Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Sequenom, Inc. et al
Filing
170
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS #164 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/26/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
13
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
THEIR INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
Plaintiffs,
11
12
No. C 12-00865 SI
VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,
v.
SEQUENOM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
14
/
15
A motion by defendants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC
16
(collectively “Sequenom”) for leave to amend their invalidity contentions is currently scheduled for
17
hearing on February 28, 2014. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter
18
is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth
19
below, the Court DENIES Sequenom’s motion for leave to amend its invalidity contentions.
20
21
BACKGROUND
22
This is a patent infringement action. Plaintiffs Verinata Health, Inc. and the Board of Trustees
23
of the Leland Stanford Junior University (collectively “Verinata”) accuse Sequenom’s HarmonyTM
24
Prenatal Test of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,888,017 (“the ’017 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018
25
(“the ’018 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415 (“the ’415 patent”).1 Docket No. 34, First Amended
26
Complaint.
27
28
1
The present action is related to three other patent infringement actions before the Court: Ariosa
v. Sequenom, 11-cv-6391; Natera v. Sequenom, 12-cv-132; and Verinata v. Ariosa, 12-cv-5501. Case
Nos. 11-cv-6391 and 12-cv-132 are currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
1
The present action was filed on February 22, 2012. Verinata served its infringement contentions
2
on July 13, 2012, and Sequenom served its invalidity contentions on September 28, 2012. On October
3
16, 2013, the Court issued a claim construction order in this action and the related cases, construing the
4
disputed terms of the patents-in-suit. Docket No. 135. By the present motion, Sequenom moves for
5
leave to amend its invalidity contentions in light of the Court’s claim construction order.
6
7
LEGAL STANDARD
Patent Local Rule 3-3 requires a party opposing a claim of patent infringement to serve on all
9
parties its “Invalidity Contentions” within 45 days after being served with the “Disclosure of Asserted
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
Claims and Infringement Contentions.” Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides that amendment of the invalidity
11
contentions “may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” “The local
12
patent rules in the Northern District of California . . . requir[e] both the plaintiff and the defendant in
13
patent cases to provide early notice of their infringement and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with
14
diligence in amending those contentions when new information comes to light in the course of
15
discovery. The rules thus seek to balance the right to develop new information in discovery with the
16
need for certainty as to the legal theories.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d
17
1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, 1998 U.S. Dist.
18
LEXIS 17564, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 1998) (“Unlike the liberal policy for amending pleadings, the
19
philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly conservative, and designed to prevent the
20
‘shifting sands’ approach to claim construction.”).
21
To make a satisfactory showing of good cause, a party seeking to amend its invalidity
22
contentions must show that it “acted with diligence in promptly moving to amend when new evidence
23
is revealed in discovery.” O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1363. “The party seeking to amend its contentions
24
bears the burden of establishing diligence.” CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 195, 201
25
(N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366-67). If the moving party is able to establish
26
diligence, the Court should then consider prejudice to the non-moving party in determining whether to
27
grant leave to amend. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1368; CBS Interactive, 257 F.R.D. at 201.
28
2
1
Non-exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the
non-moving party, support a finding of good cause include:
2
3
(a) A claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking
amendment;
4
(b) Recent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier diligent search; and
5
(c) Recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality which
was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement
Contentions.
6
7
N.D. Cal. Pat. L.R. 3-6.
8
9
DISCUSSION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Sequenom argues that good cause exists for amendment of its invalidity contentions because the
11
proposed amendments are driven by the Court’s adoption of claim constructions that are different from
12
the constructions proposed by Sequenom. Docket No. 164 at 5-6. The Patent Local Rules expressly
13
recognize that amendment of invalidity contentions may be appropriate where the Court adopts a claim
14
construction different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment. See N.D. Cal. Pat. L.R. 3-
15
6(a). However, the Court’s differing claim construction “in and of itself does not constitute good
16
cause,” Sunpower Corp. Sys. v. Sunlink Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85425, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12,
17
2009), and the moving party must still establish its diligence. Here, the Court concludes that Sequenom
18
has failed to establish that it was diligent in seeking amendment.
19
For most of the constructions that differed from Sequenom’s proposed constructions, the Court
20
simply adopted the constructions proposed by Verinata. See Docket No. 135 at 13-31. Sequenom was
21
given notice of these proposed constructions by at least October 26, 2012 when the parties exchanged
22
their preliminary claim constructions. See also Docket No. 58. Therefore, Sequenom was aware of the
23
risk that the Court could adopt these constructions by October 2012, yet it waited until more than a year
24
later to seek amendment of its invalidity contentions. See Cisco Sys. v. Teleconference Sys., LLC, 2012
25
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189372, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2012) (stating that where the Court adopts the
26
opposing party’s proposed construction, the date that the moving party received that proposed
27
construction “mark[s] the beginning of the relevant time period for evaluating [it]’s diligence”).
