Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Filing
75
ORDER RE: LEAVE TO AMEND PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 DISCLOSURES 74 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/20/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C 10-04234 SI
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE LEAVE TO AMEND PATENT
LOCAL RULE 3-3 DISCLOSURES
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
13
14
Currently before the Court is defendant Juniper Network’s motion for leave to file amended
15
invalidity contentions. Docket No. 74. Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides that amendment of invalidity
16
contentions “may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause” and
17
“examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non-moving party, support a finding
18
of good cause include” a claim construction by the Court “different from that proposed by the party
19
seeking amendment.” Juniper contends that it should be allowed to amend its invalidity contentions
20
to assert “additional arguments, evidence and prior art” in light of three claims that the Court construed
21
differently from the proposed constructions offered by Juniper. Docket No. 74 at 1-2. Juniper admits
22
that its proposed amendments are not finished, but will be produced within 30 days if the Court grants
23
it leave to amend. Id., at 2.
24
Implicit does not oppose the idea of allowing Juniper leave to amend its invalidity contentions
25
as long as those amendments are, in fact, necessitated by the Court’s claim construction order. Implicit
26
does, however, object to the Court granting Juniper leave to file its amendments before the proposed
27
amendments can be reviewed by Implicit and the Court to make sure good cause exists.
28
The Court finds that the good cause determination cannot be made at this juncture. Juniper must
1
submit its proposed amendments – and tie those proposed amendments to a specific showing of good
2
cause for each proposed amendment, i.e., explain how the Court’s claim construction order necessitated
3
each proposed amendment. At that juncture, the Court will be able to make an informed decision on
4
whether good cause exists under Patent Local Rule 3-6 to allow each proposed amendment.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: April 20, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?