Lighting Defense Group LLC v. Shanghai Sansi Electronic Engineering Company Limited

Filing 216

ORDER granting Defendants' 180 Motion to Enforce Court Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERD striking the following portions of the Expert Report of Dr. Katona. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Susan M. Brnovich on 3/11/2025. (ESG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lighting Defense Group LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Shanghai Sansi Electronic Engineering
Company Limited, et al.,

13
14
15

No. CV-22-01476-PHX-SMB
Consolidated with: CV-22-01671-PHXSMB
ORDER

Defendants.
SANSI LED Lighting Inc., and SANSI
Smart Lighting Inc.,
Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants,

16
17
18
19

v.
Lighting Defense Group LLC,
Defendant/CounterPlaintiff.

20
21
22

Before the Court is Defendants SANSI LED Lighting, Inc., SANSI Smart Lighting,

23

Inc., and Shanghai SANSI Electronic Engineering Co., Ltd.’s (collectively, “SANSI”)

24

Motion to Enforce Court Order (Doc. 180). Plaintiff Lighting Defense Group LLC

25

(“LDG”) filed a Response (Doc. 186), to which SANSI filed a Reply (Doc. 198). Having

26

considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable law, the Court will grant SANSI’s

27

Motion.

28

///

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

This is a patent infringement case. (See Doc. 18.) The parties are familiar with the

3

factual background of this case as set out in the Court’s Order on their summary judgment

4

motions. (See Doc. 146.) LDG holds patents to heat management technology for high

5

efficiency light emitting diodes (“LEDs”), U.S. Patent Nos. 8,256,923 (the “?923 Patent”),

6

9,163,807 (the “?807 Patent”), 7,874,700 (the “?700 Patent”), and 8,939,608 (the “’608

7

Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Doc. 18 at 2 ¶¶ 1–2.) The Asserted Patents

8

generally encompass apparatus claims for a mountable LED light fixture. (See Doc. 68

9

at 11.) SANSI designs and sells various LED lighting products in stores and in online

10

marketplaces, of which LDG alleges those products infringe on the Assert Patents. (Doc.

11

18 at 6–14.) The pending Motion relates to an opening expert report (the “Expert Report”)

12

from Dr. Thomas Katona, LDG’s expert, in which he opines to LDG’s various

13

infringement contentions. (See generally Doc. 180-3 at 4–87.) The scope of those

14

contentions is the crux of the dispute here.

15

The Court begins with the procedural and case management history as the facts of

16

the case are generally not the focal point of the dispute. The Court’s Case Management

17

Order governs the disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions. See Case

18

Management Order, Sansi LED Lighting Inc., et al., v. Lighting Defense Group LLC, No.

19

CV-22-01671-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2022), ECF No. 26 at 4–5 ¶ 8 (consolidated

20

case). The Case Management Order required LDG to serve its infringement contentions

21

to SASNI by January 30, 2023, and to include the following information:

22
23
24
25
26

Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device,
process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality) of
each opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be
as specific as possible. This identification shall be as specific as possible.
Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model
number, if known. Each method or process shall be identified by name, if
known, or by any product, device, or apparatus that, when used, allegedly
results in the practice of the claimed method or process.

27

Id. ¶ 8(a)(1)–(2). Additionally, it required: “A chart identifying specifically where and

28

how each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality,”

-2-

1

and “[w]hether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be present in the

2

Accused Instrumentality literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. ¶ 8(a)(3)–(4).

