Case3:09-Cv-05535-EDL Document172 Filed04/12/11 Page1 of 126
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case3:09-cv-05535-EDL Document172 Filed04/12/11 Page1 of 126 (iREGORY P. STONE (SBN 078329) (ircgory.Stollc({l?mto.com 2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand AVClluc 3 Thirty-Filth Floor 4 Los Angcles, CA 90071-1560 REDACTED-COMPLETE VERSION FILED Tclephonc: (213) 683-9100 UNDER SEAL 5 Facsimik: (213) 687-3702 6 IIOJOON IIWANG (SBN 184950) 7 [email protected] ROI-IIT K. SINGLA (SI3N 213057) 8 [email protected] JONATHAN H. I3LA VIN (SBN 23(269) 9 [email protected] MICHAEL J. MONGAN (SBN 250374) 10 Michael. [email protected] II MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 12 Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 13 Telephone: (415) 512-4032 Facsimile: (415)512-4077 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 CASE NO. CV 09-5535 EDL 20 DA TEL HOLDINGS LTD. and DATEL DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC., NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF 21 MICROSOFT CORPORATION FOR Plaintiffs and LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 22 Counterclaimant ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND 23 Defendants, COUNTERCLAIMS 24 VS. FILED UNDER SEAL 25 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Date: TBD Time: TBD 26 Defendant and Courtroom: E, 15th Floor Counterclaimant. 27 MAG. JUDGE ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 28 NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT FOR LEAVE CV 09-5535 EDL Case3:09-cv-05535-EDL Document172 Filed04/12/11 Page2 of 126 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a 3 date and time to be determined in Courtroom E of the above-captioned Court, located at 450 4 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102, Defendant Microsoft Corporation 5 (“Microsoft”) will and hereby does move for leave to amend its answer, affirmative defenses, and 6 counterclaims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). 7 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion; the Memorandum of Points 8 and Authorities set forth below; the accompanying Declarations of Rohit K. Singla and Dr. 9 Robert D. Wedig, and all exhibits thereto; all pleadings and documents on file in this action; and 10 such other materials or argument as the Court may properly consider prior to deciding this 11 motion. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR LEAVE CV 09-5535 EDL Case3:09-cv-05535-EDL Document172 Filed04/12/11 Page3 of 126 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..........................................................1 4 II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................5 A. Datel Has Resisted Microsoft’s Efforts to Seek Discovery Relating to Datel’s 5 Reverse Engineering of the Xbox 360’s Authentication Scheme .......................................5 6 1. Microsoft’s initial document requests and the motion to compel............................5 7 2. The testimony of Datel’s witnesses .........................................................................6 a. Michael Connors..........................................................................................6 8 b. Alex Edge ....................................................................................................6 9 c. Paul Armitt...................................................................................................8 10 3. Datel’s subsequently produced documents..............................................................9 11 B. Datel Has Resisted Discovery Into the Development of the Wireless Networking Adapter ..............................................................................................................................11 12 C. Microsoft’s Proposed Copyright Infringement and Misappropriate of Trade Secrets 13 Allegations.........................................................................................................................11 14 1. Copyright Infringement .........................................................................................12 a. Substantially similar function names.........................................................13 15 b. Substantially similar structure of functions ...............................................14 16 c. Substantially similar parameters and variables..........................................15 17 2. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets ........................................................................16 18 III. ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................................17 19 A. Leave to Amend is Warranted Under Rule 15(a) ..............................................................17 B. “Good Cause” Exists to Amend the Scheduling Order Under Rule 16(b) ........................20 20 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR LEAVE CV 09-5535 EDL Case3:09-cv-05535-EDL Document172 Filed04/12/11 Page4 of 126 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 FEDERAL CASES 4 AccuImage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2003).....................................................................................16 5 Asset Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Gagnon, 6 542 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................7 7 Bd. of Trs. of the Auto. Indus. Welfare Fund v. Groth Oldsmobile/Chevrolet, Inc., 8 2010 WL 760452 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2010) ............................................................................19 9 Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto, 2010 WL 5174013 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010).........................................................................18 10 Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 11 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................20 12 CyberMedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 13 19 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 1998).....................................................................................12 14 DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................................17, 18 15 Ditto v. McCurdy, 16 510 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................17 17 DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 1183 (N.D. Tex. 1995) .......................................................................................13 18 19 Esbin & Alter, LLP v. Zappier, 2010 WL 391830 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2010)..............................................................................14 20 eScholar, LLC v. Otis Educ. Sys., Inc., 21 2005 WL 2977569 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2005)...........................................................................15 22 First Beverages, Inc. of Las Vegas v. Royal Crown Cola Co., 612 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................8 23 24 Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 2006 WL 3733815 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006) .........................................................................19 25 Howey v. United States, 26 481 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1973) .................................................................................................17 27 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................20 28 ii NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR LEAVE CV 09-5535 EDL Case3:09-cv-05535-EDL Document172 Filed04/12/11 Page5 of 126 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 4 256 F.R.D. 684 (E.D. Cal. 2009).......................................................................................20, 21 5 Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................20 6 MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., Inc., 7 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................15 8 Mixt Greens v. Sprout Café, 2010 WL 2794388 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2010) .........................................................................18 9 10 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 1990)....................................................................................18 11 Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. v. M & S Techs., Inc., 12 2008 WL 623660 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2008) ........................................................................12, 13 13 Pearl Music Co., Inc. v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 460 F. Supp. 1060 (C.D. Cal. 1978) ....................................................................................1, 19 14 15 Progressive W. Ins. Co. v. Dallo, 2008 WL 2220408 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2008) .........................................................................21 16 Samad Bros., Inc. v. Bokara Rug Co., Inc., 17 2010 WL 2835754 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2010) .........................................................................21 18 Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................12 19 Solomon v. N. Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 20 151 F.3d