Gametek LLC v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 208

ORDER: (1) Denying Big Viking Games' 181 Motion to Strike Undisclosed Construction and Extrinsic Evidence; and (2) Denying Big Viking Games' 187 Motion to Strike Portion of Gametek LLC's Responsive Claim Construction Brief. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/7/2013. (knb)

I

1

2

FILED

APR 0821mj

CLERK. u,s, DISTRIGT COURT ',."
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNiA
BY
DEPUTY

3

4

5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

CASE NO. 12-CV-501 BEN (RBB)

GAMETEK LLC,

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

12

(1) DENYING BIG VIKING
GAMES' MOTION TO STRIKE
UNDISCLOSED
CONSTRUCTION AND
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
[Docket No. 181]

13

14

vs.

15
16
17

(2) DENYING BIG VIKING
GAMES' MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTION OF GAMETEK LLC'S
RESPONSIVE CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
[Docket No. 187]

F ACEBOOK, INC.; et aI.,
Defendants.

18
19

20
21

Presently before the Court is Defendant Big Viking Games, Inc.' s (1) Motion to

22

Strike Undisclosed Construction and Extrinsic Evidence (Docket No. 181) and (2)

23

Motion to Strike Portion ofPlaintiff GameTek LLC' s Responsive Claim Construction

24

Brief (Docket No. 187). For the reasons stated below, both Motions are DENIED.

25

26

I.

MOTION TO STRIKE UNDISCLOSED CONSTRUCTION AND EXTRINSIC
EVIDENCE

27

Big Viking Games moves to strike GameTek's construction of"commitment of

28

consideration" and the dictionary definitions GameTek seeks to rely on for the claim

- 1 -

12-CV-501

1

2

phrases "set of demographics" and "commitment of consideration."
The July 13, 2013 Scheduling Order sets forth the deadlines for disclQsing
(Dpcket No. 129.)

On

3

proposed claim constructions and extrinsic evidence.

4

September 6,2012, the Court modified the deadline for disclosure

5

constructions and extrinsic evidence. (Docket Nos. 141, 151.) On October 15,2012,

6

the parties exchanged preliminary proposed constructions and extrinsic evidence.

7

(Bekier Dec!. [Docket No. 181-2] ,-r 2.) On November 5, 2012, the parties exchanged

8

responsive proposed constructions and extrinsic evidence. (Id. ,-r 3.) On November 19,

~fpro~osed claim

9 2012, after meeting and conferring, the parties filed their joint claim construction chart,
10

worksheet, and hearing statement. (Docket Nos. 164, 165, 166.)

11

On January 13, 2013, the day before the opening claim construction briefs were

12

due, GameTek proposed a different construction, along with three new extrinsic

13

evidence dictionary definitions, for the phrase "commitment ofconsideration." (Bekier

14

Decl., Exh. A [Docket No. 181-3].) In addition, GameTek disclosed three new

15

extrinsic evidence dictionary definitions for the phrase "set of demographics." (Id.,

16

Exh. B [Docket No. 181-4].) Big Viking Games moves to strike GameTek's new

17

proposed construction and extrinsic evidence, arguing that it was unfairly prejudiced

18

in its ability to prepare its opening claim construction brief.

19

Under Patent Local Rule 4.1, parties are required to exchange "preliminary

20

proposed construction[s] of each claim term, phrase, or clause which the parties have

21

identified for claim construction purposes," and "provide a preliminary identification

22

of extrinsic evidence, including without limitation, dictionary definitions . . . ."

23

PATENT L.R. 4.1.a & b. The parties then are required to provide responsive claim

24

constructions "setting forth the responding party's alternate construction" and

25

corresponding extrinsic evidence. PATENT L.R. 4.1.c & d.

26

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, however, when a party moves for an

27

order compelling disclosure or discovery, "[t]he motion must include a certification

28

that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or
- 2-

12-CV-501

1

party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain)t without court

2

action." FED. R. ClY. P. 37(a)(1). Because this is a discovery and disclosure dispute,
.,';

3

,

Rule 37 applies here. See Pulse Eng 'g, Inc. v. Mascon, Inc." No. 08;.;CY-0595, 2009

4 WL 250058, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3,2009).
5

GameTek argues that Big Viking Games never requested a meet and confer to

6

discuss the alleged disclosure deficiencies, as required by Federal Rule of Civil

7

Procedure 37. Big Viking Games does not assert that it requested the required meet

8

and confer, nor does it otherwise address this argument by GameTek. Because Big

9

Viking Games was obligated to make a good faith effort to meet and confer to resolve

10

this dispute before bringing the present motion, Big Viking Games' Motion to Strike

11

Undisclosed Construction and Extrinsic Evidence is DENIED ..

12

II.

13

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
BRIEF

14

Big Viking Games moves to strike GameTek's arguments regarding the

15

construction of the term "ordering" in GameTek's Responsive Claim Construction

16

Brief.

17
18

19
20

21
22

23

In its Opening Claim Construction Brief, GameTek briefly mentioned the term
"ordering," and indicated that this term was not in dispute:
The remaining disputed phrases-"ordering the at least one selected
game object WIthout interrupting the gaming action of the at least one
user" . . . -need no further construction oey'oncLgaming action and
interrupting. With each of these phrases, Plaintifrand Defendant are
merely repeating their positions with respect to gaming action,
interrupting, and purchasing. None of tfie other words such as
"ordenng" . . . appear to be m dispute, nor has either side requested
con.struction of those words since they have an easily understandable
ordmary meanmg.

24
25

(Docket No. 178, at 22-23.) Big Viking Games provided a construction for "ordering"

26

in its Opening Claim Construction Brief. (Docket No. 177, at 17-19.)

27

The parties filed responsive claim construction briefs on January 28, 2013.

28

(Docket Nos. 180, 183.) GameTek's Responsive Claim Construction Brief raised
-3-

12-CV-501

1

arguments against Big Viking Games' proposed construction for "ord~f.ing." (Docket

2 No. 183, at 20-22.)

Big Viking Games moves to strike GameTek's.

argu~ents

.,

3

regarding the construction of"ordering" in its Responsive Claim Construction Brief,

4

arguing that it has been prejudiced by GameTek's failure toput forth its affirmative

5

position in its Opening Claim Construction Brief.

6

Under the Patent Local Rules, parties are required to "simultaneously file and

7

serve opening briefs and any evidence supporting their claim construction." PATENT

8

L.R. 4.4(a).

9

responsive to the opposing party's opening brief and any evidence directly rebutting

10

the supporting evidence contained in the opposing party's opening brief." PATENTL.R.

11

4.4(b).

Subsequently, parties are to "simultaneously file and serve briefs

12

Here, although GameTek did not advance an affirmative proposed construction

13

for "ordering" in its Opening Claim Construction Brief, GameTek simply responds to

14

Big Viking Games' proposed construction in its Responsive Claim Construction Brief.

15

To the extent that GameTek advanced new arguments that Big Viking Games has not

16 had an opportunity to respond to, Big Viking Games will have an opportunity to
17
18

19
20

address these arguments at the Claim Construction Hearing.
Accordingly, Big Viking Games' Motion to Strike Portion of Gametek LLC's
Responsive Claim Construction Brief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

~:
DATED: APri~013
23
24

25
26
27
28

-4-

12-CV-501