3

LDG timely served its initial infringement contentions to SANSI, which included

4

eighteen claim charts accusing roughly seventy-two SANSI products of infringing LDG’s

5

corresponding patents (the “Initial Infringement Contentions”). (Doc. 76-1 at 2.) LDG

6

identified many of these potentially infringing products by searching various webpages,

7

including on Amazon. (Doc. 186-6 at 5.) Thereafter, according to the Case Management

8

Order, Sansi LED Lighting, CV-22-01671-PHX-SMB, ECF. No. 26 at 9–11 ¶ 8(f)–(i), the

9

parties filed a Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products for the Court’s

10

Markman hearing (Doc. 52). There, the parties stipulated that “LDG may use certain

11

representative products to prove structure and operations of a broader set of Sansi’s

12

Accused Products strictly for the purposes of [this litigation].” (Id. at 2.) The parties

13

stipulated to “Representative Categories,” Group Nos. 1–9, “wherein each group includes

14

representative product(s) in the column titled ‘Model Number of Representative Products,’

15

which are representative of other corresponding products included in the same group.”

16

(Id.) The Representative Categories included information on alleged infringing products’

17

SKU numbers, product names, model numbers, and Amazon ASIN numbers that

18

corresponded to the Model Number of Representative Products listed for each Group. (See

19

Doc. 52-1 at 2–4.)1 The parties further stipulated that “[p]roof of the structure and

20

operation by LDG of any of the representative product(s) . . . shall constitute proof of the

21

structure and operation of all other corresponding products in that product group.” (Doc.

22

52 at 2–3.)

23

The parties stipulated to, and the Court granted, a modification to the case

24

management deadlines to account for the Markman hearing and ensuing claim

25

construction. (Doc. 60.) Before the Markman hearing, LDG amended its infringement

26
1

27
28

SANSI products could have the same model number but a different name. (Doc. 186-6
at 4–5.) Additionally, SANSI products that LDG found listed on Amazon, for example,
only used the Amazon ASIN number and not the model number. (Id. at 5.) The
Representative Categories appear to account for these variants within a group and
representative product. (See Doc. 52-1 at 2–4.)
-3-

1

contentions (the “First Amended Infringement Contentions”) to account for newly

2

discovered products and served it on SANSI. (See Doc. 186-2 at 2–5; see also Doc. 62

3

(LDG’s Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions); Doc. 63 (granting leave

4

to amend).)2 The First Amended Infringement Contentions used the same groupings along

5

with the eighteen claims and identified an additional ninety accused products. (Doc. 76-1

6

at 2–3.) The Court then conducted the Markman hearing. (Doc. 66.) The parties again

7

stipulated to, and the Court granted, a second extension to the case management deadlines

8

to account for the Court’s Claim Construction Order. (Doc. 67; Doc. 69; see also Doc. 68.)

9

And for a third and fourth time, the parties stipulated to, and the Court granted, extensions

10

based on SANSI’s productions in fact discovery relating its sales information. (Doc. 71;

11

Doc. 73; Doc. 74; Doc. 75.)

12

On May 1, 2025, over four months after the Court’s Claim Construction Order

13

issued, but before the modified deadline for fact discovery, LDG sought leave to amend its

14

infringement contentions for a second time (the “Proposed Second Amended Infringement

15

Contentions”). (Doc. 76.) LDG noted that near the end of February it had inspected

16

SANSI’s Amazon seller webpage and identified SKU discrepancies. (Doc. 76-1 at 4.)

17

About a month later, SANSI served interrogatory responses, identifying “39 new SKUs

18

and 39 new ASINs.”

19

Infringement Contentions on SANSI. (Id.; see also Doc. 82.)

(Id.) LDG thereafter served the Proposed Second Amended

20

Before the Court ruled on the Motion for Leave to Serve the Proposed Second

21

Amended Infringement Contentions, LDG served Dr. Katona’s Expert Report on SANSI.

22

(Doc. 186 at 10.) Prior to serving the Expert Report, LDG did not seek an expedited ruling

23
2

24
25
26
27
28

For amendments to the infringement contentions, the Case Management Order provides:
Amendment of the Infringement Contentions . . . may be made only by order
of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause. Non-exhaustive examples
of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non-moving party,
support a finding of good cause include (a) recent discovery of material prior
art despite earlier diligent search and (b) recent discovery of nonpublic
information about the Accused Instrumentality that was not discovered,
despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions.

