Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC, et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 186

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting #176 Motion to limit number of asserted claims. (TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 EAGLE HARBOR HOLDINGS, LLC,
and MEDIUSTECH, LLC,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
12
Defendant.
13

CASE NO. C11-5503 BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION

14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s
15
(“Ford”) renewed motion to limit the number of asserted claims (Dkt. 176). The Court
16
has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the
17
remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
18
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
19
After a stipulated dismissal of one asserted patent (Dkt. 132), Plaintiffs Eagle
20
Harbor Holdings, LLC and Mediustech, LLC assert that Ford infringes 114 claims of ten
21
patents. On October 10, 2013, Ford filed the instant motion requesting that the Court
22

ORDER - 1

1 limit the number of asserted claims to 20. Dkt. 176. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiffs
2 responded and filed a cross-motion to limit the number of prior art references. Dkt. 178.
3 On October 25, 2013, Ford replied. Dkt. 179. On November 14, 2013, Plaintiffs
4 withdrew their cross-motion. Dkt. 185.
5
6

II. DISCUSSION
In complex cases, the district court has “broad discretion to administer the

7 proceeding.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1232
8 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court may exercise such discretion by requiring a patentee
9 to reduce the number of asserted claims. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent,
10 639 F.3d 1303, 1311–1312 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
11

In this case, the parties do not dispute whether the number of asserted claims shall

12 be reduced, but they do dispute the extent of any reduction. Ford argues that it is “fair
13 and reasonable” to reduce the number of asserted claims to 20. Dkt. 176 at 11. Plaintiffs
14 counter that the appropriate number at this time is 35, and they do “not intend to take 35
15 claims to trial and will make further reductions later in discovery and after dispositive
16 motions are resolved.” Dkt. 178 at 6. Given that Plaintiffs have conceded over two17 thirds of the originally asserted claims and that the Federal Circuit’s model case
18 management order sets forth a maximum of 32 asserted claims, the Court finds that 35 is
19 a fair and reasonable number at this time. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that the
20 additional 15 claims would impose a significant and unjustified burden on Ford.
21 Therefore, the Court grants Ford’s motion and orders Plaintiffs to limit the number of
22 asserted claims to 35.

ORDER - 2

1

III. ORDER

2

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Ford’s renewed motion to limit the

3 number of asserted claims is GRANTED as stated herein.
4

Dated this 25th day of November, 2013.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3