Hvac Technology LLC v. Southland Industries

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02934

ORDER Re November 17, 2016 Hearing. Motion Hearing re {{52}}, {{66}}, {{67}}, {{69}} set for 12/15/2016 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Tutorial Hearing set for 11/17/2016 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/9/2016. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HVAC TECHNOLOGY LLC, 7 Case No. 15-cv-02934-KAW Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER RE NOVEMBER 17, 2016 9 HEARING SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES, 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 66, 67, 69 Defendant. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Currently pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's motion for partial summary 14 judgment, (2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (3) Defendant's motion for evidentiary 15 sanctions, and (4) Defendant's motion to partially exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's expert. 16 (Docket Nos. 52, 66, 67, 69.) These motions are scheduled for hearing on November 17, 2016. 17 In light of the fact that this case was reassigned to the undersigned from Judge Grewal, and 18 that the undersigned has not had the benefit of a tutorial,1 the Court believes it to be more 19 constructive to schedule a tutorial on November 17, 2016, in lieu of a motions hearing. Each side 20 will be permitted 30-45 minutes to present a summary of the background of the technology 21 involved, an explanation of the nature of the problem the inventor sought to solve, and reference to 22 the prior art in existence at the time of conception. The patent holder will make the first 23 presentation. Visual aids are highly encouraged, and the parties are to provide a copy of any prior 24 art or documents that they rely on. The Court would prefer if someone other than counsel makes 25 the presentation. No argument or examination will be permitted. 26 27 1 The lack of a tutorial is particularly challenging in the instant case, where the parties assume the 28 Court's familiarity with the patents at issue and therefore provide limited explanation of what the patents entail. (See Dkt. No. 52 at 5; Dkt. No. 78 at 22.) 1 In addition to the tutorial, the parties must be prepared to address the following matters at 2 the November 17, 2016 hearing: 3 (1) What is the status of the '731 Patent claims, and will Plaintiff be dismissing those 4 claims? 5 (2) Is it Defendant's position that certain claims in the '731 and '761 Patents are anticipated 6 by the Viso Application, per 35 U.S.C. § 102? If so, why does Section 102 apply when 7 Section 102(a)(2) concerns an invention that is described in an application or patent 8 published, "in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another 9 inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed 10 invention"? (Emphasis added.) Isn't Charles J. Viso one of the inventors listed in the 11 '731 and '761 Patents? 12 (3) What is a Unistrut bracket and how does it relate to the instant case? Northern District of California United States District Court 13 (4) What settlement efforts are the parties engaged in, given that Plaintiff appears to value 14 this case at $68,400? (Dkt. No. 78 at 35.) 15 The Court also observes that both parties fail to provide specific pinpoint citations (or any 16 citations, in some instances) to the record. Defendant, in particular, cites to wholesale exhibits. 17 (E.g., Dkt. No. 69 at 2:8 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 3, a 275-page exhibit, and Exhibit 8, 18 which consists of over 50 pages of deposition testimony); 14:28-15:1 (citing the entirety of 19 Exhibits 8, 46, and 47); 15:25 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 13, a 120-page expert report); 16:22 20 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 13); 19:26-10 (providing no citations whatsoever, despite 21 referring to specific portions of Plaintiff's expert's disclosure and Visto's testimony); 23:5 22 (referring to Markups A and B but providing no explanation of what these are and what exhibits 23 they are found in).2) Plaintiff also makes broad, factual arguments relying on evidence and 24 testimony that Plaintiff then fails to cite. (E.g., Dkt. No. 78 at 27:3-10 (asserting that Plaintiff will 25 produce photographs and testimony, but not citing to any exhibits).) 26 It is not the Court's role to scour over 1,500 pages of exhibits for the specific portions of 27 2 28 To be clear, this is not an exhaustive list. The parties should review the entirety of their briefs for other instances where there are inadequate citations. 2 1 exhibits that the parties rely on. Thus, to the extent the parties want the Court to consider exhibits, 2 they must provide specific pincites, i.e., the page number for expert reports, the column and line 3 numbers for patents, and the page and line numbers for deposition testimony. At the November 4 17, 2016 hearing, the parties may provide the Court with a list of pincites in the following format: 5 Brief Page and Line Number: Proposition Being Cited: Exhibit No. with Specific 6 Pincite 7 Docket No. 69, Page 14:28- "it is inherent that pipes are Exh. 46 at [col:line], Exh. 47 at 15:1 supported by brackets" [col:line], Exh. 8 at [page:line] 8 The motion hearing on the pending motions is continued to December 15, 2016. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: November 9, 2016 11 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE 12 United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3