Id. at 9 ¶ (8)(e).
-4-

1

on the Motion, nor did it after. The Court denied leave to amend because LDG moved for

2

leave to amend four months after the Claim Construction Order issued and it failed to

3

adequately explain what they learned from depositions after that Order that they could not

4

have known earlier. (Doc. 147 at 1–2.) The Proposed Second Amended Contentions did

5

not add any “new” or “additional” SANSI products, in a general sense of the terms, i.e.,

6

products that had not been already identified as infringing at least one of LDG’s Asserted

7

Patents in its First Amended Infringement Contentions. (See Doc. 83 at 3.) Rather, the

8

proposed changes added ten new claim charts, modified the existing eighteen charts,

9

identified the already-identified accused products by the newly discovered SKUs and

10

ASINs, and reorganized the accused products to add the SKUs and ASINs to

11

Representative Categories. (See Doc. 76 at 7; Doc. 82 at 3; Doc. 83 at 3.) In effect, the

12

changes expanded the scope of the accused products within a Representative Category

13

alleged to have infringed on a specific patent. (Doc. 83 at 5.)3

14

After the Court denied the amendments, SANSI informed LDG that the Expert

15

Report contains opinions that were not properly disclosed as part of the First Amended

16

Infringement Contentions. (See Doc. 180-2 at 9–10.) The parties unsuccessfully met and

17

conferred on the issue. (See id. at 3–5.) SANSI now moves to enforce the Court’s Order

18

3

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

For clarity’s sake, this characterization evidently created a point of confusion for the
Court and the parties. (See, e.g., Doc. 147 at 2 (explaining LDG failed to justify its lack of
diligence in seeking the amendments of the additional infringing products); Doc. 186 at 17
(clarifying, in addressing the Court’s Order, that “LDG respectfully submits that it did not
seek to ‘add additional infringing products”).) In its Reply in Support of its Motion for
Leave to Amend, LDG stated: “To be clear: each new SKU is a new product that is added
to the list of Accused Products. This is not ‘financial discovery,’ this is an enlargement of
the scope of the infringement case as new accused products are being added.” (Doc. 83
at 5.) Yet, LDG also characterized the changes as “narrowing” the outstanding
infringement issues. (Id. at 3.) The Court’s statement about lack of diligence and
“discovery of additional infringing product,” in the context of this case’s peculiar history,
was intended to convey that LDG lacked diligence in seeking the second set of amendments
when it discovered the additional products before it served the First Amendment
Infringement Contentions and the subsequent discovery of those products identified by
different SKUs and ASINs. LDG own characterization phrased “each new SKU [as] a new
product,” but these were in fact not new products. In the Court’s view, LDG failed to
explain how discovery of those SKUs and ASINs justified the changes, when the products
themselves were discovered months prior, already alleged to infringe certain patents. LDG
was aware of the Court’s Claim Construction for months, thereby providing LDG a means
to evaluate the extent and scope of the already-accused products’ infringement on its
Asserted Patents, but LDG waited months to accuse those products of infringing on certain
patents.
-5-

1

denying leave to amend the infringement contentions and requests that the Court strike all

2

or some the paragraphs in the Expert Report related to contentions improperly raised in the

3

Proposed Second Amended Infringement Contentions. (Doc. 180.)

4

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

5

“District courts have an inherent power to control their dockets.” Thompson v.

6

Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (1986) (per curiam). Federal Rule

7

of Civil Procedure 16 “authorizes a court to manage cases so that disposition is expedited,

8

. . . the quality of the trial is improved, and settlement is facilitated. It recognizes ‘the need

9

for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that

10

may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof

11

problems.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227

12

(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The Court’s Case Management Order required LDG, its

13

infringement contentions, to identify: (1) each claim of each asserted patent that is

14

allegedly infringed”; (2) each accused product for which the LDG is aware, specifically for

15

each asserted claim, and as specific as possible by name or model number; and (3) a chart

16

identifying specifically how each limitation of a claim is found within the accused product.

