Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01647/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01647-5/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BLUE SPIKE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-01647-YGR 

ORDER RE: COUNTERCLAIMS 

On May 4, 2015, the Court issued an order granting voluntary dismissal with prejudice as 

to the plaintiff’s claims and issuing an order to show cause (“OSC”). (Dkt. No. 74.) The OSC 

asked why the Court should not enter judgment on the defendant’s counterclaims of noninfringement in light of the “preclusive effect” of Judge Corley’s January 26, 2015 Order striking 

the plaintiff’s infringement contentions, “now preventing the plaintiff from introducing any 

evidence of infringement as to the asserted patents and accused products at issue in this case.” (Id. 

(citing Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. C 10-2475, 2011 WL 5320749, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011) (finding an order striking infringement contentions without leave to 

amend, such that the plaintiff cannot introduce evidence of infringement by the accused products, 

“goes beyond the ordinary scope of discovery orders and becomes dispositive”)).)1

According to the defendant, the plaintiff initially represented it did not intend to object to 

the contemplated course. (Dkt. No. 77-1.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff ultimately filed an objection 

in response to the OSC, arguing against entry of judgment on the counterclaims of noninfringement in favor of the defendant. (Dkt. No. 75.) At the Court’s request, the defendant 

 1

 The OSC also contemplated dismissal of the defendant’s invalidity counterclaims without 

prejudice. Neither party objected to that proposed outcome. 

Case 4:14-cv-01647-YGR Document 78 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

thereafter filed a response to the plaintiff’s objection. (Dkt. No. 77.) 

In opposing the proposed course, the plaintiff first suggests there is no longer a case or 

controversy warranting entry of judgment on the counterclaims, citing Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. 

Chase Packaging Corp., 57 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (The estoppel caused by “Super Sack’s 

promise not to sue . . . removes from the field any controversy sufficiently actual to confer 

jurisdiction over this case.”). As noted by the defendant, however, that case is readily 

distinguishable from the instant circumstances. In Super Sack, the plaintiff had already filed a 

binding promise not to sue the defendant, conclusively eliminating the controversy at issue 

between the parties. Here, the plaintiff has merely stated that it is “willing to enter into a consent 

decree as outlined in Super Sack”—but has not done so.2 Second, without directly addressing, 

distinguishing, or providing contrary authority to Shared Memory, the plaintiff unpersuasively 

argues “a Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy a patent local rule requirement to prove infringement cannot 

morph into a finding of no infringement for the accused infringer in a declaratory judgment.” 

(Dkt. No. 75 at 3.) As in Shared Memory, the plaintiff is now unable to put forth evidence of 

infringement, and therefore entry of judgment for the defendant on its counterclaims of noninfringement is a foregone conclusion.3

 Third, the plaintiff argues the defendant’s counterclaims 

for non-infringement are impermissibly broad—but, as noted by the defendant, they mirror the 

breadth of the plaintiff’s own infringement claims, and thus this argument suggests bad faith by 

the plaintiff either now or at the outset of the case. The plaintiff’s fourth and final argument is 

largely unintelligible and, again, appears to rely on a mistaken belief that the defendant, and not 

 2

 (Dkt. No. 75 at 4.) According to the defendant, “Blue Spike’s Response makes clear that 

it is still quibbling with the scope of Adobe’s counterclaims of non-infringement, clearly 

demonstrating that Blue Spike is not prepared to provide a covenant that extinguishes all claims 

against any past and current Adobe products.” (Dkt. No. 77 at 2 (emphasis in original).) 

3

 Contrary to the plaintiff’s suggestion (made without any supporting legal citation) that 

the defendant bears the burden of proof on its counterclaims for non-infringement, “[i]t has long 

been established that the patent owner has the burden to prove infringement.” Yufa v. Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 575 F. App’x 881, 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family 

Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 849 (2014)); see also Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 

12-CV-00630, 2014 WL 4443407, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2014) (granting summary judgment 

on non-infringement counterclaim where the patentee presented no evidence of infringement at 

trial). 

Case 4:14-cv-01647-YGR Document 78 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 Californi

a

the plaintiff as patentee, bears the burden in seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. 

Having been provided with no persuasive argument or authority by the plaintiff to warrant 

a departure from the approach adopted in Shared Memory, the Court finds entry of judgment for 

the defendant on its counterclaims for non-infringement warranted in light of the circumstances 

detailed in the May 4, 2015 Order. The defendant shall prepare and file a proposed form of 

judgment addressing all of its counterclaims as provided herein, approved as to form by the 

plaintiff, within five (5) business days from the date of this Order. 

The OSC hearing set for June 5, 2015 is hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 20, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-01647-YGR Document 78 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 3