Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 76 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Rajeev Gupta (pro hac vice)
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:
`(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile:
`(404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`OPENTV, INC., NAGRAVISION S.A., and
`NAGRA FRANCE S.A.S.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
`TO CHANGE DATE OF HEARING ON
`MOTION FOR RULE 54(b)
`CERTIFICATION (CIVIL L.R. 6-3);
`
`SUPPORTING DECLARATION;
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`Judge: Honorable Edward J. Davila
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MOT. TO CHANGE DATE
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 76 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`I.
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CHANGE DATE ON MOTION FOR RULE 54(B)
`CERTIFICATION (CIVIL L.R. 6-3)
`
`Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S. respectfully make this
`
`unopposed request to advance the hearing date for OpenTV’s and Nagra France’s Motion for Rule
`
`54(b) Certification (Dkt. No. 75, the “Motion”). A few days before Plaintiffs filed that Motion on
`
`Thursday, February 25, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel called the Court’s Deputy Clerk to reserve a
`
`hearing date, and was advised that the first available hearing date for the Motion was August 18,
`
`2016. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the hearing date be advanced to March 31, 2016 (35 days
`after the Motion was filed). As discussed in more detail below, the Motion seeking interlocutory
`
`appeal is, itself, a time-sensitive matter, so it follows that an earlier hearing date will also serve those
`
`same issues of time-sensitivity. And given the relatively narrow issue presented in the Motion,
`
`Plaintiffs submit that the Court’s ability to consider the Motion’s merits will not be compromised by
`
`the requested earlier hearing date.
`
`On February 25, 26, and 29, 2016, counsel for Plaintiffs (Robert McCauley) communicated
`
`with counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. (Luann Simmons) and asked whether Apple would agree to
`
`not oppose Plaintiffs’ planned administrative motion to advance the hearing date. On March 2, 2016,
`
`Ms. Simmons confirmed that Apple does not oppose Plaintiffs’ request to advance the hearing date.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion sets forth a discrete issue, unencumbered by a voluminous record or thorny
`
`legal issues, that is ripe for resolution—whether to certify for interlocutory appeal this Court’s Order
`
`granting Apple’s motion to dismiss because the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,148,081 and
`
`7,644,429 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter (Dkt. No. 72). A
`
`chief reason for filing the Motion and pursuing an immediate appeal is to find out, as quickly as
`
`possible, whether that threshold invalidity decision was correct, since the answer to that question
`
`could significantly impact the future dynamics of this litigation. As the Motion explains in more
`
`detail, determining whether those two patents were correctly dismissed from the case now, rather
`
`than at the end of the litigation, can result in judicial efficiencies. For example, if this Court grants
`
`the Motion and allows OpenTV and Nagra France to appeal, and the Federal Circuit subsequently
`
`reverses this Court’s Order before a jury trial on the remaining patents has occurred, this Court could
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MOT. TO CHANGE DATE
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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 76 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`conduct a single trial on all patents at issue instead of the multiple trials that might occur if the
`
`Federal Circuit reverses this Court’s Order later. If the Federal Circuit affirms this Court’s Order, the
`
`Court and parties could then proceed to trial, or evaluate the prospects of settlement, without the
`
`specter of another trial on the ’081 and ’429 patents.
`
`By the same token, hearing the Motion as early as possible maximizes the opportunity to
`
`achieve those efficiencies. Advancing the hearing date to March 31, 2016 (35 days after the Motion
`
`was filed) could provide OpenTV’s and Nagra France’s appeal an additional four and one half
`
`months to work its way through the appellate process as compared to waiting until an August 18,
`
`2016 hearing date. That potential four and one half month savings is significant, given that an appeal
`
`on the isolated § 101 ruling may only take between a year and 18 months.
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request to advance the hearing date on
`
`OpenTV’s and Nagra France’s Motion by four and half months to March 31, 2016 (35 days after the
`
`Motion was filed), from August 18, 2016 (the date set by the Court’s Deputy Clerk), in order to
`
`obtain an earlier resolution of their motion.
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MOT. TO CHANGE DATE
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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 76 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 6
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Robert F. McCauley
`
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile: (650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Rajeev Gupta (pro hac vice)
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile: (404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France
`S.A.S.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MOT. TO CHANGE DATE
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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 76 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF ROBERT F. MCCAULEY
`I, ROBERT F. MCCAULEY, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court and all courts of the State of
`
`California, and am a partner with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, counsel
`
`for Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S. in the above-titled action. I
`
`submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Change Date for Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Rule 54(b) Certification. The matters stated herein are based upon my personal knowledge, and, if
`
`called as a witness, I would testify as to the following statements.
`
`2.
`
`The factual statements included in the above Motion to advance the hearing date are
`
`true, including the fact that counsel for Apple advised that Apple does not oppose this motion to
`
`change time.
`
`3.
`
`The requested time modification will not affect any date set by the Court in this
`
`matter.
`
`4.
`
`The previous time modifications in this case made pursuant to the listed Stipulations,
`
`Court Orders, and Clerk’s Notices are as follows:
`
`• Clerk’s Notice of Impending Reassignment to a U.S. District Court Judge
`vacating hearing dates scheduled before magistrate judge (Dkt. No. 16);
`• Order of Recusal vacating all pending dates of motions, pretrial conferences and
`trial (Dkt. No. 18);
`• Order assigning case to the Honorable Edward J. Davila vacating dates presently
`scheduled (Dkt. No. 19);
`• Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Apple Inc. to Respond to Complaint to
`June 26, 2015 (Dkt. No. 22);
`• Clerk’s Notice Resetting Case Management Conference Following Reassignment
`from Magistrate Judge resetting due date for Case Management Statement to
`September 10, 2015, resetting Case Management Conference to September 17,
`2015, and adjusting any deadlines associated with the Initial Case Management
`Conference accordingly (Dkt. No. 32);
`• Order (Dkt. No. 46) granting Joint Stipulation Regarding Briefing Schedule for
`Apple’s Motion to Dismiss resetting the due date for OpenTV’s opposition to
`Apple’s motion to July 17, 2015, and resetting Apple’s reply to OpenTV’s
`opposition to July 29, 2015 (Dkt. No. 44); and
`• ADR Phone Conference Re-Scheduling Notice resetting ADR Phone Conference
`to October 27, 2015 (Dkt. No. 56).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MOT. TO CHANGE DATE
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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 76 Filed 03/02/16 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of March, 2016, at Palo Alto, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Robert F. McCauley
` Robert F. McCauley
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs OPENTV, INC.,
`
`NAGRAVISION S.A., and NAGRA FRANCE S.A.S.’s Motion is GRANTED.
`
`The hearing on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification (Dkt. No. 75) is calendared
`
`for March 31, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`Dated: ______________, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`Edward J. Davila
`United States Court District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MOT. TO CHANGE DATE
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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