17

Sansi LED Lighting, CV-22-01671-PHX-SMB, ECF. No. 26 at 9–10 ¶ 8(a)(1)–(3). The

18

Case Management Order generally tracks other jurisdictions’ local patent rules. See, e.g.,

19

N.D. Cal., Pat. L.R. 3-1(a)–(c); E.D. Tex., Pat. L.R. 3-1(a)–(c); see also Keranos, LLC v.

20

Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 797 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Local patent rules are

21

essentially a series of case management orders that fall within a district court’s broad power

22

to control its docket and enforce its order.”).

23

Once a party serves its infringement contentions, “the contentions constitute the

24

universe of the parties’ respective theories.”

25

14CV02998HSGJSC, 2018 WL 620169, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018). The disclosure

26

serves the purpose of “require[ing] parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in

27

the litigation.” O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1364

28

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). It avoids a “shifting sands” approach to after claim

-6-

Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No.

1

construction. Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d 761, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This

2

“further[s] the goal of full, timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate notice of

3

and information with which to litigate their cases.” Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of Univ. of

4

Pa., Case No. 10-cv-2037, 2012 WL 424985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2012) (cleaned up).

5

A patentee’s infringement contentions “do not need to include proof or direct evidence of

6

infringement.” AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 769 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But

7

a “party may not use an expert report to introduce new infringement theories, new

8

infringing instrumentalities, new invalidity theories, or new prior art references not

9

disclosed in the parties’ infringement contentions or invalidity contentions.” ASUS Comp.

10

Int’l v. Round Rock Research, LLC, No. 12–CV–02099–JST, 2014 WL 1463609, at *1

11

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014).

12

III.

DISCUSSION
The Parties’ Arguments

13

A.

14

The parties do not dispute that the First Amended Infringement Contentions are the

15

operative contentions. (See, e.g., Doc. 180 at 7; Doc. 186 at 6.) The parties’ arguments,

16

however, are intertwined and overlapping, making it a challenge to identify the specific

17

issues in dispute. From what the Court can glean, the dispute is as follows.

18

SANSI arguments fall into two buckets: (1) Dr. Katona’s Expert Report provides

19

opinions that certain products infringe on certain patents that were not previously accused

20

or charted; and (2) his opinions reflect new theories on how certain bulbs meet certain

21

limitations in the patents, both of which are improper. (See Doc. 180 at 3 n.1.)4

22
23
24
25
SANSI provides the paragraphs of the Expert Report at issue as follows: “For the first
issue, the relevant paragraphs are all or some of 77, 79, 172, 174–175, 177, 182–253, 366,
368–369, 387–418, 430, 432–433, 441–450, 452–453, 455, 461, 483–494, 496–497, 499,
504–513, 546–557, 559-560, 562, 569, 571–585, 618–628, 634, 640, and 642–645. For the
second, the relevant paragraphs are 588–590, 594, 600–602, 606, 610–612, 616, 648–650,
654, 656, 660–662, 666, 672–674, 678, 682–684, 688, 692–695, 697, and 698.” (Id. at 5
n.3.)
4

26
27
28

-7-

1

Regarding the second bucket, SANSI advances two issues relating to Groups 2 and

2

9 products and Dr. Katona’s infringement theories. (Doc. 180 at 14–19.) First, SANSI

3

contends that the operative contentions have referred to the entire end of a bulb as the

4

member, as depicted below with representative product for Group 2 on the left and Group

5

9 on the right.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

(See Doc. 190-3 at 92, 123, 133; Doc. 180-2 at 23, 40.) Whereas, Dr. Katona relies on the

17

Proposed Second Amended Infringement Contentions, which include, in addition to

18

“member” identified above, that each ceramic cell are also members, as depicted below

19

(Group 2 on the left and Group 9 on the right). In SANSI’s view, each ceramic cell being

20

a “member” identified below is a new theory not previously disclosed in the operative

21

contentions for the ’608, ’807, and ’923 Patents. (Doc. 180 at 15–16.)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(See Doc. 180-4 at 4–7, 80–82; Doc. 180-5 at 4–6, 30–32.)

