Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-06591/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-06591-11/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 

NETFLIX, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROVI CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 11-cv-6591-PJH 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

 Before the court is Rovi’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in opposition 

to Netflix’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under section 101. The motion sets 

forth three reasons that attempt to demonstrate good cause to allow a supplemental brief. 

 First, Rovi notes that the court issued various written questions for both parties at 

the outset of the summary judgment hearing, and requests a supplemental brief to 

“ensure the court has a full and clear record concerning those questions to assist in its 

consideration of Netflix’s motion.” 

 Second, Rovi seeks to “update[] the court on factual circumstances that have 

changed since the hearing on Netflix’s motion.” Specifically, Rovi notes that, at the 

hearing, Netflix pointed to Rovi’s infringement contentions as support for the argument 

that the patents recite generic computer components, and are therefore invalid. Rovi 

now informs the court that “[s]ince the hearing, Rovi has provided Netflix with updated 

infringement contentions that do not contain the language Netflix cherry-picked for the 

hearing.” 

 Third, Rovi seeks to inform the court of two recent judicial opinions regarding 

patentability under section 101, and “submits that it should be granted leave to submit its 

Case 4:11-cv-06591-PJH Document 164 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

su

qu

he

op

he

fro

arg

an

cou

infr

cou

rec

wit

be 

rec

DE

Da

pplemental

The co

estions, the

aring, not to

portunity to

aring. The 

om Netflix. 

Second

gument tha

alysis. To 

urt did not c

ringement c

Finally

urt’s attenti

cent decisio

thout argum

filed “[b]efo

cord is clos

For the

ENIED. 

IT IS S

ated: May 2

 brief to en

ourt will add

e court issu

o invite an 

o address th

court finds

d, as to the

t infringeme

the extent t

consider th

contentions

, to the exte

on, the loca

on” containi

ment.” Civil

ore the noti

ed. 

e foregoing 

 

SO ORDER

21, 2015 

sure the co

dress each 

ued those q

additional r

he question

s no need fo

e infringeme

ent content

that Netflix 

ose argume

s are simila

ent that eith

al rules pro

ing “a citatio

 L.R. 7-3(d

iced hearin

reasons, R

RED. 

2

ourt has the

of these re

uestions to

round of bri

ns during th

or a supple

ent contenti

tions are no

cited Rovi’s

ents. Thus

rly irrelevan

her party w

ovide a mec

on to and p

)(2). Howe

g date.” Th

Rovi’s motio

__

PH

Un

e benefit of 

asons in tu

o guide the 

iefing. Both

he three hou

mental brie

ions, the co

ot relevant t

s contentio

s, the subst

nt to the se

ishes to bri

chanism for

providing a 

ever, the ru

he hearing 

on for leave

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

a complete

urn. First, a

parties’ pre

h parties ha

ur and thirty

ef from Rov

ourt agrees

to the secti

ons as indic

tance of any

ection 101 a

ing recent j

r the filing o

copy of the

le only allow

date has n

e to file a su

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

e and curre

as to the wr

esentations

ad an equa

y-four minu

vi, nor a sur

s with Rovi’s

on 101 inva

cative of inv

y updated 

analysis. 

udicial opin

of a “statem

e new opinio

ws such sta

ow passed

upplementa

__________

udge 

nt record.” 

itten 

 at the 

l 

utes of the 

r-rebuttal 

s own 

alidity 

validity, the 

nions to the

ment of 

on – 

atements to

, and the 

al brief is 

_______ 

e

o

Case 4:11-cv-06591-PJH Document 164 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2