Egnyte Inc
General
Total Cases14
Active Cases3
Patents35
Ratings
Experience
Grade
Trend
DCT
L4
B
PTAB
L5
A
CAFC
L4
E
Analytics
Cases
Litigated Patents
Ratings Trends
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 07/22/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Confidentiality Designations for the Deposition of John Haager filed by Topia Technology, Inc..(Blau, Jessica) (Entered: 07/22/2024) | |
| 07/18/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Confidentiality Designations for the Deposition of Michael Manzano filed by Topia Technology, Inc..(Blau, Jessica) (Entered: 07/18/2024) | |
| 07/15/24 | Official Transcript of Discovery Conference held on 07/08/2024 before Judge Christopher J. Burke. Court Reporter/Transcriber Deanna Warner, Email: Deanna_Warner@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 8/5/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/15/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/15/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/15/2024) | |
| 07/12/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Confidentiality Designations for the Deposition of Artur Sobierak filed by Egnyte, Inc..(Neff, Carl) (Entered: 07/12/2024) | |
| 07/08/24 | ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motion relating to certain discovery disputes, (D.I. 307 ), to the extent the motion relates to Plaintiff’s disputes, (D.I. 291 ; D.I. 300 ; D.I. 306 ), the Court will address Plaintiff’s Issues No. 1-2 and 6 at today’s hearing (as to Issue No. 6, the parties will need to come in prepared to list out the specific disputes as to these RFPs that the Court needs to resolve—a list that omits those disputes that the Court has already essentially resolved by way of prior discovery rulings). In an effort to streamline the hearing, the Court will resolve Plaintiff’s Issue No. 5 on the papers and it GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiff’s requests for relief there as follows: (1) With regard to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (“ROGsâ€) 2 and 9, if it has not done so since briefing on the Motion was completed, Defendant shall supplement its responses to those ROGs by no later than one week from today.; (2) With regard to Plaintiff’s ROG 10, as to “numbers on product sales†and the “price for which any of Egnyte’s plans were sold,†by no later than seven days from today’s hearing, Defendant shall supplement its ROG response to include the substance of its statements provided in the briefing here, (D.I. 300 at 3), and/or to list any responsive documents (like its price guideline document) and explain why the document is responsive. (D.I. 306 at 2 (Plaintiff requesting that Defendant do this)) With regard to the “identity of the customers to whom these plans were sold,†as Plaintiff notes, information about how “customers use and value the†infringing functionality can certainly be relevant to damages, among other issues. (Id.) Defendant argues that it would be too burdensome to identify the customers’ names for each of the plans it sells. (D.I. 300 at 3) But as to that assertion, Defendant cites to nothing (e.g., no document, no sworn declaration), (id.); its response is thus simply attorney argument, which is insufficient to demonstrate that responding would amount to an “undue burden†pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. So, Defendant should respond further in some way. That said, the Court doubts Plaintiff needs to know the name of every single customer Defendant has had in the relevant time period. The parties should further meet and confer about how Defendant can make a credible further response to this ROG that provides Plaintiff with sufficient information in a not-too-burdensome way.; (4) With regard to ROG 20, for the reasons stated by Plaintiff, (D.I. 291 at 4-5; D.I. 306 at 2), Defendant’s current response is insufficient. By no later than seven days from today’s date, Defendant shall supplement its response to ROG 20 to include a narrative answer as to the factual basis for the statement at issue, including a citation to relevant source code. See Facedouble, Inc. v. Face.com, Inc., No. 12cv1584-DMS (MDD), 2014 WL 585868, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014).; and (5) To the extent that Plaintiff requests additional relief other than supplementation of the ROGs at issue, (D.I. 291 at 5), it has not yet made a sufficient case as to why that is necessary, with the exception that Plaintiff should be permitted to review any source code cited by Defendant in its supplemental response to ROG 20. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/08/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/08/2024) | |
| 07/08/24 | ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motion relating to certain discovery disputes, (D.I. 307 ), to the extent the motion relates to Plaintiff’s disputes, (D.I. 291 ; D.I. 300 ; D.I. 306 ), the Court will address Plaintiff’s Issues No. 1-2 and 6 at today’s hearing (as to Issue No. 6, the parties will need to come in prepared to list out the specific disputes as to these RFPs that the Court needs to resolve—a list that omits those disputes that the Court has already essentially resolved by way of prior discovery rulings). In an effort to streamline the hearing, the Court will resolve Plaintiff’s Issue No. 5 on the papers and it GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiff’s requests for relief there as follows: (1) With regard to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (“ROGs”) 2 and 9, if it has not done so since briefing on the Motion was completed, Defendant shall supplement its responses to those ROGs by no later than one week from today.; (2) With regard to Plaintiff’s ROG 10, as to “numbers on product sales” and the “price for which any of Egnyte’s plans were sold,” by no later than seven days from today’s hearing, Defendant shall supplement its ROG response to include the substance of its statements provided in the briefing here, (D.I. 300 at 3), and/or to list any responsive documents (like its price guideline document) and explain why the document is responsive. (D.I. 306 at 2 (Plaintiff requesting that Defendant do this)) With regard to the “identity of the customers to whom these plans were sold,” as Plaintiff notes, information about how “customers use and value the” infringing functionality can certainly be relevant to damages, among other issues. (Id.) Defendant argues that it would be too burdensome to identify the customers’ names for each of the plans it sells. (D.I. 300 at 3) But as to that assertion, Defendant cites to nothing (e.g., no document, no sworn declaration), (id.); its response is thus simply attorney argument, which is insufficient to demonstrate that responding would amount to an “undue burden” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. So, Defendant