Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

April 24, 2014

EMBLAZE LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC., Defendant

Page 1109

(Re: Docket Nos. 343, 346, 348, 350 and 401).

For Emblaze Ltd., Plaintiff: Andrew P. Nemiroff, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Lisa A. Ferrari, Marilyn Neiman, PRO HAC VICE, Martin Brian Pavane, Cozen O'Connor, New York, NY; Martin L. Fineman, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Francisco, CA; Nathan Dooley, Los Angeles, CA.

For Apple Inc., Defendant: James Joseph DeCarlo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Greenberg Traurig LLP(Sta Monica), New York, NY; Mark Fowler, LEAD ATTORNEY, Krista Anne Celentano, Robert Buergi, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), East Palo Alto, CA; Stephen M. Ullmer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Sarah Elizabeth Barrows, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San Francisco, CA; Eduardo J Blanco, DLA Piper LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Erin Paige Gibson, Jacob Daniel Anderson, John Allcock, Robert Chen Williams, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), San Diego, CA; Julie Pamela Bookbinder, Greenberg Traurig, LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Kenneth L. Steinthal, King & Spalding, San Francisco, CA; Michael A. Nicodema, PRO HAC VICE, Scott J Bornstein, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY; William Sloan Coats , III, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, East Palo Alto, CA.

For Microsoft Corporation, Interested Party: Eric Lance Wesenberg, LEAD ATTORNEY, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA.

For Akamai Technologies, Inc., Miscellaneous: David H. Judson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office of David H. Judson, Dallas, TX.

For Apple Inc., Counter-claimant: James Joseph DeCarlo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Greenberg Traurig LLP(Sta Monica), New York, NY; Kenneth L. Steinthal, LEAD ATTORNEY, King & Spalding, San Francisco, CA; Scott J Bornstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY; Julie Pamela Bookbinder, Greenberg Traurig, LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Michael A. Nicodema, PRO HAC VICE, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Florham Park, NJ; Robert Buergi, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), East Palo Alto, CA; Sarah Elizabeth Barrows, Stephen M. Ullmer, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San Francisco, CA; William Sloan Coats , III, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, East Palo Alto, CA.

For Emblaze Ltd., Counter-defendant: Lisa A. Ferrari, Marilyn Neiman, PRO HAC VICE, Martin Brian Pavane, Cozen O'Connor, New York, NY; Martin L. Fineman, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Francisco, CA; Nathan Dooley, Los Angeles, CA.

Page 1110

ORDER RE: APPLE'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EMBLAZE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge.

The invention claimed in this patent case bears a certain resemblance to the Veg-O-Matic once hawked on late-night TV: " It slices, it dices and so much more!" But rather than carrots or celery, this contraption chops up streams of data for upload and download. The point is to permit live casting of audio, video and the like without any dedicated server.

Before the court are Plaintiff Emblaze Ltd.'s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions to add recently-released Apple products [1] and Defendant Apple Inc.'s separate motions for summary judgment of: (1) non-infringement across

Page 1111

all [2] and (2) specific [3] content streams, (3) invalidity [4] and (4) no willfulness.[5] To address these motions, the parties appeared at a specially-set hearing. Although Apple's dispositive motions remain opposed, at the hearing Apple agreed not to oppose Emblaze's motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions.[6] On that basis, Emblaze's motion is GRANTED. After considering the arguments, the court GRANTS Apple's motions, but only IN-PART, as follows:

DOCKET NUMBER

MOTION

RESULT

343

Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement

GRANTED

346

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement as to All Accused Streams

GRANTED-IN-PART

348

Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of Specific Content Providers

DENIED

350

Summary Judgment of Invalidity

DENIED

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties and Disputed Technology

Emblaze is an Israeli corporation dedicated to the " development and marketing of innovative high-tech technologies and products." [7] Apple is a California-based corporation that, among other things, markets phones, tablets and computers that incorporate " HTTP Live Streaming technology" capable of " real-time" broadcasting.[8] Emblaze owns the sole patent at issue in this case: U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 (" the '473 patent" ).[9]

The '473 patent describes methods that allow " transmission of live audio and video to multiple devices" without requiring " devoted streaming servers" and permitting adjustment to " different bandwidths" where necessary.[10] As the patent abstract of the '473 patent puts it, the invention disclosed is:

A method for real-time broadcasting from a transmitting computer to one or more client computers over a network, including providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data rate, and dividing the stream into a sequence of slices, each slice having a predetermined data size associated therewith. The slices are encoded in a corresponding sequence of files, each file having a respective index, and the sequence is uploaded to a server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate of the stream, such that the one or more client computers can download the sequence over the network from the server at a download rate generally equal to the data rate.

Independent Claim 1 of the '473 patent is representative:

A method for real-time broadcasting from a transmitting computer to one or

Page 1112

more client computers over a network, comprising:
providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data rate;
dividing the stream into a sequence of slices, each slice having a predetermined data size associated therewith;
encoding the slices in a corresponding sequence of files, each file having a respective index; and
uploading the sequence to a server at an upload rate generally equal to the data rate of the stream, such that the one or more client computers can download the sequence over the network from the server at a download rate generally equal to the data rate.[11]

Emblaze claims that through its HTTP Live Streaming, introduced into Apple's products around 2009,[12] Apple infringes each of the asserted '473 patent claims.

B. Procedural History

Emblaze kicked off this case by filing a complaint for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York.[13] Several months later, the case was transferred to this district.[14] After the parties initially declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was assigned to United States District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.[15] Emblaze thereafter sought leave to amend its complaint to:

(1) amend the list of claims of the '473 Patent that are asserted by Emblaze so as to conform the allegations to what Emblaze has asserted in its Infringement Contentions;
(2) amend the products that Emblaze is accusing of infringement so as to conform the allegations of the Complaint to what Emblaze has learned in its ongoing investigation and from discovery thus far;
(3) remove certain allegations concerning Apple's presence in the Southern District of New York (no longer relevant now that the action has been transferred to the Northern District of California);
(4) update the firm affiliation of counsel for Emblaze and the change of venue from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; and
(5) make minor editing changes to the text.[16]

After Apple filed a statement of non-opposition, Judge Armstrong granted Emblaze's motion for leave to amend the complaint. Apple then moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Judge Armstrong dismissed Emblaze's indirect infringement claims with leave to amend, but denied Apple's related request to dismiss Emblaze's direct infringement or willfulness claims.[17] Emblaze's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.