-8-

1

For SANSI’s second issue, it argues the operative contentions only disclose a

2

“central vent” in Group 2 products as the accused “channel” for the ’608 and ’807 Patents

3

as shown below. (Doc. 180 at 17–18.)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(See Doc. 180-3 at 125, 136–37.) SANSI similarly faults Dr. Katona for relying on the

12

Proposed Second Amended Infringement Contentions that include multiple channels.

13

(Doc. 180 at 18–19.) Those contentions identify additional channels under two analyses

14

that can be combined as highlighted in blue below.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(See Doc. 180-4 at 90–94; Doc. 180-5 at 14–18.)

22

LDG responds its Expert Report does not include allegations against “new products”

23

nor does it disclose new infringement theories. (Doc. 186 at 17–19.) According to LDG,

24

SANSI had notice of its infringement theories because the Asserted Patents contain similar

25

claims, overlap in scope, and the accused products all have the same representative accused

26

features for heat management. (Doc. 186 at 11–16.) For the multiple member theory, LDG

27

argues that the following figure in operative infringement contentions related to the ’923

28

-9-

1

Patent depicts arrows pointing to the ceramic cells as the members.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(Id. at 19–20; see also Doc. 180-3 at 92, 93, 94; cf. Doc. 180-3 at 123–125, 133–35, 138.)
For disclosure of its multiple channel theory, LDG argues the following figure depicts
multiple channels around the ceramic cell as part of its operative infringement contentions
for the ’923 Patent.

14
15
16
17
18
19

(Doc. 186 at 20–21; see also Doc. 180-3 at 96.)

20

In reply, SANSI maintains that the contentions regarding Group 9 only relate to the

21

infringement theories related to the ’923 Patent for that group of products, and does not

22

provide a theory regarding that group of products infringes the ’608 and ’807 patents.

23

(Doc. 198 at 4–5.) SANSI also argues that LDG’s rebuttal regarding the channels and the

24

central vent only relates to the contentions for the ’923 Patent and does not provide a

25

multiple channel theory for the ’608 and ’807 patents. (Id. at 10–11.)

26

B.

27

The Court begins by addressing the issue of the Expert Report providing opinions

28

that certain accused products infringe on certain patents not directly alleged in the operative

Analysis

- 10 -

1

contentions. Allowing LDG to assert that previously identified accused products infringe

2

on certain patents that were not previously asserted would circumvent the Court’s Case

3

Management Order and enable the Expert Report to provide new infringement theories

4

with respect to those products. ASUS Comp. Int’l v. Round Rock Research, LLC, 2014 WL

5

1463609, at *1; see also Sansi LED Lighting, CV-22-01671-PHX-SMB, ECF. No. 26 at

6

9–10 ¶ 8(a)(1)–(3). “The dispositive inquiry in a motion to strike is thus whether the

7

allegedly undisclosed ‘theory’ is in fact a new theory or new element of the accused product

8

alleged to practice a particular claim that was not previously identified in the plaintiff’s

9

contentions, or whether the ‘theory’ is instead the identification of additional evidentiary

10

proof showing that the accused element did in fact practice the limitation.” Finjan, 2018

11

WL 620169, at *2; see also Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 18-CV-01577-H-BGS,

12

2019 WL 5790999, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019).

13

The Court’s Case Management Order required LDG to identify in its infringement

14

contentions: (1) each claim of each asserted patent that is allegedly infringed”; (2) each

15

accused product for which the LDG is aware, specifically for each asserted claim, and as

16

specific as possible by name or model number; and (3) a chart identifying specifically how

17

each limitation of a claim is found within the accused product. Sansi LED Lighting,

18

CV-22-01671-PHX-SMB, ECF. No. 26 at 9–10 ¶ 8(a)(1)–(3); see also LoganTree LP v.

