Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05511/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05511-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc.
Counter-claimant
EON Corp IP Holdings LLC
Plaintiff
None
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05511-WHO 

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 176

Currently before me is the parties’ dispute over whether Apple should be compelled to 

produce documents from three prior cases. Dkt. No. 176. I find that additional briefing is 

necessary to resolve the dispute. 

By May 31, 2016, plaintiff shall file a brief not exceeding 10 pages defining the 

appropriate “technological nexus” and showing the technological nexus between the two patents at 

issue here and the patent claims actually litigated in the VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:12-cv00855-RWS, Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 13-cv-04134-VC, and SimpleAir, Inc. v. 

AWS Convergence Technologies, Inc., et. al., No. 2-09-cv-00289 cases. If plaintiff contends, in 

the alternative, that discovery is nonetheless appropriate under the traditional Rule 26(b) standard, 

plaintiff shall identify with specificity each category of documents it believes meets that standard 

and why. Plaintiff shall provide citations to the dockets of the three cases to support its 

arguments. 

By June 7, 2016, defendant shall file a response not exceeding 10 pages, defining the

appropriate “technological nexus” and responding to plaintiff’s arguments. To the extent Apple 

relies on a burden argument (assuming plaintiff makes a showing of relevance under the 

technological nexus or Rule 26(b) standards), it must show why production would be unduly

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 178 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

burdensome. I will take the matter under submission, unless I determine that oral argument is 

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 178 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 2