Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Filing 504

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS by Hon. William Alsup granting 487 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 09-05659 WHA

v.
uPI SEMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATION, AMANDA DAI, and
JACKY LEE,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE
TO AMEND INVALIDITY
CONTENTIONS

Defendants.
/

17
18
19

INTRODUCTION
In this patent infringement action, one defendant seeks leave to amend their

20

infringement contentions to include prior art that it discovered soon after the stay was lifted.

21

For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

22
23

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Richtek Technology Corporation commenced this action contemporaneously

24

with an action before the International Trade Commission. The case was quickly stayed

25

pending the ITC investigation (Dkt. No. 22). The ITC investigation concluded with the entry of

26

several consent orders in September 2010, and the stay was lifted accordingly (Dkt. No. 89).

27
28

Defendant uPI Semiconductor Corporation moved to substitute counsel quickly after the
stay was lifted, which motion was granted (Dkt. No. 97). Plaintiff served infringement
contentions in November 2010, and defendants served their invalidity contentions in December

1

2010. Less than two month later, the case was stayed again pending reexamination of the

2

patents-in-suit, and then pending a second ITC investigation (Dkt. No. 267). The stay was

3

lifted in January 2016 (Dkt. No. 443).

4

uPI now moves to amend its invalidity contentions. Specifically, uPI seeks to add two

5

references that address the ’190 patent and to clarify (but not change) its contentions regarding

6

that patent. uPI also seeks to add four references each supporting four new grounds of

7

invalidity of the ’470 patent.

8
9

ANALYSIS
Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides:
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. Non-exhaustive examples of
circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non-moving
party, support a finding of good cause include:

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

(a) A claim construction by the Court different from that proposed
by the party seeking amendment;

14
(b) Recent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier diligent
search; and

15
16
17

(c) Recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused
Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts,
before the service of the Infringement Contentions.

18

Good cause generally exists when the party seeking leave has been diligent and the

19

opposing party would not suffer undue prejudice if leave is granted. Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Props.

20

Ltd., No. 08–00877, 2011 WL 1838768, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011) (Judge Jeremy Fogel).
DILIGENCE.

21

1.

22

The second amended case management order in this action, which issued after the stay

23

was lifted, provided, “Plaintiff must timely refile its infringement contentions to conform to our

24

Local Rule 3-1, which filing shall trigger the due date for the invalidity contentions” (Dkt. No.

25

448 at 6). uPI understood that language to imply that its invalidity contentions, including any

26

updates following the stay, were due 45 days after Richtek’s infringement contentions came

27

due, resulting in a deadline for the invalidity contentions of April 25 (Dkt. No. 448 at 6). uPI

28

filed the instant motion on April 25.
2

1

Richtek contends that uPI should have discovered the references and sought leave to

2

amend during the limited periods in 2011 or 2013 while the case was not stayed. Indeed, uPI

3

was aware of two of the references in 2010. uPI, however, could not have appreciated the

4

importance of these new references (or the search terms that uncovered the further new

5

references), until Richtek disclosed its interpretations of various claim limitations during the

6

reexamination proceedings while this case was stayed. Patent Local Rule 3-6 expressly

7

acknowledges that an unexpected claim construction ruling may, absent undue prejudice,

8

support a finding of good cause. Here, uPI seeks to amend their invalidity contentions in

9

advance of an unexpected claim construction ruling, in light of unexpected claim constructed

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

arguments. (The undersigned does claim construction at the summary judgment phase.)
Richtek also argues that nothing prevented uPI from conducting prior art searches while

12

the case was stayed, so this motion could have been brought immediately once the stay was

13

lifted. True, but Richtek ignores the fact that the stays were in place specifically to avoid

14

expenses that might ultimately prove moot. This order will not hold uPI’s decision not to

15

undertake such wasteful endeavors against them. True, uPI could possibly have sought leave

16

much sooner after the stay was lifted, but it reasonably relied on the deadline to refile invalidity

17

contentions set forth in the scheduling order as the deadline to pursue these amendments.

18

Thus, this order holds uPI has acted diligently enough in seeking this amendment.

19

2.

20

uPI argues that Richtek will not be prejudiced because the parties have not yet taken

PREJUDICE.

21

claim construction positions, so Richtek will have ample time to address the new prior art

22

references. Richtek responds that it will be prejudiced because the undersigned does not hold a

23

separate Markman hearing, but instead construes claims in the context of summary judgment.

24

Richtek’s argument is unclear. The later claim construction procedure gives it more time to

25

address the new prior art references.

26
27
28

*

*

*

uPI’s motion is distinct from Richtek’s recent motion to amend its infringement
contentions to include new products. Here, uPI seeks to shore up its defense to meet new
3

1

arguments that arose during reexamination proceedings, albeit based on prior art that occurred

2

prior to the pleading sought to be amend. By contrast, Richtek sought to expand the scope of

3

the case to include new products released after the complaint was filed, yet Richtek failed to

4

recognize that such expansion would require a supplemental pleading. Moreover, denial of

5

Richtek’s motion to amend its infringement contentions had minimal effect on Richtek, which

6

remains free to pursue claims regarding those products in a subsequent suit. uPI, however, has

7

only one opportunity to raise their strongest invalidity defense, so it is appropriate, in light of

8

uPI’s diligence and the lack of prejudice to Richtek, to permit these proposed amendments.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, uPI’s motion for leave to amend their invalidity
contentions is GRANTED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: June 6, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4