Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02009/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02009-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Immersion Corporation
Counter-defendant
Internet Services LLC
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING INITIAL CMC 

392724.01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

INTERNET SERVICES, LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company 

Plaintiff-Counterclaim 

Defendant, 

v. 

IMMERSION CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation 

Defendant-Counterclaim 

Plaintiff. 

 

Case No. 4:06-CV-02009-CW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER CONTINUING AND 

RESETTING INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

 

 

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 11
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING INITIAL CMC 

392724.01 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Internet Services LLC ("ISLLC") and 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Immersion Corporation ("Immersion"), by and through their 

counsel of record, hereby respectfully submit this joint stipulation requesting that the Court 

continue and reset the Initial Case Management Conference date from April 13, 2007 to May 1, 

2007. Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(5), set forth below are the previous 

time modifications in this case. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

1. ISLLC instituted this action on or about February 8, 2006, in the Superior Court 

for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. On March 15, 2006, Immersion removed the 

action to this Court. The Court denied ISLLC's motion to remand to state court in an Order 

dated July 10, 2006 [Docket No. 28]. 

2. On March 30, 2006, this Court found that the instant action is related to the case 

entitled Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. et al., Case No. 

C 02-0710 CW (the "Immersion-Sony Lawsuit"), which involved Immersion's claims of patent 

infringement against the Sony defendants under Immersion's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,275,213 ("the 

'213 patent") and 6,424,333 ("the '333 patent") and later claims asserted by ISLLC against the 

Sony defendants and Immersion. ISLLC's appeal from this Court's dismissal orders in that case 

was assigned Federal Circuit Appeal No. 05-1358. 

3. On August 31, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying 

Action Pending Appeal [Docket No. 32]. The Court issued a modified Order on September 5, 

2006, which continued the Initial Case Management Conference set for September 8, 2006, to 

December 8, 2006 [Docket No. 33]. 

4. On December 1, 2006, the parties filed a second Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

Staying Action Pending Appeal [Docket No. 34]. The Court issued a related Order on 

December 5, 2006, which continued the Initial Case Management Conference set for December 

8, 2006, to April 13, 2007 [Docket No. 35]. 

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 11
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING INITIAL CMC 

392724.01 

5. The parties conducted a mediation with Judge Daniel Weinstein (Ret.) on March 

12, 2007. The matter was not resolved at the mediation. 

6. On April 4, 2007, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in ISLLC's appeal (No. 05-

1358), a copy of which is attached. 

7. The parties have agreed to reschedule the Initial Case Management Conference 

from April 13, 2007 to May 1, 2007 in order to accommodate scheduling conflicts of counsel. 

Counsel for Immersion has contacted the Court's Deputy Clerk to confirm that May 1 would be 

an available date for the Court. 

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 11
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

4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING INITIAL CMC 

392724.01 

STIPULATION

ISLLC and Immersion hereby stipulate, and jointly request, that the Initial Case 

Management Conference be continued and rescheduled to May 1, 2007. 

 SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: April 5, 2007 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/ Daralyn Durie _________________

DARALYN J. DURIE 

MARK A LEMLEY 

MATTHIAS A. KAMBER 

Attorneys for Internet Services LLC 

Dated: April 5, 2007 IRELL & MANELLA LLP 

By: /s/ Richard Birnholz ________________

MORGAN CHU 

RICHARD M. BIRNHOLZ 

ALAN J. HEINRICH 

Attorneys for Immersion Corp. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 The Initial Case Management Conference set for April 13, 2007, is continued to May 1, 

2007 at 2:00 p.m. 

Date: 

Honorable Claudia Wilken 

United States District Judge 

4/9/07

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 11
0.0 01

EXHIBIT A

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 11
Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

05-1358 

IMMERSION CORPORATION, 

 

 Plaintiff/Cross Defendant-Appellee, 

v. 

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC. 

and SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC., 

 Defendants/Cross Claimants- 

 Appellees. 

v. 

INTERNET SERVICES, LLC, 

 Cross Defendant/Cross Claimant- 

 Appellant. 

 Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for 

plaintiff/cross defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Richard M. Birnholz, 

Andrei Iancu, and Alan J. Heinrich. Of counsel on the brief was William K. West, Jr., 

Howrey LLP, of Washington, DC. 

 Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants/cross claimants-appellees. With him on the 

brief were Douglas B. Henderson, Steven M. Anzalone, and Kara F. Stoll. Of counsel 

on the brief were Matthew D. Powers, Edward R. Reines, Douglas E. Lumish, and 

Sonal N. Mehta, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, and 

Gregory S. Coleman, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of Austin, Texas. 

 Mark A. Lemley, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for 

cross defendant/cross claimant-appellant. With him on the brief were Daralyn J. Durie

and Matthias A. Kamber. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

Judge Claudia Wilken 

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 6 of 11
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

05-1358* 

IMMERSION CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff/Cross Defendant-Appellee, 

v. 

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC. 

and SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC., 

 Defendants/Cross Claimants- 

 Appellees. 

v. 

INTERNET SERVICES, LLC, 

Cross Defendant/Cross Claimant- 

 Appellant. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: April 4, 2007 

 __________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit 

Judge. 

PROST, Circuit Judge. 

 Internet Services, LLC (“ISLLC”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its 

claims. We affirm. 

 * 05-1227 and 05-1441 were dismissed. 

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 7 of 11
BACKGROUND 

Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) sued Sony Computer Entertainment 

America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,275,213 (“’213 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,424,333 (“’333 patent”) by 

Sony’s video game systems. Sony filed counterclaims against Immersion seeking 

declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. 

