Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01011/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01011-28/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SENSUS USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-1011 EMC

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

(Docket Nos. 610, 611)

Plaintiff in this case has recently concluded a settlement agreement with Defendant T-Mobile

USA, Inc. At a case management conference on December 14, 2012, this Court ordered Plaintiff to

submit a letter by December 28, 2012 indicating whether it intended to pursue claims against

Defendant Kineto, in light of the fact that at least some of these claims were related to the claims

against T-Mobile. Docket No. 608. If Plaintiff opted not to abandon its claims against Kineto,

Kineto indicated that it would file a motion for summary judgment to be heard on March 7, 2013. 

The Court also stayed depositions against Kineto until further notice.

On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a letter stating that it was unable to determine

whether some or all of its claims against Kineto were covered by the settlement agreement because

Kineto had not provided certain discovery about Kineto’s sales of allegedly infringing products and

services to T-Mobile and to other customers. Docket No. 610. Plaintiff requested that it be allowed

to take further discovery of Kineto, including depositions. Kineto disputes that Plaintiff needs any

further discovery to determine the application of the T-Mobile settlement agreement to Kineto. 

Kineto also contends that Plaintiff has not complied with Patent L.R. 3-1 with respect to its

Case 3:12-cv-01011-JST Document 612 Filed 01/04/13 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

infringement contentions against Kineto as to non-T-Mobile customers. Docket No. 611. Kineto

further requested that this Court order a mandatory settlement conference on these issues. The

parties also dispute whether EON should now be permitted to take Kineto’s deposition.

This case has already been referred to Magistrate Judge Laporte for discovery matters. 

Accordingly, this Court refers the following disputes to Judge Laporte:

1. Whether Plaintiff requires any additional discovery to comply with this Court’s order

that it state clearly whether it intends to pursue its T-Mobile claims against Kineto. 

After making the determination of what, if any, discovery Plaintiff requires, Judge

Laporte shall set a date certain for Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s order of

December 14, 2012.

2. Whether to grant Plaintiff’s requests to take depositions and other discovery prior to

Kineto’s motion for summary judgment. 

3. Whether Plaintiff’s infringement contentions are adequate as to the allegations of

non-T-Mobile related infringement.

Additionally, this case is hereby referred for assignment to a magistrate judge on an emergency basis

for a mandatory settlement conference to take place no later than January 31, 2013. To allow time

for the settlement conference, the hearing date for Kineto’s motion for summary judgment, if

necessary, is re-set to March 28, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01011-JST Document 612 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2