Bender v. Nokia Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer for Maxine M. Chesney on July 15, 2010.(mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2010)

Bender v. Nokia Inc.

Doc. 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff Gregory Bender's ("Bender") "Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge," filed July 1, 2010. Having read and considered the motion, the Court DENIES the motion: 1. To the extent Bender argues that the magistrate judge's finding that his "infringement contentions and related claim charts lack the specificity necessary to comply with the requirements of Patent L.R. 3-1" (Pl.'s Mot., 1), he has failed to demonstrate that such finding "is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (providing that a district court judge must set aside any part of an order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law). Specifically, Bender has failed to demonstrate that the magistrate judge erred by ordering him to amend his infringement contentions to comply with Patent L.R. 3-1, or that his infringement contentions already meet the specificity requirements thereof. v. NOKIA INC., Defendant. / GREGORY BENDER, Plaintiff, No. C-09-1247 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2. To the extent Bender challenges the magistrate judge's decision to "limit[]" his amendment "to the single product specifically charted in his infringement contentions," to wit, a "Nokia 6205 cell phone" (Pl.'s Mot., 2), Bender fails to show that such decision is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law for the reason that he failed to identify that good cause exists for amendment. See Patent L.R. 3-6 ("Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.") 3. To the extent Bender asserts that the magistrate judge should not have enforced a standing order on discovery that "does not permit the submission of additional materials[,] like declarations[,] in support of one's position" (Pl.'s Mot., 5), there is no indication in the record before the Court that Bender sought leave from the magistrate judge to present such materials. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010

/s/ Charles R. Breyer CHARLES R. BREYER for MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2