Morrison & Foerster LLP

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases2169

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

morrison

mofo.com

Practice Areas

Comp. Arch. and SoftwareCommunicationsBiotech

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/07/24	Identity Security LLC v. Apple Inc 1:22-CV-00058 ( W.D. TX )	BILL OF COSTS by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of Asim Zaidi, # [2] Exhibit A, # [3] Exhibit B, # [4] Exhibit C, # [5] Exhibit D)(Zaidi, Asim) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
10/25/24	Broadcom Corp v. Netflix Inc 3:20-CV-04677 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER re Joint Stipulation to modify certain deadlines. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/25/2024. (jdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2024) (Entered: 10/25/2024)
10/25/24	Broadcom Corp v. Netflix Inc 3:20-CV-04677 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER re Joint Stipulation to dismiss with prejudice claims related to '283 patent. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/25/2024. (jdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2024) (Entered: 10/25/2024)
10/24/24	Advanced Cluster Systems Inc v. Intel Corp 7:24-CV-00245 ( W.D. TX )	NOTICE of Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by Intel Corporation re [1] Complaint,, (Nash, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2024)
10/23/24	Harbour Antibodies BV v. Teneobio Inc 1:21-CV-01807 ( D. DE )	ORDER re [161] Memorandum Opinion OVERRULING Defendant's [71] Objections, ADOPTING the conclusion of the [70] Report and Recommendation, and DENYING Defendant's [40] Motion to Disqualify. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 10/23/2024. (dlw) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
10/23/24	Harbour Antibodies BV v. Teneobio Inc 1:21-CV-01807 ( D. DE )	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 10/23/2024. (dlw) (Entered: 10/23/2024)
10/16/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion for a protective order precluding the depositions of Bryan Lence and Steadman Dinning ("Motion"), (D.I. [375] ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [353] ; D.I. [366] ; D.I. [373] ), and having considered the relevant legal standards, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED as Defendant has demonstrated that good cause exists for such an order. The Court so concludes for the reasons that follow: (1) Plaintiff asserts that the depositions at issue are needed because they are relevant to its claims for willful infringement and to the issue of copying. (D.I. [366] at 1) In its opening brief, however, Defendant had cogently explained, citing to relevant declarations when necessary, why, in its view: (a) the depositions could not be relevant to those issues, because Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning: (i) were both hired by Defendant well after the allegedly infringing functionality was created, (ii) had viewed Plaintiff's platform only one or two times, and (iii) did so prior to the issuance of the patents-in-suit; and (b) the depositions would bring with them some amount of burden and expense to the deponents and/or Defendant. (D.I. [353] at 2; D.I. [354] ; D.I. [355] ; D.I. [356] ; see also D.I. [373] at 1); and (2) Thus, in light of this showing, in its answering brief, Plaintiff needed to make a clear, specific statement of relevance. That is, Plaintiff needed to say something like: "Despite the record Defendant has cited, Plaintiff believes that these depositions are relevant to the issue of willfulness and copying because Plaintiff's theory as to willfulness/copying is X and in light of the record, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning will provide testimony as to Y; if they do, that will in turn bolster or relate to Plaintiff's theories in Z fashion." But Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, in its answering brief, it responded on relevance essentially in one paragraph, (D.I. [366] at 1-2), in which it made (at best) elliptical and vague suggestions as to why the depositions might be relevant-leaving the Court to try to fill in the blanks on its own. That is not the Court's role. Nor is it appropriate for a party to withhold that type of clarity and specificity and then spring it on Defendant and the Court at a future hearing; that is so for many reasons, including that (as is the case here) such a hearing may never occur. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion for a protective order precluding the depositions of Bryan Lence and Steadman Dinning ("Motion"), (D.I. [375] ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [353] ; D.I. [366] ; D.I. [373] ), and having considered the relevant legal standards, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED as Defendant has demonstrated that good cause exists for such an order. The Court so concludes for the reasons that follow: (1) Plaintiff asserts that the depositions at issue are needed because they are relevant to its claims for willful infringement and to the issue of copying. (D.I. [366] at 1) In its opening brief, however, Defendant had cogently explained, citing to relevant declarations when necessary, why, in its view: (a) the depositions could not be relevant to those issues, because Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning: (i) were both hired by Defendant well after the allegedly infringing functionality was created, (ii) had viewed Plaintiff's platform only one or two times, and (iii) did so prior to the issuance of the patents-in-suit; and (b) the depositions would bring with them some amount of burden and expense to the deponents and/or Defendant. (D.I. [353] at 2; D.I. [354] ; D.I. [355] ; D.I. [356] ; see also D.I. [373] at 1); and (2) Thus, in light of this showing, in its answering brief, Plaintiff needed to make a clear, specific statement of relevance. That is, Plaintiff needed to say something like: "Despite the record Defendant has cited, Plaintiff believes that these depositions are relevant to the issue of willfulness and copying because Plaintiff's theory as to willfulness/copying is X and in light of the record, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning will provide testimony as to Y; if they do, that will in turn bolster or relate to Plaintiff's theories in Z fashion." But Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, in its answering brief, it responded on relevance essentially in one paragraph, (D.I. [366] at 1-2), in which it made (at best) elliptical and vague suggestions as to why the depositions might be relevant-leaving the Court to try to fill in the blanks on its own. That is not the Court's role. Nor is it appropriate for a party to withhold that type of clarity and specificity and then spring it on Defendant and the Court at a future hearing; that is so for many reasons, including that (as is the case here) such a hearing may never occur. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
