COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. OpenTV, INC.

No. C 16-06180 WHA.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. OPENTV, INC., and NAGRAVISION SA, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Natalie Hanlon-Leh , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Macris , WilmerHale, pro hac vice, Anne Jin Lee , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Claire M. Specht , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Jason H. Liss , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Mary Virginia Sooter , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Sameer Ahmed , WilmerHale & Kathryn Diane Zalewski , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

OpenTV, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alice Juwon Ahn , Covington and Burling LLP, Michael Kenneth Plimack , Covington & Burling LLP, Nathan E. Shafroth , Covington & Burling LLP, Robert T. Haslam, III , Covington & Burling LLP, Udit Sood , Covington Burling LLP & Winslow Taub , Covington Burling LLP.

Nagravision SA, Defendant, represented by Alice Juwon Ahn , Covington and Burling LLP, Michael Kenneth Plimack , Covington & Burling LLP, Nathan E. Shafroth , Covington & Burling LLP, Robert T. Haslam, III , Covington & Burling LLP, Udit Sood , Covington Burling LLP & Winslow Taub , Covington Burling LLP.


CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER RE PILOT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

In this patent action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, in which over one hundred claims from 13 patents are asserted against plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC's accused products and services, the following procedure shall be used to more quickly and efficiently reach the merits. For this procedure, defendants and patent owners OpenTV, Inc., and Nagravision SA shall select one — and only one — claim, presumably their strongest case for infringement. Plaintiff and accused infringer Comcast shall also select one — and only one — claim, presumably its strongest case for non-infringement or invalidity. Each side shall then move for summary judgment on its chosen claim, to be heard on the normal 35-day track. Once Comcast files its motion, OpenTV and Nagravision may not "withdraw" their chosen claim, so they should take care to assert only claims they expect to win on.

The Court has reviewed the parties' jointly proposed schedule for these early summary judgment motions (Dkt. No. 78). The proposed schedule and deadlines are hereby incorporated into and deemed a part of this order. To be clear, however, this order does not obviate or otherwise alter the parties' obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, our Civil Local Rules, or our Patent Local Rules as to any claims other than the ones chosen for early summary judgment. For example, any disclosures due thereunder must be timely made in full as to all hundred-plus claims in suit. And, because "[t]he parties disagree on the scope of early summary judgment motions" (id. at 3), this order further clarifies that each side's early summary judgment motion should be as to all issues — including infringement, invalidity, or both — for its chosen claim. The outcome of this exchange may (or may not) warrant an injunction (if the asserted claims are as strong as OpenTV and Nagravision say) or terminating or other sanctions (if the asserted claims are as weak as Comcast says). Those potential remedies will be litigated soon after the motions for summary judgment are decided (depending, of course, on the outcome). In addition to adjudicating the chosen claims on their merits and indicating the relative strengths (or weaknesses) of both sides' positions, this procedure will further serve to educate the undersigned judge about the overall technology at issue.

Both sides shall please refrain from attempting to delay this procedure on the basis that more discovery is needed. OpenTV and Nagravision have had ample opportunity before this point to reverse engineer the Comcast technology in question, and are in an even better position to do so now that discovery is already underway in the ordinary course of this litigation. This case management order does not interfere with the existing discovery schedule, but no requests for extensions purportedly necessary in light of that schedule will be entertained.

Pursuant to the parties' proposed schedule, the early motions for summary judgment must be filed by JUNE 26, to be heard on AUGUST 3. If issues of fact prevent summary judgment, then we will have a trial on the disputed points soon thereafter, approximately three weeks after the hearing. Both sides shall please plan their calendars accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases