ARRIS Solutions, Inc. et al v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al

Filing 68

ORDER ON 65 JOINT LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFF'S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 9/12/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARRIS SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-01098-EJD (SVK) ORDER ON JOINT LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFF'S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 65 Defendants. 12 Before the Court is the parties’ joint letter brief concerning a dispute over whether Plaintiff 13 14 ARRIS Solutions, Inc. (“ARRIS”) is required to serve infringement contentions for U.S. Patent 15 Nos. 8,300,156 and 7,113,502, which are the subject of a pending motion to stay. ECF 65. The 16 Standing Order for Patent Cases of Judge Davila, the District Judge in this case, refers any dispute 17 regarding any party’s patent disclosures in this case to the assigned Magistrate Judge. For the 18 reasons discussed below, the Court orders ARRIS to provide infringement contentions for the ’156 19 and ’502 patents and further reminds the parties of their obligation to comply with all other 20 deadlines in the existing case schedule unless the parties obtain an order from the District Judge 21 changing the schedule. 22 I. 23 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 2, 2017, ARRIS filed this case alleging infringement of four patents. ECF 3. 24 On May 18, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF 29. The motion to dismiss is set for 25 hearing before the District Judge on October 12, 2017. Id. 26 According to the parties’ joint letter brief, approximately two months after ARRIS filed 27 this action, ARRIS filed an ITC action alleging infringement of six patents. ECF 65 at 1-2. 28 Defendants were among the Sony entities named as respondents in the ITC action. Id. at 2 n.1. 1 Two of the four patents-in-suit in this litigation—the ’156 and ’502 patents (the “overlapping 2 patents”)— are included in the ITC action. Id. at 2. The other two patents-in-suit (the “non- 3 overlapping patents”) are not included in the ITC action. On July 7, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to stay this case in its entirety. ECF 48. The 4 5 motion to stay is set for hearing before the District Judge on December 7, 2017. ECF 49. ARRIS 6 does not oppose the motion to stay as it relates to the overlapping patents, but opposes the motion 7 to stay as it relates to the non-overlapping patents. ECF 52. On June 23, 2017, the District Judge issued a scheduling order in this case. ECF 46. The 8 9 first event was a July 13, 2017 deadline for ARRIS to serve its infringement contentions. Id. According to the parties’ joint letter brief, on that date ARRIS served infringement contentions for 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the non-overlapping patents, but did not include infringement contentions for the two overlapping 12 patents. In the joint letter brief, Defendants ask the undersigned to either order ARRIS to produce 13 infringement contentions for the overlapping patents or dismiss those patents. Id. at 1. As a 14 compromise, Defendants propose that ARRIS serve infringement contentions for the overlapping 15 patents, and that Defendants will not oppose a motion by ARRIS for leave to amend its 16 contentions to include those patents. Id. ARRIS proposes as a compromise that the parties file a 17 stipulation staying the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 as to the overlapping patents. Id. 18 II. 19 DISCUSSION ARRIS argues that it should not be required to provide infringement contentions for the 20 overlapping patents in light of the pending motion to stay. See ECF 65 at 4-5. ARRIS did not 21 oppose Defendants’ motion to stay this case as it relates to the overlapping patents. See ECF 50. 22 Nevertheless, the District Judge has not yet ruled on Defendants’ motion to stay, and thus the 23 scheduling order remains in place. Under this district’s local rules, a Court order is required for 24 any enlargement or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline already fixed by Court 25 order. Civil L.R. 6-1(b). A request for a Court order enlarging or shortening time may be made by 26 written stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 or motion pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3. Id. Although it 27 appears from the joint letter brief that the parties were close to reaching agreement on a 28 stipulation that would have stayed the case as to the overlapping patents, which (if approved by 2 1 the District Judge and depending on the terms of the stipulation) might have suspended the 2 deadline for ARRIS’s infringement contentions for those patents, ultimately the parties were 3 unable to reach agreement. Nor did any party file a motion under Civil Local Rule 6-3 seeking to 4 change the case schedule. Given the parties’ apparent disagreement as to the status of their 5 negotiations over a stipulation, and particularly in light of Defendants’ statement that they would 6 not oppose a motion for leave to amend the infringement contentions to include contentions for 7 the overlapping patents (ECF 65 at 1), the Court hereby ORDERS ARRIS to provide its 8 infringement contentions for the ’156 and ’502 patents no later than September 26, 2017. The 9 parties are further instructed to comply with the existing case schedule (ECF 46, as modified by 10 ECF 61 and 67) unless and until the District Judge modifies that schedule. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 The Court notes that, in addition to filing their joint letter brief concerning whether 12 ARRIS’s infringement contentions for the overlapping patents were due according to the existing 13 case schedule, the parties have also recently presented the Court with two stipulations seeking 14 changes to that case schedule, both of which were granted. ECF 61 (order granting stipulation to 15 change deadline for invalidity contentions); ECF 67 (order granting stipulation to change deadline 16 for exchange of proposed claim terms). As a result, the Court has already been required to 17 intervene in a piecemeal fashion as to the first three events set forth in the case schedule. In light 18 of this history and the number of existing case deadlines between now and the hearing on 19 Defendants’ motion to stay, the Court urges the parties to meet and confer immediately as to 20 whether they believe any further adjustments to the case schedule are necessary and, if so, to 21 promptly present the issue to the District Judge in a single stipulation or motion as appropriate 22 under Civil Local Rule 6. 23 24 SO ORDERED. Dated: September 12, 2017 25 26 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 3

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?