`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE
`
`
`
`
`
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision, SA, and Nagra
`France S.A.S.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
`PRECLUDE RELIANCE ON CERTAIN
`INVENTION DATES AND TO STRIKE
`CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`i
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`APPLE’S MOT. TO PRECLUDE
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 85-1 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`The Court has carefully considered the arguments of the parties and hereby GRANTS
`
`Apple’s motion to preclude under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) for noncompliance with the Court’s
`
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. 58) and Patent L.R. 3-1(f) and 3-2(b). It is hereby ORDERED that:
`• Plaintiffs are precluded from asserting in this action conception and reduction to
`practice dates that differ from those expressly disclosed in Plaintiffs’ October 15,
`
`2015 Patent L.R. 3-1(f) and 3-2(b) disclosures. Specifically, the earliest
`
`conception date Plaintiffs may allege for U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736 is February 8,
`
`1996, for U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169 is June 30, 2001 (the end of the date range
`
`proposed by Plaintiff), and for U.S. Patent No. 7,725,740 is May 28, 2003. See
`
`Declaration of Melody Drummond Hansen which supports Defendant’s motion to
`
`preclude (“Drummond Hansen Decl.”), Exhibit 1 at 6–7.
`• Plaintiffs are precluded from relying on any documentation to support the alleged
`priority dates other than what was identified in Plaintiffs’ Patent L.R. 3-2(b)
`
`October 15, 2015 disclosure, specifically the documents Plaintiff produced that are
`
`bates numbered OPENTV2008-00008615 – OPENTV2008-00009148. See
`
`Drummond Hansen Decl., Ex. 1 at 7.
`• The following language is struck from Plaintiffs’ October 15, 2015 Patent L.R. 3-
`1(f) disclosure:
`o “at least as early as”
`• To the extent Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses allege conception or reduction to
`practice dates that differ from the dates expressly identified and alleged in its
`
`Patent L.R. 3-1(f) and 3-2(b) disclosures, those allegations are struck from
`
`Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses.
`
`This Order does not relate to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,644,429 or 6,148,081, as those patents
`
`were already held invalid in this action.
`
`1
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`APPLE’S MOT. TO PRECLUDE
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 85-1 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`Honorable Judge Edward J. Davila
`
`
`
`2
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`APPLE’S MOT. TO PRECLUDE
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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