AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 216

ORDER Denying 72 Motion for Clarification of Preliminary Injunction Order. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/6/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AEVOE CORP., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
AE TECH CO., LTD., a Taiwan corporation; )
S&F Corporation dba SF PLANET
)
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, )
and GREATSHIELD INC., a Minnesota
)
corporation,
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

11

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Clarification of Preliminary Injunction Order

12
13

(ECF No. 72) filed by Defendant AE Tech. Co., Ltd., Defendant S&F Corporation dba SF

14

Planet Corporation, and Defendant GreatShield Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed

15

a Response in opposition. (ECF No. 81.) Defendants failed to file a Reply.

16

I.

17

BACKGROUND
This case arises from the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,044,942, which

18

relates to a touch screen protector for a hand-held electronic device. (Am. Compl. 2:2-4, ECF

19

No. 44.) On May 2, 2012, the Court entered a Preliminary Injunction that orders that:

20
21
22
23
24
25

[Defendants], their agents servants, employees, confederates, attorneys, and any
persons acting in concert or participation with them, or having knowledge of this
Order by personal service or otherwise be, and hereby are, preliminary enjoined
from practicing, making, manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, selling,
and/or otherwise using U.S. patent No. 8,044,942, or a colorable imitation of the
same, and from transferring, moving, returning, destroying, or otherwise
disposing of any Infringing Goods, including, but not limited to, ACase APlus
Shield Anti-Glare products, original and redesigned, and the GreatShield EZseal
Plus 100% Bubble Free Screen Protector, pending a trial on the merits.

Page 1 of 3

1

(Prelim. Inj. 2, ECF No. 2.) Thereafter, the Court issued its Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to

2

Show Cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the Preliminary

3

Injunction. Defendants now seek clarification from the Court “to determine whether the sale of

4

any of the four screen protectors described [in its motion] is precluded by the Court’s

5

preliminary injunction order.” (Def.’s Mot. for Clarification 2:11-14, ECF No.72.)

6

II.

7

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AMOUNTS TO A REQUEST FOR AN
IMPERMISSIBLE ADVISORY OPINION

8

The role of the federal courts is “neither to issue advisory opinions nor to declare rights

9

in hypothetical cases, but to adjudicate live cases or controversies consistent with the powers

10

granted the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights

11

Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 1999). In this motion, Defendants essentially ask this

12

Court to issue an advisory opinion as to whether four hypothetical redesigned touchscreens

13

would likely infringe Plaintiff’s patent. However, the constitutionally limited jurisdiction of all

14

federal courts does not permit this Court to “opine in the abstract on questions of infringement

15

involving drawings of hypothetical products.”(Pl.’s Resp. 4:26-27, ECF No. 81.) Thus, the

16

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

17

III.

18

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO FILE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Even if Defendants’ request did not amount to a request for an unconstitutional advisory

19

opinion, the Court would still deny Defendants’ motion for failure to comply with Local Rule

20

7-2(d). Rule 7-2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

21

District of Nevada provides, if a party fails to file points and authorities in support of its

22

motion, that failure constitutes “consent to the denial of the motion.” D. Nev. R. 7-2(d). Here,

23

Defendants failed to file points and authorities that support their request, as required by Local

24

Rule 7-2(d). In fact, Defendants have failed to cite a single source from which this Court’s

25

authority to grant such a motion derives. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 72) is

DENIED.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2013.

5
6
7

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

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

Page 3 of 3