Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02436
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Skillz Platform v. AviaGames, Judge Freeman denied Skillz’s request to speed trial and struck AviaGames’ request for an early summary-judgment motion.
Skillz’s requested earlier trial date was not granted, so the existing schedule remained in place. AviaGames’ request for permission to file an early summary-judgment motion was struck.
What happened
Skillz Platform Inc. sued AviaGames Inc. for allegedly infringing two patents, but only one patent claim remained when Skillz asked to move the trial from December 2023 to early 2023.
Skillz argued that the case had become smaller and that discovery had been reduced. AviaGames opposed the change, arguing that an earlier trial would prevent summary-judgment motions, interfere with its pending patent review petition, and leave substantial discovery work.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that Skillz had not shown the required good cause and that an earlier trial would substantially prejudice AviaGames. She denied Skillz’s motion to change the schedule and struck AviaGames’ request to file an early summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-02436
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Skillz brought this patent-infringement case against AviaGames concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 9,479,602 and 9,649,564. The Court had dismissed Skillz’s infringement claim involving the ’602 Patent, leaving only the ’564 Patent infringement claim. Skillz then moved to modify the scheduling order and advance the trial from December 4, 2023, to February 27, 2023, with a four-day trial.
The Court had indicated that advancing the trial would require the parties to give up summary-judgment motions. Skillz agreed to that proposed arrangement. AviaGames opposed the schedule change, arguing that it would be substantially prejudiced by losing the opportunity to file summary-judgment motions. AviaGames also cited its pending petition for review of the ’564 Patent and argued that the remaining discovery burden was still substantial.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a scheduling order may be changed only for “good cause” and with the judge’s consent. The main consideration is the diligence of the party seeking the change, although the Court may also consider prejudice to the opposing party. If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry generally ends.
Court’s reasoning
The Court agreed that Skillz had acted diligently in seeking the schedule change. But it concluded that Skillz had not shown good cause. Skillz focused on its argument that the discovery obligations had been cut in half because one patent claim had been dismissed. The Court found that AviaGames convincingly showed that the discovery burden had been reduced only somewhat, not by half.
The Court also concluded that advancing the trial and preventing summary-judgment motions would substantially prejudice AviaGames, whether or not AviaGames received permission to file an early motion. Because Skillz failed to show good cause, the Court denied the motion to modify the scheduling order.
The Court separately stated that AviaGames’ request for permission to file a second and earlier summary-judgment motion was not pending. It struck that request because it was an improper request for affirmative relief in an unrelated matter.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Skillz’s motion to modify the scheduling order was DENIED. The Court also ordered that AviaGames’ request for leave to file an early summary-judgment motion in its claim-construction brief was STRICKEN.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.