Youtube LLC
General
Total Cases69
Active Cases11
Patents--
Ratings
Experience
Grade
Trend
DCT
L5
A
PTAB
L5
A
CAFC
L5
A
Analytics
Cases
Litigated Patents
Ratings Trends
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 08/05/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Responses and Objections to 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and Topics filed by Google LLC, Youtube, LLC..(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motionâ€), (D.I. 168 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 187 ; D.I. 191 ; D.I. 195 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to more specifically identify the accused products and accused functionalities, (D.I. 187 at 1-2), it is DENIED. In its opening letter brief, Defendants did not specify or go into any real detail about what it was about Plaintiff’s current identification that was wanting or that should be corrected; instead, they saved any real explanation about why Plaintiff’s “definition [was purportedly] unclear†for their reply brief, (D.I. 195 at 1), which is inappropriate. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994); Teleconf. Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharms., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 321, 331 n.13 (D. Del. 2009).; (2) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ Interrogatory (“ROGâ€) No. 1, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is GRANTED. The current response is devoid of any specific narrative description of: (1) the details that resulted in the inventions being conceived by particular dates; and (2) specifics relating to the activities that are said to have reduced the invention to practice (e.g., particular facts regarding the “research†or “consulting opportunities†or “prepar[ing] a simulation†or “purch[asing] computer equipment†or “planning†or “consult[ing] with... professionals†referenced in the prior answer). If Plaintiff’s view is that it has described these types of details elsewhere, (D.I. 191 at 2-3), then it should be no problem for it to provide a robust narrative supplement in writing in a timely fashion to ROG No. 1. Plaintiff shall supplement its response no later than 10 days from today’s date.; and (3) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ ROG No. 7, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is DENIED. The ask is for more details regarding the nexus between any alleged objective indicia and Plaintiff’s own products, (id.), but Plaintiff’s position is that its products were coextensive with the asserted claims, (D.I. 191 at 3). The Court does not have before it a sufficient record to conclude that this assertion is baseless as to all asserted claims, and so it cannot grant any further relief here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 168 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 187 ; D.I. 191 ; D.I. 195 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to more specifically identify the accused products and accused functionalities, (D.I. 187 at 1-2), it is DENIED. In its opening letter brief, Defendants did not specify or go into any real detail about what it was about Plaintiff’s current identification that was wanting or that should be corrected; instead, they saved any real explanation about why Plaintiff’s “definition [was purportedly] unclear” for their reply brief, (D.I. 195 at 1), which is inappropriate. See Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994); Teleconf. Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharms., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 321, 331 n.13 (D. Del. 2009).; (2) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ Interrogatory (“ROG”) No. 1, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is GRANTED. The current response is devoid of any specific narrative description of: (1) the details that resulted in the inventions being conceived by particular dates; and (2) specifics relating to the activities that are said to have reduced the invention to practice (e.g., particular facts regarding the “research” or “consulting opportunities” or “prepar[ing] a simulation” or “purch[asing] computer equipment” or “planning” or “consult[ing] with... professionals” referenced in the prior answer). If Plaintiff’s view is that it has described these types of details elsewhere, (D.I. 191 at 2-3), then it should be no problem for it to provide a robust narrative supplement in writing in a timely fashion to ROG No. 1. Plaintiff shall supplement its response no later than 10 days from today’s date.; and (3) With regard to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be compelled to further supplement its response to Defendants’ ROG No. 7, (D.I. 187 at 2), it is DENIED. The ask is for more details regarding the nexus between any alleged objective indicia and Plaintiff’s own products, (id.), but Plaintiff’s position is that its products were coextensive with the asserted claims, (D.I. 191 at 3). The Court does not have before it a sufficient record to conclude that this assertion is baseless as to all asserted claims, and so it cannot grant any further relief here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing regarding Defendants’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 168 ), hereby ORDERS that it will resolve the Motion on the papers and that Monday’s videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing regarding Defendants’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motionâ€), (D.I. 168 ), hereby ORDERS that it will resolve the Motion on the papers and that Monday’s videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 07/26/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Robocast, Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC's Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition, Objections and Responses to YouTube, LLC and Google LLC's Notice of Deposition and Production of Documents to Vevo LLC, and this Notice of Service filed by Robocast, Inc..(Golden, Ronald) (Entered: 07/26/2024) | |
| 07/24/24 | SO ORDERED, re 240 Stipulation and Order Modifying Scheduling Order. (*See Order for details). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 7/24/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 07/24/2024) | |
| 07/22/24 | REDACTED VERSION of 237 Notice (Other) by Google LLC, Youtube, LLC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2)(Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 07/22/2024) | |
| 07/22/24 | SO ORDERED, re 241 Stipulation and Order Extending Time to file a redacted public version of the Notice of Subpoena to Vevo LLC (D.I. 237 ) to July 22, 2024. Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 7/22/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 07/22/2024) | |
| 07/19/24 | STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to file a redacted public version of the Notice of Subpoena to Vevo LLC (D.I. 237) through and including July 22, 2024 by Google LLC, Youtube, LLC.. (Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 07/19/2024) |