`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`TWILIO, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.16-cv-06925-LHK (SVK)
`
`
`ORDER RE TELESIGN'S OBJECTIONS
`TO TWILIO'S AMENDED
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On August 11, 2017, Defendant Telesign Corporation (“Telesign”) filed objections to
`
`Plaintiff Twilio, Inc.’s (“Twilio”) amended infringement contentions. ECF 104. Telesign’s
`
`objections followed a previous motion to strike which the Court treated as a motion to compel.
`
`ECF 79. The Court granted Telesign’s motion and set deadlines for the amended infringement
`
`contentions and further objections. ECF 89. The Court finds that Twilio’s amended infringement
`
`contentions satisfy Patent L.R. 3-1 and therefore overrules Telesign’s objections.
`
`The Patent Local Rules “are designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the
`
`case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.” Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13–cv–05808–HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2,
`
`2015) (citation and quotation omitted). To that end, “plaintiff bears the burden of providing
`
`infringement contentions that specify the location of every claim element within the accused
`
`products, so that the Court can make a principled decision on whether discovery will proceed.”
`
`Bender v. Infineon Techs. N. Am. Corp., No. C09-02112 JW (HRL), 2010 WL 964197, at *1 (N.D.
`
`Cal. March 16, 2010); see also Finjan, 2015 WL 1517920, at *2, 6. “Patent L.R. 3-1 does not
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 113 Filed 09/01/17 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`require [the plaintiff] to produce evidence of infringement or to set forth ironclad and irrefutable
`
`claim constructions, nor does it require a plaintiff to provide support for its contentions.”
`
`Renesas Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp., No. C03-05709JFHRL, 2004 WL 2600466, at *4
`
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2004) (quoting Network Caching Tech. Corp. v. Novell, Inc., No. C–01–
`
`2079 VRW, 2003 WL 21699799, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2003)).
`
`Having reviewed Twilio’s amended contentions and Telesign’s objections, the Court finds
`
`that Twilio followed the Court’s directions provided during oral argument and, as a result, the
`
`infringement contentions are much improved. The amended contentions map claim elements to
`
`the accused products and, importantly, now appear to provide the Court with sufficient guidance
`
`to make decisions regarding discovery. Telesign’s objections, generally seeking more detailed
`
`information as to how certain limitations are performed, exceed the requirements of Patent L.R.
`
`3-1, and may be more appropriately directed to arguments of noninfringement. Consequently,
`
`Telesign’s objections are overruled without prejudice to Telesign raising the issues identified
`
`therein at an appropriate time in the future.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
