Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

X ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK)

TENTATIVE RULING AND 

QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 6, 2019 

HEARING; PRELIMINARY ORDER

IN RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

(ECF 153) 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 129, 147, 153, 158

To assist the Parties in their preparation for the June 6, 2019 hearing on Uber’s motion to 

amend its invalidity contentions (ECF 129), this order sets forth the Court’s tentative ruling and 

questions. 

Tentative Ruling: The Court DENIES Uber’s motion to amend its invalidity contentions 

because Uber has not demonstrated sufficient diligence in seeking leave to amend. First, Uber 

cited the Benefon system in its original invalidity contentions, which it served in April 2017. 

Second, the Way-to-Go app is available on any Motorola i730 mobile phone, and X One made its 

prototype available for inspection in June 2017. Third, the Honorable Lucy H. Koh denied Uber’s 

§ 101 motion in March 2017 (ECF 52), and the IPR proceedings concluded in October 2018 

(ECF 82). As a result, Uber was aware of its purported basis for the § 101 and § 112 clarifications 

when the stay was lifted on November 15, 2018. ECF 89. 

Questions: 

• What are the specific representations or statements that X One made during the IPR 

proceedings that give rise to the need to add the Benefon and the Way-to-Go app 

prior art contentions? 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 168 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

• What are the specific “new and narrowing claim interpretations” that X One 

presented during the IPR proceedings that give rise to need for § 101 and § 112 

clarifications?

The Court will be prepared to address the discovery disputes set forth in the Parties’ May 

23, 2019 joint discovery letter (ECF 153). Counsel with authority to meet and confer to resolve 

these disputes shall attend the June 6, 2019 hearing. See ECF 165. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2019 

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 168 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 2