should respond further in some way. That said, the Court doubts Plaintiff needs to know the name of every single customer Defendant has had in the relevant time period. The parties should further meet and confer about how Defendant can make a credible further response to this ROG that provides Plaintiff with sufficient information in a not-too-burdensome way.; (4) With regard to ROG 20, for the reasons stated by Plaintiff, (D.I. 291 at 4-5; D.I. 306 at 2), Defendant’s current response is insufficient. By no later than seven days from today’s date, Defendant shall supplement its response to ROG 20 to include a narrative answer as to the factual basis for the statement at issue, including a citation to relevant source code. See Facedouble, Inc. v. Face.com, Inc., No. 12cv1584-DMS (MDD), 2014 WL 585868, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014).; and (5) To the extent that Plaintiff requests additional relief other than supplementation of the ROGs at issue, (D.I. 291 at 5), it has not yet made a sufficient case as to why that is necessary, with the exception that Plaintiff should be permitted to review any source code cited by Defendant in its supplemental response to ROG 20. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/08/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/08/2024) | |
| 07/08/24 | ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motion relating to certain discovery disputes, (D.I. 307 ), to the extent the motion relates to Defendants’ request to quash deposition notices to Defendant employees Mr. Siewior and Mr. Krishnan, and certain non-party subpoenas, (D.I. 290 ; D.I. 298 ; D.I. 305 ), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows in an effort to streamline today's hearing: (1) With regard to the request to quash the non-party subpoenas, while Defendant does not have standing to seek this relief itself because the subpoenas are to non-parties and no exception applies, see Jones v. Crisis Intervention Servs., 239 F. Supp. 3d 795, 801 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2017), the Court may grant the relief on its own motion, Galloway v. Islands Mech. Contractor, Inc., Civil Action No. 2008-071, 2013 WL 163985, at *4 (D.V.I. Jan. 14, 2013) (citing cases); Jefferson v. Biogen IDEC, Inc., No. 5:11-CV-00237-F, 2012 WL 1150415, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2012). It will do so here, and thus GRANTS the motion in that regard, because the non-party subpoenas are indisputably untimely pursuant to the Scheduling Order, and Plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for their issuance. Plaintiff “has been seeking†similar financial information from Defendant since the case began and also could have sought it diligently from these non-parties then too (at least prior to the close of the November 2023 fact discovery deadline); it simply chose not to do so. (D.I. 298 at 2; see also D.I. 290 at 3); and (2) With regard to the request to quash Mr. Siewior and Mr. Krishnan’s deposition notices, the Court will hear argument on it at the hearing; the issue will come down to: (a) whether Plaintiff can better explain why the content of its exhibits 5-14, and particularly exhibit 14, demonstrate why these witnesses have relevant information that is not cumulative; and (b) why Plaintiff’s efforts to subpoena them were diligent (even though Plaintiff had data listed in exhibit 14 as to both men since early February 2024). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/08/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/08/2024) | |
| 07/08/24 | ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties’ motion relating to certain discovery disputes, (D.I. 307 ), to the extent the motion relates to Defendants’ request to quash deposition notices to Defendant employees Mr. Siewior and Mr. Krishnan, and certain non-party subpoenas, (D.I. 290 ; D.I. 298 ; D.I. 305 ), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows in an effort to streamline today's hearing: (1) With regard to the request to quash the non-party subpoenas, while Defendant does not have standing to seek this relief itself because the subpoenas are to non-parties and no exception applies, see Jones v. Crisis Intervention Servs., 239 F. Supp. 3d 795, 801 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2017), the Court may grant the relief on its own motion, Galloway v. Islands Mech. Contractor, Inc., Civil Action No. 2008-071, 2013 WL 163985, at *4 (D.V.I. Jan. 14, 2013) (citing cases); Jefferson v. Biogen IDEC, Inc., No. 5:11-CV-00237-F, 2012 WL 1150415, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2012). It will do so here, and thus GRANTS the motion in that regard, because the non-party subpoenas are indisputably untimely pursuant to the Scheduling Order, and Plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for their issuance. Plaintiff “has been seeking” similar financial information from Defendant since the case began and also could have sought it diligently from these non-parties then too (at least prior to the close of the November 2023 fact discovery deadline); it simply chose not to do so. (D.I. 298 at 2; see also D.I. 290 at 3); and (2) With regard to the request to quash Mr. Siewior and Mr. Krishnan’s deposition notices, the Court will hear argument on it at the hearing; the issue will come down to: (a) whether Plaintiff can better explain why the content of its exhibits 5-14, and particularly exhibit 14, demonstrate why these witnesses have relevant information that is not cumulative; and (b) why Plaintiff’s efforts to subpoena them were diligent (even though Plaintiff had data listed in exhibit 14 as to both men since early February 2024). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/08/2024. (smg) (Entered: 07/08/2024) | |
| 07/08/24 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - A hearing on the parties' arguments regarding the remaining unresolved portions of their joint motion to resolve discovery disputes, (D.I. 307 ), was held in person on July 8, 2024, including as to Plaintiff's remaining requests for Defendant to produce certain information, (D.I. 291 ), and Defendant’s motion to quash certain deposition notices, (D.I. 290 ). The Court GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART Plaintiff’s remaining requests. The Court also GRANTED Defendant’s motion to quash. The substance of the Court's Order will be reflected in the transcript of the hearing. (Court Reporter: Deanna Warner; Clerk: Murphy) Appearances: K. Farnan and L. R. Rachuba for Plaintiff; C. Neff and J. Gutkoski for Defendant. (smg) (Entered: 07/08/2024) | |
| 07/02/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Egnyte's Inc.'s Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Janine Terrano filed by Egnyte, Inc..(Neff, Carl) (Entered: 07/02/2024) |