Life Technologies Corporation et al v. Biosearch Technologies, Inc.

Filing 396

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND VACATING HEARING by Hon. William Alsup [granting 344 Motion to Amend/Correct; Plaintiffs is required to E-FILE the amended document].(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

No. C 12-00852 WHA
Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
and APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS LLC,

12

v.

14
15

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
AND VACATING HEARING

BIOSEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
BIO-SYNTHESIS, INC., EUROFINS
MWG OPERON INC.,
Defendants.

13

/

16
17
18
19
20
21

INTRODUCTION
In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs move for leave to amend their infringement
contentions. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
Plaintiffs Life Technologies Corporation and Applied Biosystems, LLC brought this

22

action against defendants Biosearch Technologies, Inc. and Eurofins MWG Operon, Inc.,

23

alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,538,848; 5,723,591, 5,876,930, 6,030,787, and

24

6,258,569. All five patents are related to a single application with the same lead inventor,

25

Dr. Kenneth Livak. All five patents claim priority to the originally filed application (filed

26

November 1994), which issued as the ’848 patent. The ’591 patent and the ’930 patent issued

27

from continuations-in-part of the ’848 patent. The ’787 patent and the ’569 patent are successive

28

continuations of the ’930 patent. These four later-issued patents, the ’591, ’930, ’787, and

1

’569 patents, all have essentially identical specifications. All asserted patents involve

2

monitoring the progress of DNA amplification during a polymerase chain reaction process.

3

The claimed inventions cover monitoring probes with reporter and quencher molecules.

4

Plaintiffs filed this action back in September 2009 in the Eastern District of Texas.

rules, the Eastern District of Texas’s Patent Local Rules do not require identification of

7

third-party direct infringers for the purpose of alleging indirect infringement. Thus, plaintiffs’

8

initial contentions did not include such identifications. In December 2011, defendants served

9

their non-infringement contentions which stated that plaintiffs had failed to identify third-party

10

direct infringers. In response, plaintiffs sought discovery of proprietary non-public information

11
For the Northern District of California

Infringement contentions were initially served in May 2010. Contrary to this district’s local

6

United States District Court

5

regarding defendants’ customers. In their Rule 33 responses, defendants identified several

12

documents which contained the requested information. Some of these documents had been

13

in plaintiffs’ possession for almost ten months. For an unknown reason, plaintiffs did not try

14

to access these files until after they received defendants’ Rule 33 responses, and when they did,

15

the files turned out to be corrupted. It took approximately two months to obtain the files in a

16

readable format. The files contain defendants’ customer lists — i.e., the alleged third-party

17

direct infringers. In the interim, the action was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to

18

this district.

19

Plaintiffs now seek leave to amend their infringement contentions to (1) add the newly

20

discovered identities of alleged direct infringers in order to comply with this district’s Local

21

Patent Rules and (2) reduce the number of asserted claims.

22

ANALYSIS

23

Amendment of infringement contentions “may be made only by order of the Court upon

24

a timely showing of good cause.” PAT. L.R. 3-6. “[R]ecent discovery of nonpublic information

25

about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the

26

service of the Infringement Contentions,” may show good cause. Ibid. In addition, “[g]ood

27

cause requires a showing of diligence,” and “[t]he burden is on the movant to establish diligence

28

rather than on the opposing party to establish a lack of diligence.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v.
2

1

Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In determining whether a

2

party has been diligent, “[t]he critical issue is not when [the party] discovered this information,

3

but rather, whether they could have discovered it earlier had it acted with the requisite

4

diligence.” Google, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 08-4144 SBA, 2010 WL 1838693, at *2 (N.D.

5

Cal. May 5, 2010) (Armstrong, J.). Even where good cause is shown to exist, a showing of

6

undue prejudice may support denial of leave. PAT. L.R. 3-6.

7

1.

8

Defendants contend that plaintiffs have not been diligent in seeking leave to amend

9

PLAINTIFFS HAVE SHOWN DILIGENCE IN SEEKING AMENDMENT.

because, regardless of whether the files were corrupted, plaintiffs have been in possession of
the “newly discovered information” for close to one year and chose not to attempt to review the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

information until referenced by defendants in their Rule 33 responses (Opp. 3–5). In addition,

12

defendants argue that plaintiffs, who are well aware of the need to identify third-party direct

13

infringers in order to prevail on an indirect infringement claim, have not been diligent in

14

prosecuting their claims because plaintiffs have not, in the nearly two years since discovery

15

began, attempted to discover customer information through depositions or targeted

16

interrogatories regarding sale of the accused products (id. at 3). Finally, defendants argue that

17

plaintiffs should have reviewed the corrupted files earlier, rather than waiting for defendants’

18

Rule 33 responses (ibid.).

19

While it is true that this order agrees with defendants’ contentions, there are

20

considerations that warrant review beyond plaintiffs’ lack of diligence in discovering the

21

information. First, and most importantly, plaintiffs have been transferred to a new venue

22

and forum which requires more from plaintiffs’ infringement contentions than the Eastern

23

District of Texas. In attempt to comply with this district’s local rules, plaintiffs reviewed

24

material obtained through discovery. Prior to transfer, plaintiffs had no reason to seek

25

amendment. Plaintiffs sought leave to amend within one month of being transferred to this

26

district. Second, discovery is still ongoing — though its end is fast approaching — but this

27

is not a case where plaintiffs are attempting to change the nature of the suit by amending a

28

complaint to add new claims for relief at the eleventh hour. Defendants have been well aware of
3

1

plaintiffs’ indirect infringement claims. While it would have been better for plaintiffs to review

2

discovery material sooner, the basis of their motion to amend is not as much the discovery of the

3

new information, but instead to comply with newly applicable local rules. Thus, this order holds

4

that there is good cause to grant leave to amend and plaintiffs have been diligent in seeking

5

amendment.

6

2.

DEFENDANTS WILL NOT SUFFER UNDUE PREJUDICE.

7

Defendants argue that they will suffer undue prejudice because they will now, in

8

the final hours of discovery, have to engage in substantial third-party discovery (Opp. 6).

9

Defendants, however, still have over two full months before fact discovery is set to close.
In addition, and as already mentioned, this is not a case where plaintiffs are seeking to change

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the nature of the case just before trial is set to begin. No new claims for relief are being asserted.

12

Defendants argue that plaintiffs are attempting to develop a new theory of relief (ibid.). Not so.

13

Plaintiffs’ claim for indirect infringement is still a part of this action. Plaintiffs are merely

14

trying to identify third-party direct infringers in order to comply with our local rules.

15

Furthermore, the proposed amended contentions reduce the number of asserted claims, thus

16

narrowing the issues for trial (Br. 5). Finally, much of the discovery relating to indirect

17

infringement by the newly identified third parties — namely the information relating to

18

defendants’ alleged contributory or induced infringement — is likely to be in defendants’

19

possession. While some discovery will certainly be required, it is far from clear that such

20

discovery will severely prejudice defendants as they so contend. This order holds that

21

defendants will not be unduly prejudiced if plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their infringement

24

contentions is GRANTED. The hearing scheduled for May 24, 2012, is VACATED.

25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27

Dated: May 18, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
4