Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 41 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:384
`Case 8:19-cv-02192—GW-AS Document 41 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:384
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-2192-GW-ASx
`
`Date April 9, 2020
`
`Title Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (Usg, Inc., et a].
`
`Page
`
`1 of 3
`
`Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Javier Gonzalez
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`None Present
`
`Court Reporter
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
`
`None Present
`
`None Present
`
`Proceedings: IN CHANIBERS — ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER EFFORTS BY THE
`PARTIES TO RESOLVE THEIR DISPUTES RELATING TO TCL’S
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing related to TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou
`TCL Mobile Communication C0., Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. ’5
`(collectively “TCL”) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Docket No. 37 (Notice of
`Motion), Docket No. 37-1 (Memorandum in Support of Motion); see also Docket No. 24 (First
`Amended Complaint), Docket No. 39 (Opposition to Motion), Docket No. 40 (Reply in Support
`of Motion).
`
`The Central District of California is operating at a significant deficit of District Judges.
`TCL’s motion was also filed during a time of international crisis due to the coronavirus pandemic.
`See Docket No. 37 (recognizing same by referencing the Order of the Chief Judge 20-042).
`Moreover, the Court’s review of the parties’ filings related to TCL’s motion to dismiss suggests
`that at least some, if not all, of the disputes addressed therein would be capable of resolution by
`reasonable parties without Court involvement.
`
`For these reasons, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer telephonically by
`noon on Monday, April 13, 2020 to discuss the issues identified infra and for Ancora to file by
`noon on April 16, 2020 a report (effectively a surreply) no longer than ten pages that addresses the
`following:
`
`0 Whether Ancora is willing to specify in a further amended complaint whether it is accusing
`(i) smartphones, (ii) servers, (iii) sofiware, and/or (iv) some combination of (i) through (iii)
`
`of being capable of infringing the asserted patent. The Court agrees with TCL that
`
`Ancora’s representations in its opposition in this regard are not fully consistent with the
`
`CV-90
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk .fi
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 41 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:385
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 41 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:385
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-2192-GW-ASx
`
`Date April 9, 2020
`
`Title Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., et al.
`
`Page
`
`2 of 3
`
`allegations made in the FAC as far as what constitutes an “accused product” or
`
`instrurnentality.
`
`0 Whether Ancora is willing to specify (again) in a further amended complaint what conduct
`
`listed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) it is alleging in this case insofar as infringement (i.e., are
`
`Ancora’s actions of “making, using, selling, importing,” etc. the accused instrumentality
`
`considered the basis for the alleged infringing conduct?) TCL’s reply casts doubt on what
`type of conduct Ancora is alleging, based on the statements and representations made in
`
`Ancora’s opposition.
`
`0 Whether Ancora is willing to specify in a further amended complaint what theory or
`theories of infringement (direct, indirect, joint, etc) it is alleging in this case. The FAC
`
`does not explicitly state one way or the other (it does not use the words “direct,” “indirect,”
`
`or “joint” at all), and the Court agrees with TCL that some of the language in the FAC
`
`tracks, for example, the legal requirements of a joint infringement claim, even though it is
`not otherwise pled and Ancora’s opposition denies joint infringement is being alleged.
`
`0 Whether Ancora would agree to incorporate into a further amended complaint certain
`information that appears in its opposition, but is not exactly reflected in its FAC. For
`
`example, Ancora should explain whether it would agree to amend its complaint to add
`
`claim charts or additional
`
`information linking the functioning of the accused
`
`instrumentalities to the claim limitations, similar to the claim charts and explanation set
`
`forth in its opposition. Ancora should also explain whether it would be willing to provide
`additional information without Court involvement beyond what was provided in its
`
`opposition; for instance, whether it would be willing to provide additional allegations
`
`regarding the “using an agent” step of Claim 1 of the asserted patent.
`
`0 Whether, based on its meet and confer with TCL, Ancora believes the parties can resolve
`
`their differences regarding the relevant legal authority governing accusations of patent
`
`infringement by defendant-owned software being run on a third-party device; specifically,
`
`their dispute with respect to Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc. , 550 F.3d 1325, 1335
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008), SiRF Tech, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010), and related legal authority. Ancora should also state whether it would be willing to
`
`file a finther amended complaint based on a resolution of that dispute. Otherwise, Ancora
`
`may provide a brief response to TCL’s reply arguments on the issue.
`
`CV-90
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk &
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 41 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:386
`Case 8:19-cv-02192—GW-AS Document 41 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:386
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-2192-GW-ASx
`
`Date April 9, 2020
`
`Title Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (Usg, Inc., et a].
`
`Page
`
`3 of 3
`
`At this time, the Court makes no determinations regarding what is required for Ancora to
`satisfy its pleading obligations. However, it does believe that at least some of the arguments made
`in TCL’s motion and reply, including those related to at least some, if not all, of the bullet points
`Ancora is being directed to address herein, would indeed support a determination of failure to state
`a claim. Ancora should bear this in mind in deciding whether it would choose to expend additional
`judicial and party resources relating to TCL’s motion, as opposed to simply being permitted by the
`Court, and accordingly agreeing to submit, an amended complaint on various issues that would, at
`the least, narrow the parties’ dispute.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. l.
`
`l TCL is expected to bear in mind similar considerations of judicial and party economy during the parties‘
`meet and confer eflom and in maintained or subsequent challenges, if any. to Ancora’s pleadings.
`
`CV-90
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk .fi
`
`