Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604-15/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LTD.,

Plaintiff, No. C 03-1604 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING AND

DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RHS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and defendants’ motion for leave

to amend their amended answer and counterclaims came on for hearing on August 15,

2007 before this court. Plaintiff, Trimble Navigation, Ltd. (“plaintiff”), appeared through its

counsel, John Cooper, Lucas Huizar, Nan Joesten, and William Pelton. Defendants RHS,

Inc. (“RHS”), CSI Wireless, Inc. (“CSI”), and Satloc Inc. (“Satloc”)(collectively “defendants”)

appeared through their counsel Gerald Dodson, Mark Brown, Erica Wilson, and Steven

Tang. The court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motions for summary

judgment, and GRANTS the motion for leave to amend, summarized as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to both infringement

and defendants’ invalidity defense. 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement is

GRANTED. 

3. Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their Amended Answer and

Counterclaims is GRANTED.

4. The parties’ requests to file under seal various briefs, documents and

deposition transcripts are all denied, except that defendant may redact and

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 321 Filed 08/16/07 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

file under seal those portions of documents and transcripts that actually

reveal source code. To that end, defendants shall submit within one week a

revised administrative request identifying the excerpts, if any, that actually

reveal source code. Plaintiff shall immediately replace redacted documents

with unredacted ones. Defendants have one week following the court’s

approval of their revised request, in order to do the same. 

This summary order is issued in order to give the parties the benefit of the court’s

decision at the earliest practicable time, so that the parties may effectively prepare for the

October 11, 2007 pretrial conference. The summary order shall be followed by a further,

and more detailed, memorandum and order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 321 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2