ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al

Filing 979

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 10/02/2015. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Continue Trial Date (Dkt. No. 962) (“Mot.”) filed by
Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Apple requests a continuance of the trial date until after the completion of
post-trial briefing so that the “Court can both (1) enforce ContentGuard’s stipulation and/or (2)
enforce collateral estoppel rising from the Google trial judgment.”

(Mot. at 9.)

Plaintiff

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“ContentGuard”) opposes the Motion. (Dkt. No. 974) (“Opp.”). For
the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.

First, after consideration of the briefing by the Parties and after examination of the
agreement from its own four corners, the Court finds that the stipulation in question1 (“Verdict
Stipulation”) was not intended to apply to all defendants in the case and does not apply to Apple.
This is particularly true when the cases involved systems that are dissimilar to the accused
systems in the Google and Samsung trial. See (Dkt. No. 712, at 2.) In particular, the Court notes
that the Joint Proposal for Separate Trials filed by the Parties herein contemplated three separate
trials regarding direct infringement of the patents-in-suit: the Google-Samsung trial, the Apple

1

“WHEREAS ContentGuard agrees to be bound by any verdict of invalidity or noninfringement in the trial against
Google and Samsung (or any subsequent judgment).” (Dkt. No. 712, at 2.)

trial, and the Amazon trial. See (id. at 3, 14.) Further, the Joint Proposal explicitly states that
Motorola, HTC, and Huawei (collectively, the “OEM Defendants”) would be “bound by any
findings of direct infringement as to any claim on which a verdict is delivered in the trial against
Google and Samsung (or any subsequent judgment).” (Id. at 2.) Though the Verdict Stipulation
may be inartfully drafted, based upon a reading of it giving effect to the entire context of the
document itself and considering the related acts (such as the Joint Proposal), the Court finds that
the Verdict Stipulation was intended to apply and does apply only as to the OEM Defendants and
not to Apple.
Second, the Court finds that the issues in the Apple case are sufficiently disparate such
that collateral estoppel does not arise out of the Google verdict of noninfringement. Apple
argues that it “has asserted the same non-infringement positions that Google presented at trial
and which were decided against ContentGuard.” (Mot. at 1.) While the underlying Widevine
technology that Google uses was found to not be infringing, there is no evidence to suggest that
Apple uses that same Widevine technology. Though the cited noninfringement arguments may
not be completely dissimilar, the operation of the Apple and Google systems are substantially
different and this leads the Court to the conclusion that collateral estoppel does not apply. (Resp.
at 1 (“Suffice it to say that the Widevine and FairPlay systems (1) were independently designed;
(2) rely on different architecture; (3) use different source code; (4) are differently configured; (5)
operate differently; and (6) are incompatible with one another.”).)
Because the Court finds that the Verdict Stipulation only applies to the OEM Defendants
and because the Court finds that the operation of the Google and Apple systems is sufficiently
different such that collateral estoppel does not apply, the Court DENIES Apple’s Motion to
Continue Trial Date (Dkt. No. 962).

2

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2015.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3