28
3
1
In its reply, Sequenom notes that a few of the Court’s claim constructions differ from those
2
proposed by both parties. Docket No. 168 at 2. However, Sequenom does not state that it is these
3
particular constructions that necessitate amending its invalidity contentions. To the contrary, in its
4
motion, the claims terms Sequenom identifies as the basis for its amendments are the terms “massively
5
parallel sequencing,” “reaction samples,” and “identifying [the] chromosomes” for the ’017 and ’018
6
patents, and “a first value and a second value” and “determine a differential” for the ’415 patent. Docket
7
No. 164 at 3, 5. For each of these claim terms, the Court adopted Verinata’s proposed construction.
8
Docket No. 135 at 16-18, 29-30. Therefore, Sequenom had since October 2012 to modify its invalidity
9
contentions to account for these constructions.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Sequenom argues that it was proper for it to wait until the Court issued its claim construction
11
order before seeking amendment because Sequenom reasonably believed that the Court would reject
12
Verinata’s proposed constructions. Docket No. 168 at 3. However, this argument is undercut by
13
Sequenom’s own original invalidity contentions. In the contentions, Sequenom stated: “These
14
Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are based on how Sequenom understands Plaintiffs may be
15
construing the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in light of Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Infringement
16
Contentions.”2 Docket No. 167-2, Walter Decl. Ex. 2 at 1. Therefore, in its original contentions,
17
Sequenom found it proper to account for Verinata’s proposed constructions. Accordingly, Sequenom
18
has failed to explain why it was necessary for it to wait until over a year after it became aware of the
19
proposed constructions to seek the requested amendments.
20
In addition, even assuming it was proper for Sequenom to wait until the Court’s claim
21
construction order was issued before seeking amendment, Sequenom was not diligent in seeking
22
amendment once that basis for amendment was discovered. See Positive Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs.,
23
Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11271, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013) (“[T]he diligence required for a
24
showing of good cause has two phases: (1) diligence in discovering the basis for amendment; and (2)
25
diligence in seeking amendment once the basis for amendment has been discovered.”). The Court’s
26
claim construction order was issued on October 16, 2013. Docket No. 135. Sequenom did not provide
27
2
28
The Court recognizes that at the time Sequenom made this statement, Sequenom only
possessed Verinata’s infringement contentions and not Verinata’s proposed claim constructions.
However, Sequenom received Verinata’s proposed claim constructions only a month later.
4
Verinata with its proposed amendments until December 31, 2013, Docket No. 167-3, Walter Decl. Ex.
2
3, and did not file the present motion until January 10, 2014—almost three months after the Court’s
3
claim construction order. Several courts have found that a delay of three months before seeking
4
amendment is too long to establish diligence. See, e.g., O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1367 (affirming the
5
district court’s finding of a lack of diligence by the moving party where the party “waited almost three
6
months . . . to serve its proposed amended contentions and two more weeks to formally move to
7
amend”); Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Props., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142472, at *14-16 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10,
8
2010) (concluding that the moving party was not diligent where it took three months from the time it
9
began review of its contentions to when it sought amendment); see also, e.g., Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87251, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011). In its motion, Sequenom provides
11
no explanation for this three month delay. Sequenom simply states that it “searched for, located, and
12
analyzed new prior art references and reevaulated its original prior art references in view of the Court’s
13
constructions from late October to December 2013.” Docket No. 164 at 7. Sequenom does not explain
14
why this process took almost three months, particularly in light of the fact that Sequenom knew of the
15
constructions at issue for over a year and in light of the fact that under the Local Rules a party generally
16
has only 45 days from receipt of the patentee’s infringement contentions to prepare and serve its
17
invalidity contentions. See N.D. Cal. Pat. L.R. 3-3. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Sequenom
18
has failed to establish that it was diligent in seeking amendment of its invalidity contentions.
19
Because the Court concludes that Sequenom did not act diligently in moving to amend its
20
invalidity contentions, the Court need not address whether Verinata would be prejudiced by the
21
amendments. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1368 (“Having concluded that the district court could properly
22
conclude that O2 Micro did not act diligently in moving to amend its infringement contentions, we see
23
no need to consider the question of prejudice to MPS.”); Acer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142472, at *17
24
(“Because TPL has not demonstrated diligence, ‘the inquiry should end.’”). Accordingly, the Court
25
denies Sequenom’s motion for leave to amend its invalidity contentions.
26
27
28
5
1
2
3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the Court DENIES Sequenom’s motion for leave to amend its
invalidity contentions. Docket No. 164.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: February 26, 2014
7
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
8
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
6
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?