19

Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 17-1217-EFM-ADM, 2021 WL 5998293, at *14 (D. Kan. Dec. 20,

20

2021) (“[T]he most common remedy when a party violates the scheduling order by

21

articulating new theories in an expert report that were not timely disclosed in infringement

22

contentions is to strike those portions of an expert report.”). The parties also stipulated to

23

grouping the products based on their similarities and then to use a representative product

24

to cover the specific group. (Doc. 52.) At the time LDG served its First Amended

25

Infringement contentions, it had the list of the accused products and asserted particular

26

infringement contentions against them based on the corresponding groupings. Even if

27

LDG did not know of the SKUs or ASINs at the time, it should have included allegations

28

that those products infringed the relevant patents claims with the information it had at the

- 11 -

1

time.5 It was not unreasonable for SANSI to rely on LDG’s organization to understand the

2

universe of products within a particular group alleged to have infringed particular patents.

3

See, e.g., ASUS Comp. Int’l, 2014 WL 1463609, at *7 (striking identification of infringing

4

products not included in a list of a series of products previously identified); see also

5

Looksmart Grp., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1222, 1234 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

6

(“[T]the point of contentions is to eliminate the guesswork involved in going through a

7

party’s documentary and other evidence.”).

8

Dr. Katona, by opining that elements of products within a group now infringe

9

different patents, has improperly asserted undisclosed infringement theories with respect

10

to those new allegations. For Group 1, the operative contentions only addressed a chart for

11

infringement of the ’700 Patent. (Doc. 180 at 10.) But the Expert Report includes opinions

12

that Group 1 products also infringe on the ’608, ’807, and ’923 Patents. (See Doc. 180-3

13

at 6–25.) For Group 3, the operative contentions only charted infringement of the ’608 and

14

’807 Patents, but the Expert Report provides opinions that the Group infringes on the ’923

15

Patent. (See id. at 27.) For Group 4, the operative contentions only charted infringement

16

of the ’923 Patent, but the Expert Report provides opinions on ’608 and ’807 Patents

17

regarding the Group. (Id. at 35.) For Group 7, the operative contentions only charted

18

infringement of the ’923 Patent, but the Expert Report provides opinions on ’608 and ’807

19

Patents regarding the Group. (Id. at 46.) And finally, for Group 9, the Expert Report

20

contains opinions that the ’608 and ’807 Patents are infringed, but the operative contentions

21

only charted infringement of the ’923 Patent. (Id. at 57.) These are previously undisclosed

22

infringement allegations and are improper. See, e.g., Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom,

23

Inc., No. C 12-00865 SI, 2014 WL 4100638, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014) (striking

24

expert report where it included opinions that prior art references practiced additional

25

limitations in patent claims not previously charted); Willis Elec. Co. v. Polygroup Macau

26

5

27
28

Notably, LDG’s First Amended Infringement Contentions state “the specific product
numbers, SKUs, brand names . . . that SANSI . . . assign[s] to [its] products do not affect
the Accused Products and are not relevant to infringement in this case.” (Doc. 186-6 at 10.)
LDG knew of its infringement theories and the universe of accused products. It cannot
now contend that the new SKUs or ASINs, which in its words are irrelevant, provided
means to excuse its failure to assert the relevant infringement contentions.
- 12 -

1

Ltd. (BVI), 649 F. Supp. 3d 780, 810 (D. Minn. 2023) (excluding an expert’s opinions

2

where the plaintiff failed to disclose a theory of infringement as to specific patent claims

3

with respect to particular groups of accused products). Thus, the Court agrees with SANSI

4

and will strike the references to allegations regarding previously identified products now

5

alleged to infringe on certain patents that were not part of the operative contentions.

6

With respect to Dr. Katona opining on each ceramic cell being a distinct member

7

for Groups 2 and 9 products and multiple channels in the Group 2 products, both present

8

new infringement theories not properly disclosed in the operative contentions.

