Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01995/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01995-9/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 1

 References to the Docket refer to Case No. 06-07222.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

YODLEE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABLAISE LTD., et al.,

Defendants. 

FINANCIAL FUSION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABLAISE LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

 

ABLAISE LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 

No. C 06-07222 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 54]

RELATED CASE

No. C 05-05234 SBA

[Docket No. 106]

RELATED CASE

No. C 05-05234 SBA

[Docket No. 43]

Currently before the Court is Ablaise's Motion for a Case Management Order [Docket No.

54].1

 Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to

the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing.

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 13
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

2

 On June 14, 2006, FFI filed an Amended Complaint seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of

the 737 patent.

2

BACKGROUND

A. Ablaise Accuses FFI's Customers; FFI Sues Ablaise

On February 6, 2006, Ablaise LTD, et al. (“Ablaise”) sent a letter to Bank of America

Corporation (“Bank of America”) accusing the “military bank” feature of Bank of America’s

website of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,961,737 (the “737 patent”). On February 7 and March 24,

2006, Ablaise sent letters to First Horizon Bank ("First Horizon"), warning that its website infringed

the 737 patent and threatening a patent infringement lawsuit. On April 6, 2006, FFI filed a

declaratory judgment action stating that FFI developed the allegedly infringing Bank of America and

First Horizon websites and seeking a declaration that its products do not infringe the 737 patent.2

This declaratory judgment action was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. 

Ablaise asserted counterclaims against FFI and its customers in this declaratory judgment action,

including claims of infringement of the 737 patent as well as U.S. Patent No. 6,295,530 (the “530

patent”). On November 2, 2006, FFI filed for leave to add the 530 patent to its declaratory judgment

action. The Court granted FFI leave to add the 530 patent on December 18, 2006. On July 26,

2006, Ablaise filed a motion to dismiss the FFI litigation on the grounds that there was no case or

controversy between Ablaise and FFI. Magistrate Judge Trumbull denied that motion on September

27, 2006. 

B. Ablaise Accuses Yodlee's Customers; Yodlee Sues Ablaise

On April 10, 2006, Ablaise sent a letter to Compass Bank accusing the “compassweb.com”

portion of the Compass Bank website of infringing the 737 patent. On July 26, 2006, Ablaise sent a

letter to Bank of America accusing the "My Portfolio" feature of the Bank of America website of

infringing the 737 patent. The features that Ablaise identified in these two letters were designed,

developed, created, and supported by Yodlee, Inc. (“Yodlee”). On November 21, 2006, Yodlee filed

a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California, seeking judgment that its

products do not infringe either the 530 or the 737 patents. The Yodlee declaratory judgment action

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 13
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

3

 Two other cases involving the same patents have been ongoing before the United States District Court of the District of

Columbia, Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd., Civil Action No. 1:06 CV 01014 (filed July 11, 2007), and Dow Jones Reuters

Business Interactive, LLC v. Ablaise Ltd., Civil Action No. 1:06 CV 01015 (filed July 11, 2007) (collectively, “the Dow Jones

cases”). The Dow Jones cases involve claims for declaratory judgment and of infringement of the 530 and 737 patents.

3

was initially assigned to Judge Whyte. Ablaise asserted counterclaims against Yodlee and its

customers, including claims of infringement of the 530 and 737 patents.

C. Ablaise Sues Bank of America for the 530 and 737 Patents

On August 28, 2006, Ablaise sued Bank of America in the District of Delaware alleging

infringement of the 737 patent by the Bank of America website (the “Delaware Action”). On

October 10, 2006, Ablaise amended its complaint in the Delaware Action to add claims for Bank of

America's alleged infringement of the 530 patent.

D. Cases Related

On December 5, 2006, FFI filed an Administrative Motion to Relate Cases, requesting that

FFI’s declaratory judgment action be related to the Yodlee declaratory judgment action. On

December 15, 2006, Magistrate Judge Trumbull granted FFI’s Motion to Relate Cases and the

Yodlee declaratory judgment action was assigned to Magistrate Judge Trumbull. On January 19,

2007, Ablaise filed a Declination to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, and on January 22, 2007,

both the FFI and Yodlee declaratory judgment actions were assigned to this Court.

