Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 185

MOTION for Reconsideration RE: #178 SCHEDUELING ORDER of Court's February 16, 2011 Scheduling Order by Defendant Facebook Inc. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/2/2011, (Durbin, Christopher)This Motion relates to the Schedueling Order. Modified on 3/2/2011 (VB).

Interval Licensing LLC v. eBay, Inc. et al

Doc. 185

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. AOL, INC., et al., Defendants. INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff,

HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case No. No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S FEBRUARY 16, 2011 SCHEDULING ORDER NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 2, 2011

Pursuant to L.R. 7(h), Defendant Facebook Inc. ("Facebook") respectfully seeks reconsideration of the Court's Scheduling Order of February 16, 2011 ("Scheduling Order") because of the February 18, 2011 ruling in In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,. Nos. 2009-1450, 2009-1451, 2009-1452, 2009-1468, 2009-1469, 2010-1017, 2011 WL 607381 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011) which could not have been brought to the Court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence. I. INTRODUCTION The Court's Scheduling Order is squarely at odds with the recent Federal Circuit decision in In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 2011 WL 607381 ("In re Katz"). The Court's Scheduling Order "refuses to set a limit on the number of claims Plaintiff may pursue in
FACEBOOK, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER 2:10 -cv-01385-MJP COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 /[phone]

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

this litigation." (Scheduling Order D.I. 178 at 3.) However, the Federal Circuit decision in In re Katz found it was appropriate for the court to limit the number of asserted claims. In re Katz went on to specifically recognize due process rights in patent litigation cases, and cautioned that limitations which would hinder a party's ability to fully present its case would not be appropriate. In re Katz, 2011 WL 607381, at *3-4. While limiting the case to representative claims will not hinder plaintiff's ability to present its case, the portion of the Court's Scheduling Order that limits Defendants to construing 10 claim terms per litigation track will hinder Defendants' ability to present their full case. Thus, In re Katz provides grounds for reconsideration of the Scheduling Order's limitation on terms for claim construction and refusal to limit the number of asserted claims. II. ARGUMENT A. Limitation of Asserted Claims Is Appropriate It would be an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion to limit the number of claims Interval may assert against Defendants in this case. As held by the Federal Circuit in it's recent In re Katz decision, a court may limit the number of asserted claims allowed in a patent case so long as the limitation does not "risk[] erroneously depriving [Plaintiff] of its rights [where] that [] risk outweigh[s] the added costs associated with a substitute procedure." In re Katz, 2011 WL 607381, at *3. Thus, the Court should reconsider its refusal to limit the number of asserted claims, as such a limit would result in efficiency and cost savings for the parties and the Court, and would not deprive Interval of its due process rights. B. Claim Construction Term Limitation Is Prejudicial While the Court refused to limit Plaintiff's number of asserted claims, it erroneously limited all parties in each track to a maximum of 10 claim terms for construction. (D.I. 178 at 3.) In light of the large number of defendants with separate accused products and large number of asserted claims over 2 separate patents, as well as numerous issues that also usually encompass claim construction, such as means-plus-function claiming, indefiniteness, Bilski challenges, etc., a limitation to 10 claim terms for construction in the 682/507 track violates not only Facebook's due process rights, but improperly abdicates the Court's duty to construe all disputed terms rather
FACEBOOK, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER 2:10-cv-01385-MJP COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 /[phone]

2.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

than let the jury guess as to claim scope. "When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court's duty to resolve it." O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The parties have not yet met and conferred regarding the claim terms to be construed, and the exact number of disputed claim terms in not known. As such, the limit currently set forth in the Scheduling order is improper. Based on Interval's infringement contentions, Facebook's non-infringement contentions and the Defendants' invalidity contentions, it appears the current 10 claim term limitation for the 682/507 track will not allow for resolution of all fundamental disputes. Therefore, this limit should be removed. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Facebook respectfully requests reconsideration of the Scheduling Order with respect to these issues.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2011.

COOLEY LLP /s/ Christopher B. Durbin Christopher B. Durbin (WSBA #41159) COOLEY LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Michael G. Rhodes (pro hac vice) Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice) Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice) Christen M.R. Dubois (pro hac vice) Elizabeth L. Stameshkin (pro hac vice) 3175 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

922248 /HN

FACEBOOK, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER 2:10-cv-01385-MJP

3.

COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 /[phone]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2:10-CV-01353-RAJ

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 2, 2011, I electronically filed the following document(s): Facebook's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's February 16, 2011 Scheduling Order with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send an email notification of such filing to the attorney(s) of record listed below. Justin A. Nelson Matthew R. Berry Edgar Guy Sargent SUSMAN GODFREY 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC Eric J. Enger Michael F. Heim Nathan J. Davis HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC Max L. Tribble SUSMAN GODFREY 1000 Lousiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC By Electronic CM/ECF: Cortney S.Alexander Gerald F. Ivey Robert L. Burns Elliott C. Cook FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20910 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

1.

COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 / [phone]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO

Brian M. Berliner Neil L. Yang O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc. David Almeling George A. Riley O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc. Jeremy E. Roller Scott T. Wilsdon YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC 818 Stewart Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc. J. Christopher Carraway John D. Vandenberg Kristin L. Cleveland Klaus H. Hamm KLARQUIST SPARKMAN 121SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 Attorneys for eBay, Inc.; Netflix, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; and Staples, Inc. Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr. Christopher Wion DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for eBay, Inc.; Netflix, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; and Staples, Inc.

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

2.

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO

Aneelah Afzali Scott A.W. Johnson Shannon M. Jost STOKES LAWRENCE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98104-3179 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube LLC Dimitrios T. Drivas John Handy Kevin X. McGann Aaron Chase WHITE & CASE 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube LLC Warren S. Heit Wendy Schepler WHITE & CASE 3000 El Camino Real Bldg. 5, 9th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube LLC Kevin C. Baumgardner Steven W. Fogg CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Inc. Jeffrey D. Neumeyer OFFICEMAS INCORPORATED 1111 West Jefferson Street P.O. Box 50 Boise, ID 83728 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Inc. 3.

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail]

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO

Douglas S. Rupert John L. Letchinger WILDMAN, HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Inc. Eric W. Ow Francis Ho Michael I. Kreeger Michael A. Jacobs Richard S. J. Hung MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Defendants Yahoo! Inc. Mark P. Walters Dario A. Machleidt FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP 1191 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Defendants Yahoo! Inc.

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

/s/Christopher B. Durbin Christopher B. Durbin (WSBA #41159) COOLEY LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104-1732 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant FACEOOK, INC.

4.

PROOF OF SERVICE