Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04752/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04752-4/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-04752 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 5, 2007:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority. The parties shall not file written responses to the questions posed in this

notice.

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 36 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1. Are there any claims or claim terms that overlap as between the patents that

Honda has affirmatively asserted against Coast and the ‘769 and ‘273 Patents?

a. If not, why should the Court not exercise its discretion to decline to

accept jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims on those patents?

b. Is the Court correct in understanding that none of the patents are

parent/child patents?

2. Which of Coast’s products does Honda consider to be the accused products?

3. Can Honda represent to the Court that it does not intend to sue Coast with respect

to the ‘769 and ‘273 Patents?

4. What is Coast’s response to Honda’s assertion that it cannot demonstrate that

there is a reasonable apprehension of an imminent law suit on the ‘769 and ‘273

Patents. See, e.g., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 395 F.3d

1324, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that declaratory relief plaintiff “virtually

concede[d] that Pfizer will not bring immediate suit for infringement” of the

patent in suit); O’Hagins, Inc. v. M5 Steel Mfg., Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D.

Cal. 2003) (dismissing counterclaims without prejudice for lack of imminence,

although noting that patentee had never raised possibility of infringement with

respect to patents on which plaintiff sought declaratory relief).

5. If the Court denies the motion and decides to exercise its discretion to accept

jurisdiction, is either party going to seek a stay in favor of the ITC investigation?

6. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: January 3, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 36 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2