Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00638/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00638-3/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

INTERNATIONAL LLC, and

FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 19-00638 WHA

No. C 19-03144 WHA

NOTICE RE CASE

MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

The parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s tentative view on how the abovecaptioned actions should be managed during the initial case management conference.

Whenever a party seeks declaratory relief that it does not infringe a patent, it is seeking

a declaration that there is no valid theory under which its products infringe. Put differently, that

party seeks not only a rejection of any pet theory of the patent owner but any and all other

infringement theories as well, even those that discovery would suggest to the patent owner. As

such, any party seeking such broad declaratory relief should open its products at issue to full

and fair discovery, subject to reasonable proportionality, to let the patent owner fairly

investigate any and all infringement theories. In such circumstances involving declaratory

relief, the Court is of the view that the patent owner should not have to submit infringement

contentions until after full and fair discovery has taken place. 

Case 3:19-cv-00638-WHA Document 54 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the 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

2

In the circumstances where, as here, there is both declaratory judgment and infringement

actions, the foregoing continues to be valid, but the Court recognizes that the patent owner, as

to its own pleading, should meet its obligations under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), as well as our local rules regarding

infringement contentions, at least with respect to its infringement theories. Given, however, the

broad scope of relief sought in the declaratory judgment action and the need for full and fair

discovery, the Court would be inclined to grant leave to amend the infringement contentions as

a result of revelations found during the full and fair discovery. 

No trial date will be set until all discovery has been completed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00638-WHA Document 54 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2