Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05755/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05755-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dell, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Negotiated Data Solutions LLC
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

NEGOTIATED DATA SOLUTIONS LLC,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim

Defendant,

 v.

 DELL, INC.,

Defendant and Counterclaimant. /

No. C 03-05755 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 4, 2008 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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 Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Negotiated Data

Solutions LLC’s motion to dismiss and to strike Dell, Inc.’s answer and counterclaims.

Case 3:03-cv-05755-JSW Document 60 Filed 01/03/08 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

The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Is there any dispute that N-Data offered and Dell rejected a license under the same terms

described in the June 7, 1994 letter of assurance before the IEEE? (See Reply at 5, 7;

First Am. Compl., Ex. C; Answer ¶ 8.) Is that issue properly before the Court on a

motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)? (See Branch v.

Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453-54 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds, Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (while as a general rule, “a district

court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion,” the Court may consider documents attached to the complaint, documents relied

upon but not attached to the complaint when the authenticity of those documents is not

questioned, and other matters of which the Court can take judicial notice.”)

2. Is the interpretation and legal import of the 1994 letter a matter that the Court may

address at this stage (i.e., determine whether the letter constitutes a license or an offer to

license or something else entirely)? Must the Court address whether the alleged

revocation is legally valid? Is there any authority on the interpretation and legal import

of similar types of assurance letters?

3. What privileges does Dell maintain protect disclosure of Dell’s submission to the

Federal Trade Commission? Does reference to such document by Dell in

communications about the pending motion waive such protections? Should the Court

order production of the document for inspection in camera, how can Plaintiff defend

against the charges in the counterclaim which allegedly find support in this document? 

Can the parties stipulate to a specific protective order regarding this limited document

production?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05755-JSW Document 60 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2