10/16/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion for a protective order precluding the depositions of Bryan Lence and Steadman Dinning ("Motion"), (D.I. [375] ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [353] ; D.I. [366] ; D.I. [373] ), and having considered the relevant legal standards, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED as Defendant has demonstrated that good cause exists for such an order. The Court so concludes for the reasons that follow: (1) Plaintiff asserts that the depositions at issue are needed because they are relevant to its claims for willful infringement and to the issue of copying. (D.I. [366] at 1) In its opening brief, however, Defendant had cogently explained, citing to relevant declarations when necessary, why, in its view: (a) the depositions could not be relevant to those issues, because Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning: (i) were both hired by Defendant well after the allegedly infringing functionality was created, (ii) had viewed Plaintiff's platform only one or two times, and (iii) did so prior to the issuance of the patents-in-suit; and (b) the depositions would bring with them some amount of burden and expense to the deponents and/or Defendant. (D.I. [353] at 2; D.I. [354] ; D.I. [355] ; D.I. [356] ; see also D.I. [373] at 1); and (2) Thus, in light of this showing, in its answering brief, Plaintiff needed to make a clear, specific statement of relevance. That is, Plaintiff needed to say something like: "Despite the record Defendant has cited, Plaintiff believes that these depositions are relevant to the issue of willfulness and copying because Plaintiff's theory as to willfulness/copying is X and in light of the record, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning will provide testimony as to Y; if they do, that will in turn bolster or relate to Plaintiff's theories in Z fashion." But Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, in its answering brief, it responded on relevance essentially in one paragraph, (D.I. [366] at 1-2), in which it made (at best) elliptical and vague suggestions as to why the depositions might be relevant-leaving the Court to try to fill in the blanks on its own. That is not the Court's role. Nor is it appropriate for a party to withhold that type of clarity and specificity and then spring it on Defendant and the Court at a future hearing; that is so for many reasons, including that (as is the case here) such a hearing may never occur. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion for a protective order precluding the depositions of Bryan Lence and Steadman Dinning ("Motion"), (D.I. [375] ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [353] ; D.I. [366] ; D.I. [373] ), and having considered the relevant legal standards, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED as Defendant has demonstrated that good cause exists for such an order. The Court so concludes for the reasons that follow: (1) Plaintiff asserts that the depositions at issue are needed because they are relevant to its claims for willful infringement and to the issue of copying. (D.I. [366] at 1) In its opening brief, however, Defendant had cogently explained, citing to relevant declarations when necessary, why, in its view: (a) the depositions could not be relevant to those issues, because Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning: (i) were both hired by Defendant well after the allegedly infringing functionality was created, (ii) had viewed Plaintiff's platform only one or two times, and (iii) did so prior to the issuance of the patents-in-suit; and (b) the depositions would bring with them some amount of burden and expense to the deponents and/or Defendant. (D.I. [353] at 2; D.I. [354] ; D.I. [355] ; D.I. [356] ; see also D.I. [373] at 1); and (2) Thus, in light of this showing, in its answering brief, Plaintiff needed to make a clear, specific statement of relevance. That is, Plaintiff needed to say something like: "Despite the record Defendant has cited, Plaintiff believes that these depositions are relevant to the issue of willfulness and copying because Plaintiff's theory as to willfulness/copying is X and in light of the record, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Lence and Mr. Dinning will provide testimony as to Y; if they do, that will in turn bolster or relate to Plaintiff's theories in Z fashion." But Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, in its answering brief, it responded on relevance essentially in one paragraph, (D.I. [366] at 1-2), in which it made (at best) elliptical and vague suggestions as to why the depositions might be relevant-leaving the Court to try to fill in the blanks on its own. That is not the Court's role. Nor is it appropriate for a party to withhold that type of clarity and specificity and then spring it on Defendant and the Court at a future hearing; that is so for many reasons, including that (as is the case here) such a hearing may never occur. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
10/16/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' October 15, 2024 letter, (D.I. [398] ), appreciates that the parties have resolved two of their discovery disputes. With respect to the remaining discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By October 22, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By October 28, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By October 31, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By October 31, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also consult and follow Judge Burke's "Guidelines for Discovery Disputes," which is found in the "Guidelines" tab on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's website.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' October 15, 2024 letter, (D.I. [398] ), appreciates that the parties have resolved two of their discovery disputes. With respect to the remaining discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By October 22, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By October 28, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By October 31, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By October 31, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also consult and follow Judge Burke's "Guidelines for Discovery Disputes," which is found in the "Guidelines" tab on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's website.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024)
10/16/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' October 15, 2024 letter, (D.I. [398] ), appreciates that the parties have resolved two of their discovery disputes. With respect to the remaining discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By October 22, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By October 28, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By October 31, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By October 31, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also consult and follow Judge Burke's "Guidelines for Discovery Disputes," which is found in the "Guidelines" tab on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's website.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' October 15, 2024 letter, (D.I. [398] ), appreciates that the parties have resolved two of their discovery disputes. With respect to the remaining discovery dispute, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By October 22, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues.; (2) By October 28, 2024, the party opposing the application for relief shall file a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition.; (3) By October 31, 2024, the party seeking relief shall file a reply letter brief, not to exceed one (1) single-spaced page, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) By October 31, 2024, the parties shall file a Motion To Resolve Discovery Dispute.; (5) The parties should also consult and follow Judge Burke's "Guidelines for Discovery Disputes," which is found in the "Guidelines" tab on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's website.; (6) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances, occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 10/16/2024. (smg) (Entered: 10/16/2024)