Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05077/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05077-4/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

NOVITAZ, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHOPKICK, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05077-WHO 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO STAY WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; ADDRESSING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 105, 113, 120

This order addresses defendant Shopkick’s motion to stay and two discovery disputes 

raised by the parties.

I. MOTION TO STAY

Plaintiff Novitaz alleges that defendant Shopkick infringes its United States patents 

numbers 7,962,361 and 8,229,787. Dkt. No. 1. On November 19, 2014, Shopkick filed three 

petitions for inter partes review with the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The three 

petitions challenge the validity of all of the claims of the two patents-in-suit. The PTAB must 

grant or deny the petitions by June 2, 2015. Shopkick moves to stay this matter pending resolution 

of its petitions for inter partes review. Dkt. No. 105. Novitaz argues that the motion is premature 

as the PTAB has not yet decided whether to grant any of the petitions. Dkt. No. 110.

Shopkick’s motion is premature and is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Shopkick is 

likely correct that inter partes review of the patents-in-suit would simplify the matters at issue in 

this case. But the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute review. The mere requests for 

review do not simplify this matter. See, e.g., TPK Touch Solutions, Inc. v. Wintek Electro-Optics 

Corporation, No. 13-cv-02218-JST, 2013 WL 6021324, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013) (“in most 

cases, the filing of an IPR request by itself does not simplify the issues in question and trial of the 

Case 3:14-cv-05077-WHO Document 124 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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

case”); SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., No. 12-cv-06441-JST, 2015 WL 66415, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015) (“IPR, if granted, would increase the likelihood of simplification, but this 

argument is largely undercut by the reality that IPR has not yet been instituted”). 

The parties will know within three months whether the PTAB will institute inter partes 

review of any of the patents-in-suit and, if so, of which claims. Shopkick may renew its motion 

for a stay at that time if appropriate. It will not suffer undue prejudice in the intervening time.

II. DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Novitaz moves to compel Shopkick to produce documents regarding its ownership. Dkt. 

No. 113. Novitaz claims these documents are relevant to show that Shopkick failed to disclose its 

ownership to the PTAB in connection with its petitions for inter partes review and for damages. 

Novitaz’s motion to compel is DENIED. Since I am denying Shopkick’s motion for a stay at this 

stage, there is no urgency to this request. The parties shall address this request through the normal 

process of meeting and conferring about discovery disputes. The issue is not yet ripe for judicial 

intervention. As I stated at the hearing on these motions, the parties are cautioned not to submit 

disputes to the Court before satisfying their obligations to meet and confer in good faith.

The parties have submitted a joint letter concerning disputes over the parties’ agreed 

supplemental protective order regarding source code. Dkt. No. 120. The source code protective 

order provides, among various provisions, that “[t]he source code shall be produced in a 

searchable format on a stand-alone, non-networked computer with all ports disabled except for a 

printer port used to connect the computer to a printer” and that the receiving party “shall not make 

any electronic copies of source code, in whole or in part.” Dkt. No. 71 ¶¶ b, c. 

Novitaz argues that the protective order permits (or should be clarified to permit) its 

counsel to use his laptop and smartphone during source code review and to close the source code 

review room door during the review. Novitaz also requests that the protective order be modified 

to allow the review to take place in its counsel’s office or at a secure facility in Florida. Finally, 

Novitaz seeks sanctions for “wasted attorney’s fees and expenses” related to source code review 

on October 22, 2014 which was interrupted for around an hour and a half while the parties 

disputed these provisions. 

Case 3:14-cv-05077-WHO Document 124 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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 California

Novitaz’s requests are DENIED. The source code protective order code, as drafted, does 

not allow for parties’ counsel or other representatives to use laptops or smartphones during source 

code review or to review the source code behind closed doors. Novitaz has not presented 

compelling reasons that the protective order should be modified in those respects. In contrast, 

source code protective orders routinely entered in this Court provide that use of electronic devices, 

such as laptops and cell phones, is prohibited while accessing the source code. See, e.g., Fujifilm 

v. Motorola, Case No. 12-cv-3587 WHO (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2014) (amended stipulated 

protective order, ¶ 9(c) [Dkt. No. 122]); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 11-cv01846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012) (protective order, ¶ 11(n) [Dkt. No. 687]). Source 

code protective orders likewise frequently provide that the producing party may visually monitor 

the activities of the reviewing party during source code review, but only to ensure that there is no 

unauthorized recording, copying, or transmission of the source code. Fujifilm, amended stipulated 

protective order, ¶ 9(c); Apple, protective order, ¶ 11(n). 

Concurrently with this order, I issue a Second Supplemental Protective Order Regarding 

Source Code to make it explicit that source code in this case shall be treated consistent with the 

practice in this District. This supplemental protective order supplements the Supplemental 

Protective Order Regarding Source Code filed by the parties at docket number 71.

I DENY Novitaz’s request to modify the protective order to allow the review to take place 

in its counsel’s office or at a secure facility in Florida. Novitaz has presented no compelling 

reason to depart from the parties’ agreement to make the source code available at the office of the 

producing party’s outside counsel. See Dkt. No. 71 ¶ b. I also DENY Novitaz’s request for 

sanctions. Its counsel contributed to the limited disruption in the review by bringing his electronic 

devices into the source code review and insisting on closed door review. 

CONCLUSION

Shopkick’s motion to stay is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. Dkt. No. 

105. Shopkick may re-notice its motion to stay for a hearing two weeks (or longer, at Shopkick’s 

discretion) after it submits a supplemental brief of no more than five pages that asserts that the 

PTAB has granted at least one of Shopkick’s petitions for inter partes review and describes the 

Case 3:14-cv-05077-WHO Document 124 Filed 03/18/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

impact that action may have on this case. Novitaz shall have seven days to respond, in a brief of 

no more than five pages. 

Novitaz’s motion to compel ownership documents is DENIED. Dkt. No. 113. 

Novitaz’s requests for modification to the source code protective order and for sanctions 

are DENIED. Dkt. No. 120. I separately issue a Second Supplemental Protective Order 

Regarding Source Code which addresses the disputes regarding the source code.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05077-WHO Document 124 Filed 03/18/15 Page 4 of 4