Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 195

ORDER granting in part and denying in part #184 #185 #187 Motions for Reconsideration by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on three motions for reconsideration of the v. AOL, INC., et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C10-1385 MJP ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

17 Scheduling Order. (Dkt. Nos. 184, 185, 187.) The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 18 the motions. 19 All three motions point to new authority from the Federal Circuit that could not have

20 been presented earlier and that reconsideration is necessary. See Local Rule CR 7(h); In re Katz 21 Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 2011 WL 607381 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011). While this 22 case only vaguely relates to issues decided in the Court's Scheduling Order, the Court finds good 23 cause to reconsider its order on the narrow grounds Defendants raise. 24 \\
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1

1 A. 2

Motion filed by eBay, Netflix, Office Depot and Staples The Court finds persuasive Defendants eBay, Netflix, Office Depot, and Staples' request

3 to be permitted to present 20 claim terms in the `682/'507 patent track, rather than only 10. The 4 Court therefore AMENDS its scheduling order and permits the parties in the `682/'507 track to 5 present 20 claim terms for claims construction (10 per patent) in the initial Markman hearing. 6 These four defendants also request clarification as to whether the limitation on claims for

7 claims construction also limits the number of claims that can be challenged as indefinite, as 8 being invalid, or as having no patentable weight. (Dkt. No. 184 at 5-6.) The Court's Scheduling 9 Order places no limit on these types of challenges. 10 These four defendants lastly request the Court alter its Scheduling Order as to the page

11 limits on motions. (Dkt. No. 184 at 6-7.) The Court DENIES the request for sixty pages of 12 briefing on joint dispositive motions and 40 for reply briefs. However, the Court clarifies that 13 the Defendants may file multiple dispositive motions in this case so long as it is not done to 14 thwart the page limits set in the Scheduling Order. Dispositive motions should only be filed 15 when the issues presented are fully ripe. If the Defendants in a particular track wish to file 16 multiple dispositive motions at the same time or within two weeks of each other, they are 17 required to obtain leave of court, pursuant to the Scheduling Order. The Court encourages the 18 parties to present dispositive issues in the most direct and persuasive manner, which does not 19 require novel-length briefing. 20 B. 21 Motion filed by Defendant Facebook Defendant Facebook seeks reconsideration of the Scheduling Order and requests that the

22 Court permit it to present an unspecified number of claim terms for claims construction. As the 23 Court explains above, it will permit the parties to present 20 claim terms for construction (10 per 24
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION- 2

1 patent) in the `682/'507 track. If any party requests the Court to consider additional claim terms 2 for construction beyond those allotted, it must show good cause by formal motion. The 3 limitation on the number of terms is to preserve the ability of the Court to respond thoughtfully 4 to the request for interpretation of terms. Swamping the Court does not benefit the process. 5 6 C. 7 The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Facebook's motion. Motion filed by Defendants Google and YouTube Defendants Google and YouTube ask the Court to raise the limit of claims terms that can

8 be presented at the initial Markman hearing. As the Court has done in the `682/'507 track, the 9 Court also permits the parties to submit 20 claim terms for the `652/'314 track (10 per patent). If 10 any party requests the Court consider additional claim terms for construction beyond the 20 11 allotted, it must show good cause by formal motion. Moreover, as Google and YouTube request, 12 if any party in either track believes it necessary to present additional claim terms for construction 13 after the initial Markman hearing, or if the time allotted for the initial Markman is insufficient, 14 the Court will entertain a request for an additional Markman hearing or an extension of the 15 currently-scheduled hearing. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants Google's and 16 YouTube's motion. 17 18 Conclusion The Court AMENDS its scheduling order to permit the parties to present 10 claim terms

19 per patent for claims construction at the initial Markman hearing. The Court also permits the 20 parties to submit any request for an extension of the initial Markman hearing or for an additional 21 Markman hearing by formal motion. Further, if any party believes it requires additional claim 22 terms to be decided at claims construction, it must present its request by formal motion. The 23 24
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3

1 Court GRANTS the motions on this issue. However, the Court DENIES Defendants' request for 2 additional pages. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION- 4

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. Dated this 15th day of March, 2011.

Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge

A