Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126-4/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

GoDaddy.com, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RPost Communications Limited, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ (“RPost”) Motion to Strike Notice of 

Filing Supplemental Exhibits 3 and 4 to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief. 

(Doc. 174). Plaintiff GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”) filed a response (Doc. 179) and 

RPost filed a reply (Doc. 181). The Court now rules on the motion. 

I. Background 

In the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order, the Court set the following Markman 

briefing deadlines: (1) RPost’s opening Markman brief was due January 9, 2015; (2) 

GoDaddy’s responsive Markman brief was due February 9, 2015; and (3) RPost’s reply 

brief was due February 23, 2015. (Doc. 76 at 2). There is no dispute that the parties’ 

original briefings (Docs. 114, 117, 119) timely met these deadlines. 

 On August 5, 2015, the Court set a Markman Hearing for October 22, 2015 and 

ordered the parties to file a joint notice with the Court stating whether each party 

intended to present extrinsic evidence at the Markman Hearing. (Doc. 153). On August 

10, 2015, the parties filed a joint notice informing the Court that they did not intend to 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 185 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

present evidence beyond the patents-in-suit, the patents’ file histories, and other 

documentary evidence that was submitted with the parties’ Markman briefs. (Doc. 154). 

 On October 9, 2015, GoDaddy filed a Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibits 3 

and 4 to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Notice of Filing”). 

(Doc. 171). In a separate, contemporaneous filing, GoDaddy lodged the proposed 

exhibits in un-redacted format (“Supplemental Exhibits”). (Doc. 173). 

 On October 22, 2015, the Markman Hearing was held. See (Doc. 182). GoDaddy 

included portions of the Supplemental Exhibits in its Markman Hearing PowerPoint 

presentation, but did not orally discuss them. GoDaddy also sought to admit into 

evidence Exhibits 1 and 2, which are un-redacted versions of the Supplemental Exhibits. 

If the Court denies RPost’s pending motion to strike (Doc. 174), then it must determine 

the admissibility of Exhibits 1 and 2. 

II. Analysis 

RPost argues that GoDaddy’s Supplemental Exhibits should be stricken because 

the Notice of Filing was untimely and the Supplemental Exhibits are irrelevant. 

(Doc. 174). RPost notes that at least Supplemental Exhibit 3 was disclosed to GoDaddy 

on November 4, 2014—nearly a full year before the date on which GoDaddy filed its 

Notice of Filing. (Doc. 181). GoDaddy responds that “good cause” exists for the Court to 

consider the Supplemental Exhibits because they directly relate to “newly asserted 

positions” by RPost “on the scope of the patents-in-suit to be construed by the Court” in 

an expert report provided to GoDaddy on August 10, 2015. (Doc. 179). Specifically, 

GoDaddy argues that it was “impossible” to determine how RPost’s products “met 

specific claim terms requiring ‘proof’” before receiving the expert report which described 

in a “term-by-term analysis” how a commercial embodiment of the asserted patents, 

RPost’s Registered Email, practices the patents. (Id. at 2–3). 

 In essence, GoDaddy attempts to amend its Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

by introducing additional evidence to bolster its arguments. It is undisputed, however, 

that GoDaddy filed its Notice of Filing over seven months after the Markman briefing 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 185 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

deadlines ended. Moreover, GoDaddy did not request the Court’s approval to amend its 

Responsive Claim Construction Brief via supplemental exhibits, nor has it sought the 

Court’s consent to amend the Rule 16 Scheduling Order as required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). 

 In its briefing, GoDaddy asserts that “Exhibits 3 and 4 . . . directly support 

GoDaddy’s Markman brief arguments that specific terms in RPost’s patents require 

proving email transmission to a level of certainty beyond what RPost now conveniently 

claims.” (Doc. 179 at 1) (first emphasis added). While this statement, if true, likely sets 

forth an argument as to the relevance of the Supplemental Exhibits, it undermines 

GoDaddy’s “good cause” argument. Namely, why would GoDaddy, which was at least in 

possession of Supplemental Exhibit 3 at the time it filed its Responsive Claim 

Construction Brief, not include Exhibit 3 as an exhibit at the time of filing if Exhibit 3 

“directly supports” GoDaddy’s arguments in that brief? In its briefing on this motion, 

GoDaddy does not contend that it was wholly unaware of the Supplemental Exhibits at 

the time it filed its Responsive Claim Construction Brief. Rather, GoDaddy ostensibly 

argues that it was oblivious as to the relevance of the Supplemental Exhibits at the time 

of filing. Such an argument does not result in a finding of “good cause.” 

 Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that RPost’s expert stated 

that a particular commercial embodiment of a patent practices certain aspects of the 

patent is of no moment to the Court’s construction of the patent’s claim terms. The 

parties agreed that they would not introduce extrinsic evidence at the Markman Hearing 

beyond the patents-in-suit, the patents’ file histories, and demonstrative evidence 

included in the parties’ Markman briefings. (Doc. 154). The parties did not state that 

expert testimony would be offered. (Id.) Thus, because RPost already made its claim 

construction arguments in its Opening Brief (Doc. 115) and Reply Brief (Doc. 119), the 

testimony of RPost’s expert has no bearing on the Court’s construction of the claim 

terms. Consequently, for purposes of the Court’s construction of the patents’ claim terms, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 185 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

evidence that allegedly derives its relevance from an expert report that itself will not be 

considered during claim construction is irrelevant. 

 Finally, the Court agrees with RPost that it was not “impossible” for GoDaddy to 

determine how RPost’s Registered Email product met certain limitations of the asserted 

patents before the initial expert disclosure deadline. In response to GoDaddy’s 

interrogatory request for identification of all RPost products that embodied or practiced 

the patents-in-suit, RPost identified—after a litany of objections—its Registered Email 

product. (Doc. 179-1 at 6). GoDaddy, however, did not attempt any further discovery on 

how the Registered Email product practiced certain limitations of the asserted patents.1

 

III. Conclusion 

 Based on the foregoing reasons, 

 IT IS ORDERED that RPost’s Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Supplemental 

Exhibits 3 and 4 to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 174) is 

granted. The Clerk of Court shall strike the documents at Docket 171, 172, and 173 and 

leave the documents at Docket 173 under seal. The Court will not consider GoDaddy’s 

Supplemental Exhibits for purposes of claim construction. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1 and 2, which GoDaddy moved to 

admit during the Markman Hearing, will not be admitted into evidence. 

 Dated this 27th day of October, 2015. 

 

1

 The Court also notes that RPost disclosed the expert report to GoDaddy nearly 

two months before GoDaddy filed its Notice of Filing. GoDaddy does not explain the two 

month time period, but such a long gap hardly suggests GoDaddy acted diligently, 

particularly when GoDaddy possessed at least Exhibit 3 since November 4, 2014. See 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Unlike Rule 

15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to 

interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 185 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 4