Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04472/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04472-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FORTERRA SYSTEMS, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVATAR FACTORY, a California

Corporation, IMVU, inc., a Delaware

corporation, and WILLIAM D.

HARVEY, an individual

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-05-04472 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION UNDER RULE 56(F)AND 

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT

LIVE TESTIMONY AND

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF BRUCE DAMER

I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Forterra Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,901

(“the ’901 patent).1

 The invention of the ’901 patent relates to a method, system and computer

program for delivering electronic chat messages in a three-dimensional (“3D”) multi-user

environment. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Avatar Factory and William D. Harvey, doing

business as IMVU, Inc. (“Defendants”) operate an on-line chat system that infringes the ‘901

patent. Presently before the court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of NonCase 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 129 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER, page 2

Infringement and Plaintiff’s Motion for a Continuance under Rule 56(f), Motion for Leave to

Present Live Testimony and Motion to Strike Declaration of Bruce Damer.

On October 16, 2006,Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. On October 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Hearing in Compliance with

Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of IMVU’s Source Code. As

detailed more fully in the Court’s Order of November 7, 2006, the Court found Plaintiff’s motion

improper on several grounds: 1) Plaintiff improperly set the hearing for November 7, 2006

without seeking an order shortening time; 2) Plaintiff misstated the substance and content of the

Order to Compel, seeking to compel re-designation of documents in compliance with the Order

when the Order did not require any re-designation of documents; and 3) Plaintiff refused to

withdraw the motion after Defendants agreed to all relief sought in the motion, instead seeking to

condition withdrawal of the moot motion on future advantages in the litigation. 

On November 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed: 1) a Motion for a Continuance of Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(f); 2) a Motion to Shorten Time for the

Motion for a Continuance; 3) a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Bruce Damer in Support of

the Motion for Summary Judgment; 4) a Motion to Shorten Time for the Motion to Strike; 5) a

Motion to Proffer Live Testimony at the Summary Judgment Hearing; and 6) a Motion to

shorten time for the Motion to Proffer Live Testimony and 7) the Opposition to the Motion for

Summary Judgment. 

On November 16, 2006, the court issued an order vacating the original hearing date for

the motion for summary judgment and ordered that the motion for continuance was to be decided

on the “Motion and Opposition, unless further briefing or hearing is specifically ordered.” On

November 22, despite this clear direction from the Court, Plaintiff filed an unauthorized Reply

brief for the Motion for Continuance. In light of the clarity of the Order and Plaintiff’s failure to

seek authorization for its Reply Brief, the Court has not considered the Reply Brief.

//

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 129 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 5
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

ORDER, page 3

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 56(f) provides: 

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion

that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the

application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit

affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to

be had or may make such other order as is just. 

Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(f). In order to prevail on a 56(f) motion, Plaintiff must show: 1) that it has set

forth in affidavit form the specific facts that it hopes to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the

facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are “essential” to resist the summary

judgment motion. California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). The moving party

must also show that the movant has diligently pursued discovery. See Employers Teamsters

Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2004). 

A. Procedural Defect

Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because it fails to comply with the

procedural requirements of Rule 56. By its terms, Rule 56(f) requires an affidavit setting forth

why essential facts cannot be provided without further discovery. See also California v.

Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff submitted no such separate affidavit. 

Defendants allege that failure to supply the affidavit is grounds enough to deny the motion,

citing Campbell, 138 F.3d at 779 and Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439,

1443 (9th Cir. 1986). The cases cited, however, hold that failure to move prior to the issuance

of judgment and failure to submit an affidavit together are grounds to deny the motion. 

Moreover, Plaintiff relies upon sworn testimony from its expert, Richard Ferraro, that specific

additional discovery is required. Accordingly, the mere failure to submit a separate affidavit is

not sufficient grounds to deny the motion.

B. Plaintiff Alleges Essential Information Is Needed

Defendants allege that Plaintiff has not identified specific facts that it expects to find that

are essential to defeating summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts that its expert, Richard Ferraro,

submitted a declaration stating: “With more time, and with the advantage of deposition of IMVU

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 129 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 5
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

The Court expresses no opinion as to whether the issue of infringement can be resolved

without analysis of the source code. The Court is simply unwilling to deprive Plaintiff of the

evidence needed to support its theory of the case. 

ORDER, page 4

fact witnesses, I could determine how this depth sorting occurs.”) (Ferraro Decl. ¶ 103.) 

Defendants point out that Plaintiff does not explain why an understanding of how the depth

sorting occurs is necessary to defeat summary judgment. 

The parties dispute whether any analysis of source code is necessary to resolve the issue

of infringement. Plaintiff argues that it needs more information about the source code in order to

oppose the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that the accused product causes chat

messages to be displayed at one or more three-dimensional locations and asserts that the

discovery sought relating to the source code for depth sorting will provide evidence of

infringement. Accordingly, Plaintiff has made the requisite showing that it seeks evidence that 

may be essential to defeat summary judgment.2

C. Plaintiff Has Not Lacked Sufficient Diligence to Deny the Motion

Defendants argue that this motion should be denied because Plaintiff has not been

diligent in seeking discovery. Plaintiff argues that it only had the source code for one week

before the opposition was due. Actually, Defendants provided the source code to Plaintiff’s

expert Richard Ferraro on September 8, 2006. Plaintiff did not seek additional access to files

until October 17, 2006, six weeks later, when Plaintiff asked Defendants to release a copy of the

code to an additional expert, Steven Entine. Nonetheless, discovery does not close in this case

until February 19, 2007. Accordingly, even though Plaintiff could have avoided certain delays

in the record, its behavior is not fairly characterized as so lacking in diligence as to warrant

denial of the motion. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to additional discovery prior to

resolution of the summary judgment motion. In this case, substantial additional information is

sought by Plaintiff. In light of the potential breadth of the new discovery, Defendants’ current

motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice and Defendants may file a new

motion for summary judgment. If Defendants find that any additional discovery is irrelevant to

their motion, they may renew the original motion. Plaintiff indicated that it would be

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 129 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 5
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

The Court is not inclined to allow live testimony at any summary judgment hearing, but does

not preclude Plaintiff from renewing its motion at an appropriate time.

ORDER, page 5

considering filing its own motion for summary judgment. If both sides file motions for summary

judgment, the court will decide the issue as cross-motions for summary judgment. The process

shall be that Defendants may file a Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff may file a single

document that is both Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendants may

then file a single document that is both Opposition to Cross Motion and Reply to Motion;

Plaintiff may then file a document that is solely in Reply to the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby Ordered that:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied Without Prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Present Live Testimony at the Summary Judgment

Hearing is denied as moot.3

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Declaration of Bruce Damer is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 129 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 5