Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03448/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03448-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

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

WIAV NETWORKS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03448 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION 

FOR CLARIFICATION 

AND FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

The original complaint in this action named sixty-eight defendants; all of them were

dismissed for misjoinder except Hewlett-Packard Company. Following this mass exodus,

plaintiff WiAV Networks, LLC moved to amend its complaint in three respects. WiAV sought to

(1) include specific allegations concerning induced and contributory infringement involving HP’s

end-users and distributors, (2) omit references to the dismissed defendants, and (3) “add a few

exemplars” of accused HP products. In light of WiaV’s disclosure of patent infringement

contentions, the third category of amendments would expand the complaint to cover 218

products, including not only laptop computers (which previously had been named as accused

products) but also desktop computers, printers, handheld devices, and routers. HP objected to the

third category of amendments on the ground that it would be unduly prejudiced by such a

dramatic expansion of the scope of the action at this stage.

Case 3:10-cv-03448-WHA Document 632 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 3
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

An order issued on December 17, 2010, granted WiAV’s motion for leave to amend its

complaint, subject to several stated conditions and understandings. One of these items read:

WiAV wasted valuable time before it pulled back the curtain by

serving its infringement disclosures. Because of the resulting

prejudice to HP, a condition of filing an amended complaint is that

plaintiff must pay defendant $20,000 to partially reimburse HP for

fees and expenses it will incur due to this wasted time. If plaintiff

wishes to amend its complaint payment must be made by Noon on

December 31, 2010. No Payment, no amendment.

(Dkt. No. 624 at 10–11). Another condition stated: “The old case management schedule will be

replaced. This will be done in a separate order.” (ibid. at 11). Indeed, a companion order issued

the same day adopted a new case management schedule proposed by HP to further assuage the

prejudice caused by WiAV’s sweeping amendments.

On December 23, WiAV filed a motion for clarification of the payment condition set forth

in the first December 17 order, a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of both

December 17 orders, and a motion for expedited treatment of these motions in light of the

impending December 31 deadline for payment. An order was issued later on December 23 in

response to this filing. The December 23 order extended the payment deadline to January 10,

2011 and set an expedited briefing schedule on the motions for clarification and for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration, such that these motions could be resolved without a hearing before

January 10.

WiAV’s motion for clarification asks whether WiAV may amend its complaint to include

only the two categories of “uncontested amendments” (those related to indirect infringement and

dismissed defendants) without making the $20,000 payment. WiAV’s proposed motion for

reconsideration relates to (1) permission to make limited amendments to the complaint without

payment, (2) the due date for payment, and (3) the due date for invalidity contentions specified in

the new case management scheduling order.

WiAV’s motion for clarification is GRANTED to the following extent. Because the

payment condition was intended to remedy prejudice to HP caused by the third category of

amendments, no payment is required if that category of amendments is not made.

Case 3:10-cv-03448-WHA Document 632 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 3
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

3

If WiAV chooses to file an amended complaint including only the first two categories of

amendments (those related to indirect infringement and dismissed defendants), it may do so

without making any payment to HP. If WiAV elects this option, the new complaint must be filed

by NOON ON JANUARY 10, 2011, and the original case management schedule will be re-instituted

with minor adjustments to account for the deadlines that already have passed.

If WiAV chooses, on the other hand, to file an amended complaint that includes the third

category of amendments (thereby expanding the action to include 218 products), then WiAV must

make the $20,000 payment to HP. If WiAV elects this option, payment must be made and the

new complaint must be filed by NOON ON JANUARY 10, 2010.

In light of this order, WiAV’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

DENIED AS MOOT.

Ordinarily, the Court would consider requiring WiAV to pay the fees incurred by HP in

defending against this extended jockeying for position. But since HP affirmatively “does not

oppose WiAV’s request to seek clarification regarding the Court’s December 17, 2010 Orders”

(Dkt. No. 631 at 1), and as a concession to the shortness of life, WiAV will not be required to

make any such additional payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03448-WHA Document 632 Filed 01/04/11 Page 3 of 3