Trans Video Electronics , Ltd. v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al

Filing 149

AMENDED ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND re 147 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/16/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TRANS VIDEO ELECTRONICS, LTD.,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No. C-09-3304 EMC

SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,

12

AMENDED ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
(Page 9, Line 3)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 136)
13
14

Plaintiff Trans Video Electronics, Ltd. initiated this patent infringement action against

15

various Sony entities (collectively “Sony”) in July 2009. On May 18, 2011, Judge Patel issued a

16

claim construction order in which she construed various terms contained in the only claim at issue,

17

i.e., claim 3 of Patent No. 5,991,801 (the “‘801 patent”). See Docket No. 119 (order). Thereafter,

18

the case was reassigned to the undersigned, and Sony moved for summary judgment. Sony argued

19

that, based on Judge Patel’s claim construction, claim 3 was invalid based on a lack of written

20

description. This Court granted Sony’s motion but did not enter judgment because, prior to the

21

order granting summary judgment, Trans Video had filed a motion to amend. Currently pending

22

before the Court is that motion in amend. In its motion, Trans Video asks for leave to add a new

23

claim for patent infringement – more specifically, for infringement of claim 4 of the ‘801 patent.

24

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as all other evidence

25

of record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to amend.

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As noted above, Trans Video initiated this lawsuit in July 2009, asserting infringement of the

3

‘801 patent. See Docket No. 1 (complaint). On February 12, 2010, Sony moved to stay the case

4

pending reexamination of the patent. See Docket No. 54 (motion). Approximately a month later,

5

Judge Patel granted in part and denied in part Sony’s motion. More specifically, Judge Patel stayed

6

the case but still allowed the parties to conduct discovery related to claim construction of the ‘801

7

patent. See Docket No. 66 (Order at 1). Almost a year later, on February 14, 2011, Judge Patel

8

lifted the stay. See Docket No. 85 (civil pretrial minutes). The parties proceeded with claim

9

construction on the only claim in the case, i.e., claim 3 of the ‘801 patent, and on May 18, 2011,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Judge Patel issued her claim construction order. See Docket No. 119 (order).
Shortly thereafter, on June 6, 2011, the case was reassigned to this Court. See Docket No.

12

121 (order). In a joint case management conference (“CMC”) statement filed on June 21, 2011, the

13

parties, including Trans Video, confirmed that the only claim at issue in the case was claim 3 of the

14

‘801 patent. See Docket No. 122 (St. at 3). On July 29, 2011, Sony filed its motion for summary

15

judgment on invalidity based on lack of a written description. See Docket No. 124 (motion). Trans

16

Video’s opposition to the summary judgment motion, filed on August 12, 2011, reiterated that the

17

only claim at issue in the case was claim 3. See Docket No. 128 (Opp’n at 1) (stating that “Claim 3

18

[is] the only asserted claim in this action”). Sony thereafter filed its reply brief on August 19, 2011.

19

On September 12, 2011 – approximately two years after Trans Video first filed suit, almost a

20

month after briefing on the summary judgment motion had been completed, and only a week and a

21

half before the hearing on the summary judgment motion was to take place – Trans Video informed

22

Sony for the first time that it wanted to add a new claim for patent infringement to the case. See

23

Hanley Decl. ¶ 4. More specifically, Trans Video stated that it wanted to add a claim for

24

infringement of claim 4 of the ‘801 patent. Trans Video subsequently informed the Court of the

25

same as part of a joint CMC statement filed on September 16, 2011. See Docket No. 132 (St. at 3).

26

On September 23, 2011, this Court held the hearing on Sony’s summary judgment motion.

27

During the hearing, the Court indicated that it had concerns about the validity of claim 3 of the ‘801

28

patent. See Docket No. 132 (civil minutes). A week later, on September 30, 2011, Trans Video

2

1

formally filed its motion to amend. See Docket No. 132 (motion). Two weeks after that, the Court

2

granted Sony’s motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 139 (order). Thus, unless the Court

3

were to grant Trans Video’s motion to amend, this case would be terminated and judgment entered

4

in Sony’s favor.