On December 22, 2006, Bank of America filed a motion to stay the Delaware Action on the

ground that the FFI and Yodlee declaratory judgment actions will resolve Ablaise’s infringement

claims against Bank of America. Ablaise opposed this motion and on March 1, 2007, Chief Judge

Robinson denied Bank of America’s Motion to Stay, and transferred the Delaware Action to this

District. After transfer, the Bank of America litigation was assigned to Judge Patel, who filed a

notice of recusal. The Delaware Action was then reassigned to Judge Alsup. On April 24, 2007,

FFI filed an administrative motion to relate the transferred Delaware Action with the FFI and Yodlee

declaratory judgment actions. This Court granted the motion on May 7, 2007.3

E. Issues Presented by Ablaise's Present Motion

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 13
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 4

Ablaise requests that this Court limit FFI’s and Yodlee’s declaratory judgment actions to the

Bank of America website and dismiss without prejudice all of FFI’s and Yodlee’s claims concerning

the 530 patent. Ablaise also moves the Court to allow it to amend its answers and counterclaims

against FFI and Yodlee to limit its infringement allegations to the services that FFI and Yodlee

provide to Bank of America in connection with the 737 patent. In the alternative, Ablaise seeks to

compel discovery responses from FFI and Yodlee that will permit an analysis of infringement of

other customers besides Bank of America. Finally, Ablaise seeks leave to amend its preliminary

infringement contentions against Bank of America to add the 530 Patent.

In their opposition to Ablaise’s motion, FFI, Yodlee, and Bank of America (collectively, the

“Accused”) request that the Court dismiss with prejudice all of Ablaise’s counterclaims against FFI

and Yodlee relating to the 530 patent and dismiss with prejudice Ablaise’s counterclaims against

FFI and Yodlee relating to websites other than the Bank of America website, arguing that Ablaise

has failed to prosecute such claims. The Accused also object to Ablaise’s request for leave to amend

its preliminary infringement contentions against Bank of America to add the 530 patent, arguing that

Ablaise's request is not supported by good cause. Finally, the Accused object to Ablaise’s motion to

compel discovery.

ANALYSIS

Ablaise moves this Court to dismiss FFI’s and Yodlee’s claims concerning their customers

other than Bank of America. Ablaise argues that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction

to hear such claims because, it contends, there is no controversy between Ablaise and customers of

FFI and Yodlee other than Bank of America.

The Supreme Court, in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007), recently

enunciated the appropriate standard for declaratory judgment jurisdiction. "The question in each

case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial

controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to

warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” MedImmune, 127 S. Ct. at 771.

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 13
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

4

 Emphasis added.

5

 Ablaise’s argument, that simply because First Horizon Bank has removed the infringing portion of its website there cannot

be subject matter jurisdiction over FFI's claims concerning First Horizon, is unpersuasive. Even if First Horizon's alleged

infringements are past infringements, Ablaise retains the right to sue First Horizon Bank for past infringements. Indeed, in

the present motion, Ablaise seeks leave to amend its infringement contentions to address past infringement of its 530 patent

by Bank of America. See Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

5

A. FFI’s Claims Regarding Customers Other than Bank of America

Ablaise argues that no controversy exists between it and FFI with respect to FFI's customers

other than Bank of America. Ablaise acknowledges that FFI has pled that it is bound by indemnity

agreements with two customers who received letters from Ablaise regarding patent

infringement—Bank of America and First Horizon. However, Ablaise argues that since that time,

First Horizon has removed the infringing portion of its website. Therefore, according to Ablaise,

FFI no longer has an “actual or imminent injury" caused by Ablaise that could be redressed by this

Court in regards to First Horizon. Ablaise contends that FFI's only basis for subject matter

jurisdiction relates to Ablaise’s controversy with Bank of America.

Under MedImmune, “the question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the

circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal

interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”

MedImmune, 127 S. Ct. at 771.4

 In light of this standard, the Court disagrees with Ablaise that

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking over the claims relating to First Horizon. 5 However, the Court

also finds that FFI, for its part, has not sufficiently alleged a controversy between Ablaise and

customers of FFI other than Bank of America and First Horizon under the MedImmune standard. 

Although Ablaise has indeed threatened these two FFI customers, FFI has not alleged that other

customers have been threatened or that there is a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy

and reality between Ablaise and other customers to warrant declaratory relief.

FFI has failed to allege a controversy between Ablaise and customers of FFI other than First

Horizon and Bank of America. Accordingly, Ablaise's motion to dismiss FFI's claims regarding

customers other than First Horizon and Bank of America is GRANTED, without prejudice, for lack

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 5 of 13
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 6

of subject matter jurisdiction. Ablaise is ORDERED to amend its complaint, within 10 days of date

this order is entered, to limit its counterclaims to FFI’s customers, First Horizon and Bank of

America. 

