Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 12-1461 & 13-335-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014)

Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 12-1461 & 13-335-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 149|Likes:
Published by YCSTBlog
Order
Order

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: YCSTBlog on Jan 27, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DEL W RE
PRINCETON
DIGITAL
IMAGE
CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) )
KONAMI
DIGITAL
ENTERTAINMENT
) INC.,
HARMONIX MUSIC
SYSTEMS, ) INC. and ELECTRONIC
ARTS
INC., ) Defendants.
PRINCETON
DIGITAL
IMAGE
CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v
UBISOFT
ENTERTAINMENT
SA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB
MEMOR NDUM ORDER
In
these
two
patent infringement actions (referred to herein as the
Harmonix
Action and the
Ubisoft
Action, respectively), presently pending before the Court are motions to stay pending resolution
of
inter partes
review
of
the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129 ( the '129 Patent ), filed by Defendant Harmonix Music Systems, Inc. ( Harmonix )
1
and Defendant Ubisoft Entertainment
SA
( Ubisoft ), respectively. (D.I. 66;
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 42)
2
For
the
The
remaining Defendants in the
Harmonix
Action neither
joined nor
opposed the motion to stay filed
by
Harmonix.
2
The motion
in the
Harmonix
Action was filed first, and also addresses the status
of
the
Ubisoft
Action; the briefing as to that motion is full. (D.I. 67, 68, 69)
The
briefing
on
the motion in the
Ubisoft
Action is limited, and, for the
most
part, simply refers to the arguments
Case 1:12-cv-01461-LPS-CJB Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1052
 
reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motions.
I BACKGROUND
3
A The
armonix
Action
Plaintiff Princeton Digital Image Corporation
( Plaintiff'
or Princeton Digital ) filed the
Harmonix
Action
on
November 13, 2012. (D.I.
1
The initial Complaint was amended twice, and the Second Amended Complaint was answered
by
all Defendants
in
March 2013. (D.I. 8, 24-27) The Court held a Rule 16 conference
on
August 16, 2013 and issued a Scheduling Order on August 23, 2013. (D
.I.
34)
At
the Rule 16 conference, the parties requested that the Court hold an early, limited claim construction hearing regarding two claim terms; that hearing was held on October 22, 2013 and a decision has not yet been issued. (D.I.
34
at 2) All party-initiated discovery, as well as service
of
infringement and invalidity contentions, was stayed pending the outcome
of
the limited claim construction proceeding.
ld.
t~
4(a) & Appendix B) A further
Markman
hearing was scheduled for
May
28, 2014 and no trial date has been set.
ld.
t~~
14, 20)
On
November 15, 2013, Harmonix filed its petition for
inter partes
review ( IPR )
of
claims
1,
5-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-23
of
the '129 Patent, asserting that all
of
the claims should
be
cancelled, as they are anticipated
or
rendered obvious
by
the prior art. (D.I. 67 at 1 & ex. 1) It filed the motion to stay on December 3, 2013, and briefing was complete
on
December 30, 2013. made in the briefing
in
the
Harmonix
Action.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 42, 50)
Any
citations herein are therefore to the briefing in the
Harmonix
Action, unless otherwise noted.
3
On
July 17, 2013, Judge Leonard P. Stark referred both cases to the Court to hear and resolve all pretrial matters,
up
to and including the resolution
of
case-dispositive motions. (D.I. 30,
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 1 0) 2
Case 1:12-cv-01461-LPS-CJB Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1053
 
(D.I. 66, 69)
B.
The
Ubisoft
Action
Plaintiff filed the
Ubisoft
Action on February 27, 2013; Ubisoft answered a First Amended Complaint on June 13, 2013.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I.
1
9) Thereafter, the Court held a Rule 16 conference on August 16, 2013, and issued a Scheduling Order on August 19, 2013. (
Ubisoft
Action, D
I.
15) Plaintiff later filed a Second Amended Complaint, (
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 21), and Ubisoft moved to dismiss
Plaintiffs
claim under 35 U.S.C.
§
271(g) in that complaint,
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 26). The Court heard argument on this motion to dismiss, which it has taken under advisement. Plaintiff thereafter served preliminary infringement contentions, but Ubi soft alleged that those contentions were deficient. This led to a discovery dispute teleconference with the Court.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 37, 38) The Court largely agreed with Ubisoft s assertions, and thereafter ordered on December 20, 2013 that: (1) Plaintiff provide supplemental preliminary infringement contentions; (2) all case deadlines relating to submission
of
Plaintiffs
preliminary infringement contentions be tolled; and (3) the parties should propose a schedule containing new such deadlines.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 43) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend to add a new defendant, Ubisoft Inc.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 46) Additionally, at the parties joint request, the Court amended case deadlines to call for the submission
of
preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions in early 2014, and a claim construction hearing on October 28, 2014.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I. 49) No trial date has been set.
Ubisoft
Action, D.I.
15
t~
18)
II. STANDARD
OF R VI W
Case 1:12-cv-01461-LPS-CJB Document 70 Filed 01/15/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1054

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->