5
6

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

7

Typically, amendments to pleadings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,

8

which provides in relevant part that a “court should freely give leave [to] amend when justice so

9

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The instant case, however, is a patent infringement action, and
therefore Trans Video argues that the governing legal standard is provided not only by Rule 15 but

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

also by Patent Local Rule 3-6. The local rule provides in relevant part that amendment of

12

infringement contentions “may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good

13

cause.” Pat. L.R. 3-6. The rule goes on to state that one example of a circumstance that “may,

14

absent undue prejudice to the non-moving party, support a finding of good cause” is “[a] claim

15

construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment.” Pat. L.R.

16

3-6(a).

17

Sony does not dispute that both Rule 15 and Patent Local Rule 3-6 are applicable.

18

Accordingly, the Court shall consider both Rule 15 as well as Patent Local Rule 3-6 in determining

19

whether to grant or deny Trans Video’s motion. Ultimately, there is some overlap in analysis. For

20

example, under Rule 15, undue delay by the party seeking leave to amend is a factor that a court

21

may consider. See Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999). Similarly, under Patent

22

Local Rule 3-6, good cause for an amendment can be established only where the party seeking leave

23

to amend shows diligence. See, e.g., Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2011

24

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87251, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (stating that, under Patent Local Rule 3-6,

25

“good cause requires a showing of diligence”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Acer, Inc. v. Tech.

26

Props., Nos. 5:08-cv-00877 JF/HRL, 5:08-cv-00882 JF/HRL, 5:08-cv-05398 JF/HRL, 2010 U.S.

27

Dist. LEXIS 142472, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010) (stating that, “[b]ecause TPL has not

28

demonstrated diligence, the inquiry should end’” – although going on to briefly discuss prejudice).

3

1

There are, however, some differences between Rule 15 and Patent Local Rule 3-6. Most

Bowles, 198 F.3d at 758. There must also be either (1) prejudice to the opposing party, (2) bad faith

4

by the moving party, or (3) futility of the amendment. See id. (noting that “[w]e have previously

5

reversed the denial of a motion for leave to amend where the district court did not provide a

6

contemporaneous specific finding of prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party,

7

or futility of the amendment”). In contrast, under Patent Local Rule 3-6, if there is no showing of

8

diligence, then a court need not even entertain whether the amendment would prejudice the

9

nonmoving party. See Oracle, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87251, at *7; Acer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

10

142472, at *17. This approach was approved by the Federal Circuit in O2 Micro International Ltd.

11
For the Northern District of California

notably, under Rule 15, undue delay by itself “is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.”

3

United States District Court

2

v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

12

B.

13
14
15

Undue Delay/Diligence
Based on the record, the Court concludes that Trans Video unduly delayed in seeking leave

to amend and failed to act with the requisite diligence.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Trans Video could have included claim 4 at the

16

outset of the litigation but made the conscious tactical decision not to. In its papers and at the

17

hearing, Trans Video failed to establish that the decision not to include claim 4 was anything but a

18

strategic choice. In fact, in its papers and again at the hearing, Trans Video indicated that the only

19

reason why it did not include claim 4 was that it would have had to argue a claim construction

20

position on claim 4 that was inconsistent with its claim construction position on claim 3. One of the

21

differences between claim 3 and claim 4 is that claim 3 includes the element of a “master

22

communications unit,” while claim 4 does not. In this lawsuit, Trans Video decided to stake out the

23

position that the inventions claimed in the ‘801 patent require the uploading of video by the users,

24

and uploading requires a “master communications unit.” Because claim 4 does not have the element

25

of a master communications unit, Trans Video made the choice not to assert claim 4, see Mot. at 8-

26

10; Reply at 11, even though it could have offered an alternative legal theory – one that did not

27

require the uploading of videos – in order to make claim 4 a viable claim as well. According to

28

Trans Video, asserting claim 4 while pursuing its construction of claim 3 would have damaged its

4

1

credibility. But alternative theories of liability are not uncommon in litigation. At the very least,

2

Trans Video knowingly assumed a risk in not advancing alternative theories at the outset of the

3

lawsuit. That Judge Patel stayed the case for approximately a year does not detract from this fact.

4

The Court, however, need not rest its undue delay finding on Trans Video’s strategic choice.