B. Yodlee's Claims Regarding Customers Other than Bank of America

Ablaise argues that Yodlee only has subject matter jurisdiction for its claims concerning the

Bank of America website. Ablaise explains that Yodlee only identified two customers with which it

has an indemnity agreement that received accusatory letters from Ablaise, Compass Bank and Bank

of America, but that Compass Bank has changed its website since being contacted by Ablaise on

April 10, 2006. Therefore, according to Ablaise, Yodlee cannot show a substantial controversy

between Ablaise and other Yodlee customers save Bank of America.

Yodlee is in a similar position as FFI vis-a-vis Ablaise’s infringement claims. Thus, the

same disposition of its claims is appropriate. Yodlee’s customers, Bank of America and Compass

Bank, were each contacted by Ablaise and threatened with legal action in connection with alleged

infringement of Ablaise’s patents. Yodlee has also alleged the existence of indemnification

agreements with these customers. Bank of America has since been sued by Ablaise for portions of

Bank America’s site developed by Yodlee. Furthermore, there is no apparent legal impediment to

Ablaise suing Compass Bank for past infringement of Ablaise's patents, despite its removal of the

offending portions of its website. Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

Yodlee's declaratory judgment claims for Compass Bank and Bank of America.

However, Yodlee has not alleged that other customers have been threatened or that there is a

substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Ablaise and other customers to

warrant declaratory relief. Accordingly, Ablaise's motion to dismiss Yodlee's claims regarding

customers other than Compass Bank and Bank of America is GRANTED without prejudice for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. Ablaise is ORDERED to amend its complaint, within 10 days of date

this order is entered, to limit its counterclaims to Yodlee’s customers, Compass Bank and Bank of

America. 

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 6 of 13
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

6

 Emphasis added.

7

C. Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions against Bank of America

On September 20, 2007, the Court entered a scheduling order setting November 1, 2007 as

the deadline for disclosure of Preliminary Infringement Contentions pursuant to the Patent Local

Rules [Docket No. 41]. Although in its Amended Complaint, filed October 10, 2006, Ablaise pled

infringement claims against Bank of America for the 530 patent, Ablaise did not file infringement

contentions for the 530 patent by the Court's deadline. Ablaise now requests leave to amend its

preliminary infringement contentions against Bank of America to include contentions for past

infringement of the 530 patent. FFI, Yodlee, and Bank of America oppose this, arguing that, despite

alleging infringement of its 530 patent against Bank of America, Ablaise has failed to file

corresponding preliminary infringement contentions by the deadline established by the Court

without good cause.

Amendment or modification of the Preliminary or Final Infringement Contentions or the

Preliminary or Final Invalidity Contentions, other than as expressly permitted in Patent L.R. 3-6,

may be made only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only a upon a showing of good

cause. Patent L.R. 3-7.6

 While the Ninth Circuit has not offered any guidance as to what

constitutes good cause to amend preliminary infringement contentions under this Court's Patent

Local Rules, it has addressed the meaning of good cause in the context of a motion to amend a

scheduling order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In

discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Ninth Circuit has held that the focus must be on the diligence of

the party seeking amendment. "[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and

offers no reason for a grant of relief." Id. The existence or degree of prejudice to the opposing party

may be considered; however, the motion turns on the moving party's reasons for seeking

modification. Id.

Ablaise argues that good cause exists here for it to amend its preliminary infringement

contentions. However, the only reason it advances in support of this position is that it "was in the

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 7 of 13
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 8

process of determining the scope of these actions around the time its preliminary infringement

contentions were filed." This argument is unpersuasive. Ablaise sued Bank of America on August

28, 2006. FFI filed its declaratory judgment action on April 6, 2006 and added the 530 patent to its

action on December 18, 2006. Yodlee filed its declaratory judgment action on November 21, 2006. 

Thus, all of the actions concerning Ablaise’s present motion commenced nearly one year before

Ablaise's preliminary infringement contentions were due on November 1, 2007. Ablaise should

have been more diligent in prosecuting its 530 patent claim against Bank of America and should

have filed infringement contentions in accordance with the Patent Local Rules and this Court’s

scheduling order. At a minimum, Ablaise should have sought modification of the scheduling order

or other appropriate procedural relief prior to the deadline established by the Court. Instead, it

waited nearly two months after expiration of the deadline on November 21, 2007 to bring the issue

to the Court’s attention on January 10, 2008, and over a year after these related cases were

commenced.

Having failed to articulate good cause for its failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling

order, Ablaise's request for leave to amend its preliminary infringement contentions, to add a past

infringement of the 530 patent by Bank of America, is DENIED. 

