PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. EMC Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 10, 2019
• Docket: 5:13-cv-01358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 | PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and g | LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, CASE NO.: 5:13-cv-01358-EJD 9 Plaintiffs, | ORDER 10 | Y: ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT i, | EMC CORPORATION and VMWARE, INC., | Docket No. 65 Defendants. Hon. Edward J. Davila 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Defendants EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) move for 2 summary judgment regarding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791 (“the ’791 patent”), 3 Patent No. 6,415,280 (“the ’280 patent”), Patent No. 7,945,544 (“the ’544 patent”), Patent No. 4 7,945,539 (“the ’539 patent”), Patent No. 7,949,662 (“the ’662 patent”), and Patent No. 8,001,096 5 (“the ’096 patent”). Dkt. No. 65. Defendants contend that summary judgment is appropriate 6 because all asserted claims of these patents have now been invalidated through inter partes review 7 proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), and those invalidations are subject 8 to no further appeals. Plaintiffs PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, 9 LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) do not oppose the motion. Id. 10 Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there 11 is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to judgment as a 12 matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment 13 solely because the opposing party has failed to file an opposition. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 14 1494-95, n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may be granted only after court determines that 15 there are no material issues of fact). The Court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for 16 summary judgment if the movant’s papers are sufficient to support the motion and do not on their 17 face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 18 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th Cir. 1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic entry of judgment for moving 19 party without consideration of whether motion and supporting papers satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 56), rev’d 20 on other grounds sub nom. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996). 21 The evidence presented by Defendants supports their motion for summary judgment. See 22 Decl. of Marissa A Lalli Exs. C-G (PTAB’s Final Written Decisions), H (Judgments of the United 23 States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. EMC 24 Corporation and VMware, Inc., Nos. 2014-1602, 2014-1603, 2014-1604, 2014-1605, 2014-1606, 25 2014-1607, dated August 10, 2015), I-N (Inter Partes Review Certificates for the ’791 patent, ’280 26 patent, ’544 patent, ’539 patent, ’662 patent, and ’096 patent). 27 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on Count 1 and 1 16,415,280, U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544, U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539, U.S. Patent No. 7,949,662, and 2 U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 10, 2019 aM. 5 EDWARD J. DAVILA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28