Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 144 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:4939
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`Central District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:13-cv-1537-ODW(JEMx)
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART
`DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT [128];
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT [130]; ORDER FOR
`FURTHER BRIEFING ON CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION [139]
`
`
`On June 15, 2015, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requested leave to file a
`
`motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835
`(“’835 Patent”). (ECF No. 128.) After considering Apple’s request and Plaintiff
`Farstone Technology, Inc.’s (“Farstone”) opposition (ECF No. 129), the Court finds
`the issue of direct infringement as set forth by Apple appropriate further briefing, and
`GRANTS Apple’s request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment. The
`
`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 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 144 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:4940
`
`
`
`parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by July 28, 2015.1 In addition,
`the parties may submit a joint proposed scheduling order re-setting the remaining
`dates and deadlines for the Court’s consideration.
`Regarding the issue of notice related to indirect infringement and willful
`infringement, the parties have intimated that there is no genuine dispute as to the date
`in which Apple was provided notice of the patent at issue; therefore the parties are
`directed to submit a stipulated proposed order detailing the entitlement of summary
`adjudication on that issue by August 6, 2015.
`
`On June 22, 2015, Farstone requested leave to file a motion for summary
`judgment as to infringement of the ’835 Patent and Apple’s affirmative defenses.
`(ECF No. 130.) After considering Farstone’s request and Apple’s opposition (ECF
`No. 136), the Court finds that Farstone has failed to provide sufficient reasons for why
`it would be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on those issues. For example, as
`Apple points out, both parties’ experts seem to disagree as to how the claim terms read
`upon the accused products. Further, Apple points out factual disputes as to Apple’s
`affirmative defenses of marking and laches. Specifically, there appears to be a dispute
`as to what the parties agreed to stipulate regarding marking and whether Farstone had
`constructive knowledge of Apple’s products to create a presumption of laches. The
`Court therefore DENIES Farstone’s request.
`
`Lastly, on July 2, 2015, Apple requested leave to file a motion for summary
`judgment as to indefiniteness of all claims at issue in light of the Federal Circuit’s
`June 16, 2015 decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL
`3687459. (ECF No. 139.) Apple’s request reveals that claim construction issues
`remain, especially in light of the Williamson case. Accordingly, the Court directs the
`parties to file additional claim construction briefing on the following terms:
`“backup/recovery module for creating at least one recovery unit” (claim 1) and
`“processing system creating at least one recovery unit” (claim 9). See Pressure Prods.
`
`1 The parties may set a hearing date beyond the September 14, 2015 deadline to hear motions.
`
`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
`
` 2
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 144 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:4941
`
`
`
`Med. Supplies v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“As this
`court has recognized, district courts may engage in a rolling claim construction, in
`which the court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms as its
`understanding of the technology evolves.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
`omitted). The parties are to file simultaneous opening briefs not exceeding 10 pages
`by August 7, 2015 and simultaneous opposition briefs not exceeding 7 pages by
`August 14, 2015. In light of the supplemental briefing on claim construction, the
`Court DENIES Apple’s request as MOOT. (ECF No. 139.)
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`July 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ____________________________________
` OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
` 3