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)

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