`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CONTOUR IP HOLDING, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOPRO, INC.,
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-04738-WHO
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`DISPUTE
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 255, 259
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`On September 14, 2018, Contour filed a statement regarding a discovery dispute between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the parties. Dkt. No. 255. Contour’s individual statement failed to comply with my standing
`
`order, which requires parties to a concise joint statement in the event of a discovery dispute that
`
`they have not been able to resolve through the meet and confer process. Contour’s justification is
`
`lacking. Go Pro filed a response on September 18. Dkt. No. 259. The inability of the parties to
`
`file a Joint Statement, and the back and forth concerning their failure to communicate effectively,
`
`reflects badly on all concerned.
`
`Request for Technical Documents
`
`
`
`Contour seeks additional technical documents related to the GoPro products that allegedly
`
`infringe on Contour’s patents, including schematics, hardware specifications, software
`
`specifications, and product requirements documents. GoPro argues in response that before the
`
`case was transferred to this district, the Hon. Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware rejected a
`
`similar request by Contour on July 21, 2017. July 21, 2017 Hearing Transcript (“Transcript”) at
`
`24; see Dkt. No. 160.
`
`Judge Stark found credible GoPro’s representations that it had made a good faith effort to
`
`locate and produce documents responsive to Contour’s requests. Transcript at 24. GoPro further
`
`stated during that conference that it would continue to pursue responsive documents. Id. at 24–25.
`
`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
`
`GOPRO-1048, Page 001
`IPR2015-01078
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-04738-WHO Document 260 Filed 09/24/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Unless Contour makes a showing that the circumstances have changed, I see no reason to question
`
`Judge Stark’s assessment of GoPro’s efforts in response to this request.
`
`Request for Prior Art
`
`Contour also seeks emails and invoices related to the catalogs that GoPro alleges as prior
`
`art to the ‘954 and ‘694 patents. GoPro calls attention to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in an appeal
`
`from a PTAB proceeding between the parties involving the same patents. See Gopro, Inc. v.
`
`Contour IP Holding LLC, 898 F.3d 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, the court noted the parties did
`
`not dispute the facts about the distribution of GoPro’s catalog or the date of the dealer show,
`
`which occurred prior to the critical date of the patents. Id. at 1174. Unless Contour can show why
`
`additional information is relevant in light of this finding, GoPro need not produce more than it has.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 24, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William H. Orrick
`United States District 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
`
`GOPRO-1048, Page 002
`IPR2015-01078
`
`
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