9

First regarding the multiple-member theory, LDG relies on an ambiguous arrow

10

within its chart for the ’923 Patent that may appear to point to the ceramic cells of Group

11

2 products as being members, although the Group 2 allegations reference the member as

12

singular, not plural. (See Doc. 180-3 at 93.) Immediately preceding the figure that LDG

13

relies on (shown above), LDG’s chart identifies the member as the entire base of the bulb

14

for the same claim limitation. (See id. at 92.) Further, LDG once again depicted the

15

singular member has the entire base for a claim that is dependent on that limitation, as

16

shown below.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(See id. at 100; see also id. at 102.) Any ambiguity in the arrows is belied by repeated

26

references to the base of the bulb being the member and the multiple-member theory is

27

unsupported in the appropriate context. LDG treats the member of the Group 9 products

28

the same way. (See Doc. 180-2 at 16, 23, 30.) Thus, the Court agrees with SANSI and

- 13 -

1

therefore finds that the multi-member theory is new and not disclosed in the operative

2

contentions.

3

21-CV-01147-H-AHG, 2023 WL 2756492, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2023) (striking an

4

expert report where it identified a new structure in the accused product as satisfying a claim

5

limitation that was not previously included in the infringement contentions). The Court

6

will strike Dr. Katona’s opinions to the extent he relies on such a theory.

See, e.g., Echologics, LLC v. Orbis Intelligent Sys., Inc., No.

7

SANSI is again correct that multiple-channel theory only relates to the ’923 Patent,

8

not the allegations related to the ’608 and ’807 Patents. LDG did not disclose its

9

multiple-channel theory as it relates to Group 2 products infringing the ’608 and ’807

10

Patents. (See Doc. 180-3 at 125, 136–37.) Although patents may have similarities, the

11

inclusion of the multiple-channel theory provides a new infringement theory with respect

12

to Group 2 products as applied to the claim limitations in the ’608 and ’807 Patents. Thus,

13

the Court will strike the Expert Report to the extent it relies on the new theory for the ’608

14

and ’807 Patents.

15

LDG’s proper course was to seek an amendment when it discovered the universe of

16

products it now claims are infringing specific patents and assert its theories with respect to

17

those products and the particular patent claims. For the Court to allow otherwise, would

18

strip the operative contentions of a definable scope and render the Case Management

19

Order’s specificity requirements useless.

20

IV.

CONCLUSION

21

Accordingly,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Court Order

23
24
25

(Doc. 180).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD striking the following portions of the Expert Report
of Dr. Katona:

26

• All opinions relying on LDG’s proposed Second Amended Infringement

27

Contentions, including any theories not specifically identified and set forth in

28

LDG’s operative infringement contentions. This includes but is not limited to

- 14 -

1

assertions that groups of representative bulbs infringe patent claims that they

2

were not previously asserted against (as in, specifically charted for) in LDG’s

3

contentions. This includes but is not limited to some or all of the opinions in

4

paragraphs 77, 79, 172, 174–175, 177, 182-253, 366, 368–369, 387–418, 430,

5

432–433, 441–450, 452–453, 455, 461, 483–494, 496–497, 499, 504–513,

6

546–557, 559–560, 562, 569, 571–585, 618–628, 634, 640, and 642–645.

7

• New opinions offered in connection with the Group 2 and 9 bulbs that: (1) each

8

ceramic heat sink cell is a distinct member; and (2) that the accused “channel”

9

and related apertures under the ’608 and ’807 patents correspond to anything

10

other than the so-called “central vent” of the Group 2 bulbs. This includes but is

11

not limited to new opinions set forth at paragraphs 588–590, 594, 600–602, 606,

12

610–612, 616, 648-650, 654, 656, 660–662, 666, 672–674, 678, 682–684, 688,

13

692–695, 697, and 698.

14

Dated this 11th day of March, 2025.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 15 -