Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Intellectual Property newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (April 3, 2020, 8:39 PM EDT ) Roku Inc. asked a Texas federal judge on Thursday to delay a June trial over claims that its devices infringe a patent for media streaming technology, arguing over the plaintiff's objections that almost everyone involved in the case is under a stay-at-home order due to the deadly coronavirus pandemic.
In a short motion for a trial continuance, Roku said the COVID-19 crisis had progressed to such a point that it was preventing the company from preparing for trial and would likely prevent its counsel — some of whom are based in Virginia and Maryland — from traveling to Waco, Texas, for the trial.
Roku asked counsel for the plaintiff, MV3 Partners LLC, to file a joint request to continue the trial, but MV3 declined, according to the motion.
MV3's counsel, Jonathan K. Waldrop of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, told Law360 in a statement Friday that Roku's attempt to continue the trial was premature. Waldrop said the Western District of Texas had canceled settings for civil matters scheduled before May 1, but had said trials after that would remain in effect.
"Certainly both parties have had ample time to prepare for trial, and we are actively doing so while working remotely," Waldrop said. "Of course we agree that the trial should not proceed if that would contravene any health guidelines in June, but we believe it is too early to make that determination."
Roku also said that gathering all the people necessary for a trial — including a jury, the judge, court staff, witnesses, the parties and their counsel — could put everyone at risk unnecessarily.
"In recognition of these unique risks and the unprecedented circumstances associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, courts have granted continuances, including trials scheduled later than the June 1 date in this case," Roku argued.
Florida-based MV3 filed its suit in November 2018, alleging that Roku trampled its U.S. Patent No. 8,863,223. which describes a system that streams media content from a mobile phone to larger displays such as televisions.
Roku had argued in an unsuccessful motion to dismiss that MV3 failed to put forth a detailed enough explanation of its theory that its accused products, including the Roku TV and some of its media players — the Roku Streaming Stick, Roku Ultra and Roku Express — infringe the patent.
Roku also moved in February 2019 to transfer the case to California, arguing that the suit revolves around its witnesses and documents, which it said were located primarily in the Golden State. A judge rejected the request in June of that year, finding the company hadn't shown that California would be more convenient.
On Thursday, Roku said it can't execute many of the preparations necessary for trial because witnesses, attorneys, staff and the company can't meet in person. The company said it lacks access to necessary industrial office equipment, like printers and scanners.
On March 30, Virginia and Maryland issued strict restrictions affecting Roku's counsel at Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP, including mandating that residents remain at home with few exceptions until June 10 — well after the trial is supposed to begin on June 1, Roku said. The orders make it difficult to prepare, particularly because they essentially prohibit in-person meetings, Roku said.
Waco is also under a shelter-in-place order until April 21, according to Roku.
"Continuing the trial will allow the court and the parties to proceed with the case in the most efficient and orderly fashion, and will protect the safety of the participants in this case and their communities," Roku said.
To keep things moving, Roku suggested that the parties continue to meet deadlines for pending summary judgment motions, saying that work can be done remotely and does not require intensive meetings with multiple individuals.
Counsel for Roku did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
MV3 is represented by J. Mark Mann, G. Blake Thompson and Andy Tindel of Mann Tindel & Thompson; Craig D. Cherry of Haley & Olson PC; and Jonathan K. Waldrop, Darcy L. Jones, Marcus A. Barber, John W. Downing, Heather S. Kim, Jack Shaw, ThucMinh Nguyen, Daniel C. Miller, Paul G. Williams and Rodney R. Miller of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
Roku is represented by Alexander J. Hadjis, Lisa M. Mandrusiak and Michael D. West of Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP; Richard D. Milvenan of McGinnis Lochridge LLP; and David N. Deaconson of Pakis Giotes Page & Burleson PC.
The case is MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc., case number 6:18-cv-00308, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton, Michelle Casady and Britain Eakin. Editing by Peter Rozovsky.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
