Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CONTOUR IP HOLDING, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-04738-WHO
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON INVALIDITY
v. CONTENTIONS
GOPRO, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 554 Defendant.
12 Based on the parties’ joint submission, I rule as follows. GoPro will be limited in the second suit to no more than 15 prior art references and 30 prior art combinations, the same number permitted in the first suit—indeed, the same number it agreed to in the first suit. See January 17, 2017 oral order (between Dkt. Nos. 112 and 113); Dkt. No. 219 (stipulated order adopting same limitation). The parties should stipulate to a timeline for GoPro to make this narrowing and submit a joint letter brief within seven days if they cannot. It is true, as GoPro argues, that the limits from the first case need not automatically bind the second because even consolidated cases remain in some senses separate. See Hall v. Hall, 128 S.Ct. 1118, 1125 (2018). Nor do the Local Patent Rules…