States Patent No. 5,828,837 (“the ‘837 patent”). Given that Judge
10 Alsup had set a claim construction hearing involving the same patent for early October 2011, the
11 parties asked the Court to continue the case management conference and to hold off setting a
12 schedule until Judge Alsup had had time to consider EIT and Yelp’s respective positions on what
13 the claims mean. On October 24th, Judge Alsup issued his claim construction order.
14

Both parties recognize the import of the proceedings before Judge Alsup in the Yelp case.

15 In the initial joint case management statement, the parties told the Court that Judge Alsup’s
16 claim construction order “will construe terms relevant to this litigation, and is likely to obviate
17 the need for this Court to consider some or all claim constructions issues.” The parties also
18 explained that one possible outcome from the claim construction order was likely to be an early
19 motion for summary judgment by Yelp that included an argument that three means-plus-function
20 limitations in claim 40 failed to disclose a corresponding structure that meets the requirements
21 set forth in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l
22 Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Given that the Court held the corresponding
23 structure for these three means-plus-function limitations to be a “master program,” LinkedIn
24 believes that Yelp will file a motion for summary judgment of invalidity against the ‘837 patent.
25 EIT believes that claim 40 does disclose a corresponding structure that meets the requirements
26 and that summary judgement is not appropriate. LinkedIn expects that this motion will be heard
27 before January 2012.
28
Supplemental Joint Case Management
Statement and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) Report

-2-

1

The result of any motion for summary judgment filed in the Yelp case has the potential to

2 significantly impact this case. Those proceedings could result in a judgment of invalidity as to
3 one or both of the asserted claims of the ‘837 patent. Those proceedings also could reveal
4 additional claim terms that would need construction either by Judge Alsup or this Court.
5 (LinkedIn agrees with the current claim constructions issued by Judge Alsup, and would not
6 challenge their adoption in this case by this Court). Further, the parties have scheduled a
7 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero on December 6, 2011, and EIT is set to
8 provide an initial demand on October 31st to which LinkedIn must respond by November 7th.
9 The parties therefore ask the Court to set another case management conference in January of
10 2012. By then, the parties expect to have further information that will aid this Court in setting a
11 case management order.
12
13 Dated: October 25, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

14
15 Counsel for EIT Holdings, LLC

Counsel for LinkedIn Corporation

16 By: /s/ Edward W. Goldstein

By: /s/_Ryan Kent______________

17 Edward W. Goldstein (TX Bar No. 08099500)
18 GOLDSTEIN & LIPSKI, P.L.L.C.

Daralyn Durie (SBN 169825)
Ryan M. Kent (SBN 220441)
Durie Tangri LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA. 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

1177 West Loop South, Suite 400
19 Houston, TX 77027
Tel: [phone]
20 Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

21

O’Mahoney
22 Benedict Law LLP (SBN 152447)
TERRA
23 177 Park Avenue, Third Floor
San Jose, California 95113

24 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

25 Email: [e-mail]
26
27
28
Supplemental Joint Case Management
Statement and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) Report

-3-

1
2
3

Attestation of Concurrence
I, Edward W. Goldstein, as the ECF user and filer of this document, attest that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

4
5

Dated: October 25, 2011

By: /s/ Edward W. Goldstein

6

Counsel for EIT Holdings, LLC

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Supplemental Joint Case Management
Statement and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) Report

-4-

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have

3

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s

4

CM/ECF system on October 25, 2011, or, if not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF system,

5

via electronic mail pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any other counsel of record will be

6

served by first class U.S. Mail.

7
8
/s/ Edward W. Goldstein
Edward W. Goldstein

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supplemental Joint Case Management
Statement and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) Report

-5-