Defendants contend that Ablaise’s failure to file preliminary infringement contentions for the

530 patent against Bank of America constitutes a failure to prosecute, and argue that dismissal with

prejudice of Ablaise’s 530 patent claim against Bank of America is the appropriate procedural

remedy under these circumstances. While a court may dismiss a claim with prejudice for failure to

prosecute on behalf of the claimant, it may also, in its discretion, choose to dismiss such a claim

without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b) (“Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise

specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision....operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”). 

Furthermore, dismissal of a claim with prejudice is a harsh remedy and disfavored except in extreme

circumstances. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendants cite

BioGenex Labs. v. Ventana Med. Sys., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45531, *7-8 (N.D. Cal. 2005) in

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 8 of 13
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 9

support of their position. In BioGenex, the court denied a patentee’s motion for leave to amend

infringement contentions and granted the accused infringer’s motion for summary judgment after the

patentee failed to serve infringement contentions by the Court’s deadline, failed to seek an

extension, and failed to establish “good cause” pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-7. BioGenex, 2005

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45531 at *7-8.

However, in BioGenex, the court’s denial of leave to amend the preliminary infringement

contentions was also based on the court’s finding that the accused party would have been prejudiced

to the extent that the failure to file the infringement contentions led it to expend time and money in

filing and pursuing the motion for summary judgment. Id. Here, although Ablaise has not

established that it has good cause to amend its preliminary infringement contentions, the Accused

have not expended time and money to pursue a motion to dismiss Ablaise’s 530 claims against Bank

of America and therefore BioGenex is less applicable.

In light of the strong policy disfavoring dismissal with prejudice, Ablaise's claim against

Bank of America for past infringement of the 530 patent is DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to prosecute. 

D. FFI's and Yodlee's Claims Regarding the 530 Patent

Ablaise requests that this Court dismiss without prejudice FFI’s and Yodlee’s Claims

concerning infringement of the 530 patent. Ablaise argues that this Court does not have subject

matter jurisdiction to hear such claims because, it alleges, Ablaise's only controversy with FFI and

Yodlee concerns the 737 patent. Specifically, Ablaise argues that it has not accused any portion of

Bank of America’s website, developed or serviced by FFI or Yodlee, of infringing the 530 patent. 

As such, according to Ablaise, neither FFI nor Yodlee can establish subject matter jurisdiction to

proceed on their declaratory judgment actions involving the 530 patent. Ablaise is correct on this

point except with respect to Bank of America’s website. 

In its First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Bank of America, Ablaise

alleges that “Bank of America has infringed one or more claims of the 737 patent and the 530 patent

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 9 of 13
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

7

 Emphasis added.

8

 The Court notes that prior to the present motion, in the FFI declaratory judgment action, Ablaise unsuccessfully argued for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the 530 patent. Ablaise opposed FFI’s motion for leave to add the 530 patent to FFI’s

declaratory judgment action on the ground that there was no case or controversy regarding the patent. However, Magistrate

Judge Trumbull agreed with FFI, finding that there was an actual controversy between Ablaise and FFI over the 530 patent

and granted FFI’s motion for leave to add the 530 patent to this case.

10

by making, using, and operating its bankofamerica.com and related websites throughout the United

States....”7

 In its First Amended Complaint, Ablaise chose to assert very broad allegations against

Bank of America, extending to the 530 patent on the bankofamerica.com website and related

websites. With respect to the Military Bank website (bankofamerica.com/military), FFI argues that

it asked Ablaise to amend its First Amended Complaint to exclude the Military Bank website but

Ablaise has failed to do so. Ablaise’s suit against Bank of America, including its allegations of

infringement of the 530 patent by the Military Bank website constitutes a substantial controversy,

with Bank of America, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief.8 Thus, the

Court has subject matter jurisdiction under MedImmune to hear FFI’s and Yodlee’s claims

concerning infringement of the 530 patent by the Bank of America website. However, as explained

above, the Court dismisses Ablaise's claims against Bank of America for past infringement of the

530 patent. Thus, Ablaise's motion for dismissal of FFI's and Yodlee's claims for non-infringement

of the 530 patent by Bank of America is DENIED as moot.