5

The Court must also evaluate whether Trans Video diligently moved to amend after receiving Judge

6

Patel’s claim construction order. Trans Video argues that Judge Patel’s claim construction was the

7

impetus for its motion to amend.

8
9

The record establishes that, upon issuance of Judge Patel’s order on May 18, 2011, Trans
Video should have known that its construction of claim 3 was not accepted and that it no longer had
a tactical reason to withhold claim 4. Yet Trans Video still waited more than four months – i.e.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

until September 30, 2011 – to file its motion to amend. Trans Video’s decision to wait is even more

12

problematic given the fact that, during the claim construction briefing, Sony expressly noted that

13

claim 3 was invalid based on a written description problem. See Docket No. 112 (Br. at 13 n.7, 21).

14

In other words, Trans Video had an incentive to get claim 4 in the litigation as soon as possible

15

because Sony would likely be moving for summary judgment on claim 3 based on a lack of written

16

description. See Sandeford v. Plummer, No. C 06-06794 SBA (PR), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9489, at

17

*4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) (noting that “[p]laintiff could have moved to amend at any time prior to

18

the filing of the motion for summary judgment but he did not do so”). And even after Sony did

19

move for summary judgment on July 29, 2011, Trans Video still did nothing with respect to

20

amendment. In fact, in its opposition to the summary judgment motion, it reaffirmed that claim 3

21

was the only claim at issue in the litigation.

22

Finally, it should be noted that, after issuance of the claim construction order, Trans Video

23

actually revised its infringement contentions (on June 13, 2011). See Hanley Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1

24

(letter from counsel for Trans Video stating that infringement contentions were being revised to

25

provide additional technical detail in light of Judge Patel’s claim construction order and discovery

26

information not previously publicly available). Yet Trans Video failed to assert claim 4 in those

27

revisions or otherwise take steps to amend the complaint.

28

5

1

In its papers, Trans Video does little to explain how it acted with diligence. See, e.g., Mot. at

2

13 (claiming diligence because “(I) discovery has nine months to go; (ii) there will be no delay to

3

the case; (iii) Sony has already investigated the invalidity of claim 4,” each of which are prejudice

4

arguments). For example, Trans Video claims that it has not delayed the case; rather, Sony has by

5

seeking and getting the stay because of the reexamination. The problem with this argument is that it

6

does nothing to explain why Trans Video did not assert claim 4 either at the outset of the case or

7

why it waited four months after the claim construction order to move to amend.

8
9

As another example, Trans Video claims that it did not move to amend right after the claim
construction order issued because, soon after the order was issued, the case was reassigned to this
Court, and both it and Sony operated with the understanding that no trial schedule was in place.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

That no trial schedule was in place, however, did not obviate the need for Trans Video to prosecute

12

the case. This case has never been without an assigned judge. Nothing prevented Sony from

13

moving for summary judgment in July 2011. Likewise, nothing prevented Trans Video from

14

advancing its case.

15

Finally, in its reply brief, Trans Video makes an argument that it did not delay because it

16

notified Sony (on September 12, 2011) about the amendment prior to the date that the parties

17

contemplated final infringement contentions would be due (on September 30, 2011). The Court

18

could well deem this argument waived because Trans Video did not make this argument in its

19

opening brief. In any event, on the merits, the argument is problematic. Based on the record, it

20

appears that, on the day that Trans Video told Sony about the proposed amendment (i.e., September

21

12, 2011), the parties had contemplated that final infringement contentions would already be due

22

(i.e., September 6, 2011). The joint CMC statement the parties filed back on June 21, 2011, stated

23

that final contentions would be due on September 6, 2011. See Docket No. 122 (statement). It was

24

not until September 16, 2011, that the parties filed a joint CMC statement, stating that final

25

contentions would be pushed back to September 30, 2011. See Docket No. 132 (statement).

26
27

The Court acknowledges that it is possible that the parties started talking about a new date
for final contentions before September 12. But even if, before September 12, the parties started

28

6

1

talking about pushing the date back to September 30, this was long after the claim construction order

2

of May 18.

3

C.

