DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:14-cv-05330
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In DSS Technology Management v. Apple, Judge Gilliam denied DSS leave to seek reconsideration and granted the parties’ motions to seal specified materials.
DSS Technology Management, Inc. and Apple, Inc. were affected. DSS’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied; the parties’ sealing requests were granted, protecting specified confidential information concerning Apple’s operations, third-party-supplied components, and source code.
What happened
In DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., the court reviewed DSS’s request to seek reconsideration of an earlier order. That earlier order denied DSS permission to amend its infringement contentions and granted Apple’s request to strike DSS’s expert report.
DSS argued that the court had overlooked important facts about Bluetooth Sniff Mode, Apple’s disclosures, DSS’s investigation, and possible prejudice to Apple. DSS also argued that its earlier infringement contentions were not unclear and that Apple had waived or suffered no harm from any lack of clarity.
The court rejected DSS’s arguments and denied its motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Judge Gilliam also granted the parties’ motions to seal portions of their briefs and exhibits because they contained confidential business and proprietary information. The court instructed the parties to file an agreed judgment stating that there was no infringement by February 21, 2020, or explain why more time was needed.
The detailed version
- DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. · No. 4:14-cv-05330
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
On January 14, 2020, the court denied DSS’s motion to amend its infringement contentions and granted Apple’s cross-motion to strike DSS’s expert report. The court had found that DSS did not show good cause to add a redacted alleged infringing mode and that Bluetooth Sniff Mode was a new theory not included in DSS’s initial contentions.
DSS then moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Under the applicable local rule, a party seeking reconsideration of an interim order had to show reasonable diligence and either a material difference in fact or law, or a clear failure by the court to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments previously presented.
Reconsideration motion
DSS made five principal arguments concerning the proposed amendment: that the source code did not indicate the redacted use; that Apple failed to disclose the relevant information and benefited from that failure; that DSS diligently pursued third-party discovery after learning of the use; and that Apple would not be prejudiced because it identified no new claim-construction issues or defenses and because the redacted issues concerning infringement and invalidity were allegedly minor.
The court rejected these arguments. It explained that the source code and bill of materials produced in 2014 at least suggested that further investigation was needed, as did the optional nature of Bluetooth Sniff Subrating Mode. But the court said those materials did not alone establish decisive use of the redacted technology. The court also relied on DSS’s July 19, 2018 letter, which showed DSS knew of the technology’s role in Apple’s devices, while DSS had not diligently reviewed Apple’s source code to determine whether relevant material had been produced.
DSS separately argued that its 2014 contentions were not unclear about Sniff Mode because they relied on Sniff Mode for other asserted claims, Apple had waived any clarity argument, and Apple had not been prejudiced. The court found that these arguments either repeated earlier positions or raised arguments that should have been made in the original briefing. It also stated that it did not need to decide the remaining prejudice arguments because DSS had not shown diligence. The court denied DSS’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Based on the parties’ statements at a January 21, 2020 case-management conference, the court further instructed them to file a stipulated judgment of noninfringement by February 21, 2020, or explain why they needed more time.
Motions to seal
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the sealing requests concerned documents related to nondispositive motions—motions that did not finally resolve the claims. The court found good cause to seal portions of the briefs and attachments because they contained confidential business and proprietary information concerning Apple’s operations, third-party-supplied components in Apple’s products, and confidential information about the operation of source code for Apple’s products.
The court found that the requests were limited to the confidential information and therefore granted the parties’ motions to seal identified in Docket Nos. 424 and 438.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.