Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03582/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03582-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-03582 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court is in receipt of defendant Apple, Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff Straight

Path IP Group, Inc., to limit the number of claims asserted in this patent action. The motion

states in part (Dkt. No. 69 at 1 (bold in original)):

Just two weeks after the Court’s admonition not to start off with

thirty-seven claims and to eventually arrive at no more than two

asserted claims for any potential trial, Straight Path served

infringement contentions asserting forty-seven claims. After a

long back-and-forth during which Apple repeatedly reminded

Straight Path that its assertion of forty-seven claims directly

contravened the Court’s guidance, Straight Path finally agreed to

and made an initial token reduction to thirty-two asserted claims

on October 28, 2016. Nearly four months have passed since that

initial reduction, and Straight Path has refused to further reduce the

number of asserted claims despite repeated requests from Apple

and clear guidance from the Court that the number of asserted

claims should be steadily pared down as the litigation progresses. 

Counting independent claims that remain at issue by virtue of an

asserted dependent claim, Straight Path actually continues to put

thirty-eight claims at issue. 

Both sides are ordered to SHOW CAUSE — Straight Path in its opposition brief to the

aforementioned motion and Apple in its reply thereto — why the Court should not enter an

Case 3:16-cv-03582-WHA Document 70 Filed 03/09/17 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

amended case management order providing for pilot summary judgment motions. Under such

an order, Straight Path would select one — and only one — asserted claim as its strongest

example of infringement, and Apple would select one — and only one — asserted claim as its

strongest example of non-infringement. Both sides would then move for summary judgment on

their chosen claims. This procedure would quickly reach the merits of this action, assist in

whittling down the number of asserted claims, and educate the undersigned judge about the

technology at issue. Moreover, the outcome of the exchange might warrant entry of a

preliminary injunction (if Straight Path prevails) or sanctions (if Apple prevails), or both. 

This order does not alter the briefing schedule for Apple’s motion. Please do not

attempt to use this order as an excuse to request additional pages for briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-03582-WHA Document 70 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 2