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)

Download PDF
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?