FFI and Yodlee have failed to establish that a substantial controversy of sufficient

immediacy and reality exists between Ablaise and their customers, other than Bank of America, with

respect to the 530 patent. Thus, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such

claims. Accordingly, Ablaise’s motion for dismissal of FFI’s and Yodlee’s claims concerning the

530 patent and customers other than Bank of America, namely First Horizon and Compass Bank, is

GRANTED without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

E. Dismissal of Ablaise’s Claims against FFI and Yodlee

FFI and Yodlee argue that despite alleging infringement of its 737 patent by FFI’s and

Yodlee’s customers other than Bank of America, and infringement of its 530 patent by such

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 10 of 13
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 11

customers including Bank of America, Ablaise failed to file corresponding preliminary infringement

contentions by the deadline established by the Court's scheduling order. FFI and Yodlee argue that

Ablaise has failed to prosecute these claims and that dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate

procedural remedy.

As explained above, the Court finds that FFI and Yodlee have not established the requisite

controversy between Ablaise and their other customers besides Bank of America, First Horizon (for

FFI), and Compass Bank (for Yodlee) to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore,

Ablaise's claim for infringement of the 530 patent by Bank of America has been dismissed leaving

only Ablaise’s claims concerning the 737 patent. Finally, as explained above, the Court has ruled

that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the 530 patent with respect to Compass Bank

and First Horizon because such entities lack a substantial controversy with Ablaise over the 530

patent. Thus, given the Court’s previous rulings, only Ablaise's claims against First Horizon and

Compass Bank for infringement of the 737 patent remain as claims for which Ablaise has failed to

file corresponding preliminary infringement contentions. 

According to the Patent Local Rules, “[n]ot later than 10 days after the Initial Case

Management Conference, a party claiming patent infringement must serve on all parties a

“Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions.” Patent L.R. 3-1. 

According to this Court’s scheduling order and Patent L.R. 3-1, preliminary infringement

contentions were to be served by November 1, 2007.

While a court may dismiss a claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute on behalf of the

claimant, it may also, in its discretion, choose to dismiss such a claim without prejudice. Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. 41(b) (“Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under

this subdivision....operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”). 

Despite the fact that Ablaise did not prosecute its claims against First Horizon and Compass

Bank with diligence, this Court is not prepared to dismiss such claims with prejudice at this stage in

these proceedings. Ablaise's failure to prosecute the claims against FFI's and Yodlee's other

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 11 of 13
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 12

customers is less egregious than its failure to prosecute its 530 claims against Bank of America. 

Ablaise’s claims against FFI’s and Yodlee’s other customers were raised, ostensibly, in response to

the declaratory judgment actions brought by FFI and Yodlee related to all of their customers, despite

the fact that Ablaise had no controversy with most of them. Therefore, rather than dismissing

Ablaise's claims against First Horizon and Compass Bank, the Court GRANTS Ablaise ten days

leave to amend its counterclaims against FFI and Yodlee to remove the claims against First Horizon

and Compass Bank. If Ablaise elects to maintain such claims, however, the Court ORDERS Ablaise

to serve corresponding preliminary infringement contentions pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1 within

twenty days of the date this order is entered, and further ORDERS Yodlee and FFI to serve

responsive preliminary invalidity contentions pursuant to the Patent Local Rules.

F. Discovery

As an alternative to dismissing FFI's and Yodlee's claims concerning the 530 patent and any

claims concerning customers other than Bank of America, Ablaise moves to compel discovery for

such claims. In particular, Ablaise requests that FFI and Yodlee disclose the products or services

that they declare do not infringe Ablaise's patents. FFI and Yodlee respond, arguing that Ablaise

expressly agreed, in the parties' September 6, 2007 Joint Case Management Conference Statement,

that discovery shall be limited to issues relating to claim construction until after the Markman

hearing, and that Ablaise has access to publicly-available information about their customers and the

products and services FFI and Yodlee provide to them.

The Court is not persuaded that discovery should be compelled at this time. First, the Court

has ruled that these related cases shall be limited to claims concerning Bank of America, First

Horizon, and Compass Bank. Ablaise has already sent accusatory letters to Bank of America, First

Horizon, and Compass Bank regarding infringement of its patents and is, therefore, familiar with the

websites at issue. Second, the parties have agreed in their September 6, 2007 Joint Case

Management Conference Statement to stay discovery until after a Markman hearing [Docket No.

38]. Accordingly, the Court declines to compel discovery and Ablaise's motion is therefore

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 12 of 13
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 13

DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Ablaise's motion for a case management order [Docket No. 54] is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-10(c), a case management

conference is scheduled for December 18, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer

prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which

shall be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the Case Management Conference that complies

with the Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California and the Standing

Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for filing the statement as well as for arranging

the conference call. All parties shall be on the line and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the above

indicated date and time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 30, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01995-SBA Document 68 Filed 09/30/08 Page 13 of 13