4

Prejudice and/or Bad Faith
Trans Video contends that, notwithstanding any delay on its part, it should still be permitted

to amend because Sony would not be prejudiced by the amendment, particularly because Sony

6

would have adequate time to prepare a defense as trial is not scheduled until December of 2012. In

7

its papers, Sony argued that it would be prejudiced because, in the absence of an amendment, this

8

case would be over because the Court granted its motion for summary judgment. Sony also

9

contended that, if Trans Video had made claim 4 a part of this lawsuit earlier in the litigation, Sony

10

might have taken a different approach to claim construction than it did had claim 4 been involved.1

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

5

While there are problems with both of Sony’s arguments on prejudice,2 prejudice is not

12

dispositive. This is because, as stated above, prejudice is not a requirement under Patent Local Rule

13

3-6. Trans Video’s failure to demonstrate diligence alone bars relief under Rule 3-6. Moreover,

14

prejudice is not an absolute requirement under Rule 15. As indicated above, undue delay combined

15

with bad faith is enough to justify a denial of a motion to amend. Here, the Court agrees with Sony

16

that the motion to amend was taken in bad faith, more specifically, as a last-ditch attempt to avoid

17

the case being dismissed in its entirety. Cf. Schlacter-Jones v. General Tel., 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th

18

Cir. 1991) (stating that “[a] motion for leave to amend is not a vehicle to circumvent summary

19

judgment”), overruled in part on other grounds by Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 255

20

F.3d 683, 692 (9th Cir. 2001).

21
22

Trans Video made no attempt to seek an amendment in the immediate aftermath of the claim
construction order. Trans Video’s explanation for its delay, i.e., the reassignment of the case from

23
1

24

There are overlapping terms in claims 3 and 4.

2

25
26
27
28

As to its first argument, Sony has not cited any authority to demonstrate that that is the
kind of prejudice contemplated by courts for purposes of Rule 15 or Patent Local Rule 3-6.
Generally, the issue is not whether the defendant would be required to engage in additional work in
response to newly amended claims. The question is what incremental prejudice results from the
delay in asserting those claims (e.g., in ability to complete discovery because of approaching trial
date). As for the second argument, while it is not without any force, Sony has not provided any
specifics at the hearing as to what it would have done differently at claim construction had Trans
Video included claim 4 prior to claim construction.

7

1

Judge Patel to the undersigned, rings hollow because, even after claim construction and the

2

reassignment, it expressly reaffirmed to this Court on two separate occasions that claim 3 was the

3

only claim in the case – first, in a joint CMC statement and then in its opposition to the motion for

4

summary judgment. It was only after briefing was completed on the summary judgment motion and

5

the hearing on the motion was a week and a half away – i.e., when the proverbial writing was on the

6

wall – that Trans Video first expressed to Sony that it wanted to move to amend. And Trans Video

7

filed this motion only after the Court stated its grave concerns about the viability of claim 3 in light

8

of the written description issue.

9

Finally, Trans Video’s tactical decision to withhold claim 4 at the outset because its assertion
would be inconsistent with its construction argument as to claim 3 – in order to preserve Trans

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Video’s credibility – smacks of gaming the Court and opposing party. The Court finds Trans

12

Video’s tactical shifting of positions troubling and contrary to this Court’s effort to eliminate, via its

13

Patent Local Rules, “shifting sands” litigation tactics. See Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., No.

14

C 10-02066 SI, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126837, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011) (stating that, “[i]n

15

contrast to the more liberal policy for amending pleadings, the philosophy behind amending claim

16

charts is decidedly conservative, and designed to prevent the shifting sands approach to claim

17

construction”; adding that “[t]he patent local rules were designed to require parties to crystallize

18

their theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been

19

disclosed”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

8

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Court concludes that Trans Video has failed to act with the requisite diligence

3

and that its belated motion to amend was made in bad faith, only as a last-ditch attempt to avoid the

4

summary judgment. Accordingly, the motion to amend, whether made pursuant to Rule 15 or Patent

5

Local Rule 3-6, lacks merit and is accordingly denied.

6

Because the Court is denying the motion to amend, and has already granted Sony’s motion

7

for summary judgment, there are no claims remaining in the case, and, therefore, the Court orders

8

the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of Sony and close the file in this case.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

This order disposes of Docket No. 136.

12

Dated: November 16, 2011

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9