 A jury found the asserted patents not invalid and infringed by Sony. The district 

court further determined that there was no inequitable conduct during prosecution of the 

patents. Consequently, the district court entered judgment in favor of Immersion. Sony 

initially appealed the district court’s judgment; however, it later withdrew its appeal, and 

this court dismissed the appeal on March 14, 2007. 

In the months before trial, ISLLC, a purported Immersion licensee, sent several 

letters to Sony claiming that Immersion had granted ISLLC a world-wide exclusive right 

to all of Immersion’s intellectual property as applied to “content-restricted” video games. 

In the letters, ISLLC alleged that it had some rights in the Immersion-Sony litigation. On 

July 12, 2004, Sony moved under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a 

determination of whether ISLLC was a necessary or indispensable party to the action. 

With trial between Immersion and Sony set to begin on August 16, 2004, the district 

court held a pre-trial hearing to determine whether to include ISLLC and postpone the 

trial. During the hearing, the court suggested that Sony file an amended answer 

asserting a cross-claim against ISLLC for a declaratory judgment that ISLLC could not 

sue Sony under ISLLC’s license with Immersion. 

05-1358 2

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 8 of 11
Accordingly, on August 17, 2004, Sony filed an amended answer with a 

declaratory judgment cross-claim against ISLLC. ISLLC, in response, filed an 

infringement counterclaim against Sony. ISLLC also filed cross-claims against 

Immersion seeking: (1) a declaration that ISLLC “has an exclusive license under the 

agreement with respect to Immersion[‘s patents] for, among other things, haptically 

enabled video games whose topics or images are age restricted”; (2) damages for 

breach of the license agreement on the theory that Immersion was operating within 

ISLLC’s “exclusive field of use” under the agreement because its infringement suit 

against Sony covered age-restricted games; and (3) an apportionment of the damages 

awarded to Immersion. ISLLC later added a state law unjust enrichment cross-claim. 

 After various procedural actions, the district court ultimately dismissed all claims 

involving ISLLC. The court held that ISLLC did not have standing to sue for 

infringement of the ’213 and ’333 patents, even as a co-plaintiff with Immersion, 

because it lacked the exclusive right to practice the patented inventions. Accordingly, 

the court dismissed ISLLC’s counterclaims against Sony. Immersion Corp. v. Sony 

Computer Entm’t Am. Inc., No. C 02-0710, slip op. at 8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2004) 

(“Immersion I”). The court also dismissed Sony’s cross-claim against ISLLC, holding 

that the claim became moot once the court had held that ISLLC lacked standing to sue 

Sony for infringement. Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. Inc., No. C 02-

0710, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2005) (“Immersion II”). 

In addition, the court dismissed all of ISLLC’s claims against Immersion. Holding 

that ISLLC’s rights under the license could not encompass the ’213 and ’333 patents, 

the court reasoned that any claims ISLLC had under the license were independent from 

05-1358 3

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 9 of 11
Immersion’s suit against Sony. The court therefore concluded that ISLLC had failed to 

state a claim that Immersion’s suit against Sony for infringement of the ’213 and ’333 

patents fell within ISLLC’s rights under the license or that ISLLC was owed a portion of 

the damages. Immersion I, slip op. at 7-8. Although the court acknowledged that 

ISLLC may have breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Immersion, it 

instructed ISLLC to file those claims in a separate action. Immersion II, slip op. at 6-7. 

ISLLC appeals the district court’s dismissals. This court has jurisdiction over the appeal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). 

DISCUSSION 

ISLLC makes only one argument on appeal: it asserts that its license from 

Immersion provides it with sufficient rights under the ’213 and ’333 patents to confer 

standing to sue Sony for infringement as a co-plaintiff with Immersion. ISLLC alleges 

that its license provides it with exclusive rights relating to age-restricted software; 

however, ISLLC agrees that all of the patent claims require both hardware and software 

elements. Thus, even under ISLLC’s interpretation, its license, at most, gives it rights 

with respect to only the software elements of the patent claims. 

Without a license to practice the entire invention, ISLLC’s interest in Immersion’s 

patents, if any, differs from the type of interest traditionally associated with an exclusive 

licensee. We need not determine, however, whether such an interest is sufficient to 

confer standing to sue for infringement as a co-plaintiff with the patentee. Sony was 

found liable for infringing the ’213 and ’333 patents and we take judicial notice that 

Immersion, in a notice filed in the district court, acknowledged Sony’s full satisfaction of 

the final judgment. Sony has satisfied the patentee’s judgment; ISLLC cannot pursue 

05-1358 4

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 10 of 11
further recovery from Sony based on the same alleged acts of infringement of the ’213 

and ’333 patents. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims 

between ISLLC and Sony. 

 The district court also dismissed ISLLC’s cross-claims against Immersion, 

holding that ISLLC needed standing to sue Sony as co-plaintiff with Immersion in order 

to maintain its cross-claims against Immersion. We reject the district court’s rationale to 

the extent that it required ISLLC to have standing to sue for patent infringement as a 

prerequisite to recovering on its contract claims against Immersion. Any claims ISLLC 

may have against Immersion depend on the license agreement between the two 

parties, not on ISLLC’s standing to sue for patent infringement. Nevertheless, the 

district court’s dismissed ISLLC’s contract claims without prejudice; accordingly, ISLLC 

remains free to file any claims arising under the license agreement in the appropriate 

forum. 

05-1358 5

Case 4:06-cv-02009-CW Document 37 Filed 04/09/07 Page 11 of 11