Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04281/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04281-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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

TROPOS NETWORKS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 IPCO, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-04281 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND 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 JUNE 30, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

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 Court tentatively GRANTS Tropos’ request to conduct limited jurisdictional

discovery and reserves a ruling on IPCO’s motion to dismiss pending such discovery. The

Court tentatively DENIES IPCO’s motion to transfer venue.

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 60 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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. IPCO has asserted, in other lawsuits, that CommUnique LLC has a financial or

other interest in those suits. Is IPCO paying royalties to CommUnique or has it

licensed the rights in the patents in suit to CommUnique? If so, why would that

not provide a sufficient basis to support personal jurisdiction in this action? If

not, can IPCO provide a declaration to the Court that there are no continuing

obligations between it and CommUnique?

2. a. Does Tropos have any authority that fear of future harm, rather than

evidence of actual harm, will satisfy the “effects test” for jurisdiction.

b. What is IPCO’s position on whether, under Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue

Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006),

Tropos is required to show actual harm, rather than the possibility of

future harm?

3. In the section of its motion addressing transfer, IPCO does not address each of

the seven factors the Court should consider in evaluating whether transfer is

warranted. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509 (1947); Decker

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Is

IPCO relying on the arguments set forth with respect to whether the exercise of

jurisdiction is reasonable? If not, what is its best argument that the factors it has

not addressed favor transfer?

4. IPCO relies on the Sorenson case to support its arguments regarding transfer. 

However, the inventors of the patents are located in California. Does IPCO have

any evidence that Tropos’ development, design, and marketing of the accused

infringing products did not occur in California?

5. Based on Tropos’ opposition, if the Court stands by its tentative ruling and grants

its request for additional discovery, why should any such discovery not be limited

to the circumstances surrounding the assignment of the ‘516 and ‘062 Patents

and the alleged phone call from IPCO to Scientific Atlanta? In light of the fact

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 60 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

that Tropos has not alleged any actual harm, is additional discovery on the

alleged phone call necessary?

6. Does IPCO dispute the fact that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the

state law claims such that, if the Court determined it could exercise personal

jurisdiction over IPCO on the declaratory relief claim, it also could exercise

jurisdiction over IPCO on these state law claims? See Electronics for Imaging,

Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1348 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

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

Dated: June 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 60 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 3