ASUS Computer International v. Round Rock Research, LLC

Filing 400

Order by Hon. Jon S. Tigar denying 397 Motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order.(jstlc1S, COURT STAFF) (This is a text only entry.) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,

Case No. 12-cv-02099-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER
Re: ECF No. 397

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Before the Court is Round Rock Research, LLC’s motion for relief from Judge Cousins’
order on the parties’ motions to strike. ECF No. 374 (order); ECF No. 397 (motion).

15

First, Round Rock seeks relief from the portions of Judge Cousins’ order striking portions

16

of Round Rock’s expert reports concerning infringement of the ’353 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

17

§ 271(g), indirect infringement of the ’949 Patent, and infringement of the ’791 Patent pursuant to

18

the doctrine of equivalents. Round Rock argues that, with respect to each theory, (1) its

19

infringement contentions adequately disclosed the theories contained in its expert reports, or, in

20

the alternative, (2) it was an error of law for Judge Cousins to base his ruling on the adequacy of

21

Round Rock’s infringement contentions because ASUS never moved to strike the infringement

22

contentions at issue. In support of the first argument, Round Rock argues that Judge Cousins’

23

factual conclusions regarding the adequacy of its infringement contentions were clearly erroneous.

24

As for the second argument, Round Rock cites no authority for the proposition that, absent a

25

motion to strike infringement contentions, an accused infringer cannot move to strike expert

26

opinions that go beyond the scope of the infringement contentions or that expand upon barebones

27
28

1

infringement allegations.1
Next, Round Rock argues that Judge Cousins clearly erred in finding that Round Rock

2
3

failed adequately to disclose the EP101, TF300TL, and “series” products as accused devices. In

4

its infringement contentions, Round Rock accused the TF101 and the TF300T, which it argues

5

was sufficient disclosure for the EP101 and the TF300TL. The TF101, Round Rock argues, is

6

another name for the EP101, and the TF300TL is a “different version” of the accused TF300T. As

7

for the “series” products, Round Rock argues that its identification of what the infringement

8

contentions call “exemplary” products was sufficient to accuse other products in the same product

9

line that were not specifically accused.2
This Court may only set aside Judge Cousins’ order if it finds the order to be “clearly

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “Thus, the district

12

judge must affirm the magistrate judge unless it is left with the ‘definite and firm conviction that a

13

mistake has been committed.’ Burdick v. Comm'r, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir.1992). The

14

reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court. Grimes v.

15

City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.1991).” Ideal Elec. Co. v. Flowserve

16

Corp., 230 F.R.D. 603, 606 (D. Nev. 2005).

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

1

To the contrary, in Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., No. C 11-5973 PSG, 2013
WL 4537838 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013), appeal dismissed (Mar. 18, 2014), cited in Judge
Cousins’ order, the court entertained and granted motions in limine much like the motions to strike
here, premised on inadequate infringement contentions. See also Rambus Inc. v. Hynix
Semiconductor Inc., No. C-05-00334 RMW, 2008 WL 5411564 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2008) (failure
adequately to disclose doctrine of equivalents theory of infringement was “ample, alternative
justification” for dismissing that claim of infringement at summary judgment).
2

Judge Cousins’ order cites to Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., C 10-03561 WHA, 2011 WL
4479305 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011) on this point, which addressed the argument Round Rock
raises here:
The Patent Local Rules required specific identification of particular
accused products.
They did not tolerate broad categorical
identifications like “mobile devices running Android,” nor did they
permit the use of mere representative examples. Representative
examples may be a useful tool for proving an infringement case at
trial, but a full list of accused products must be disclosed as part of a
party's infringement contentions.
2

1

The Court has carefully considered the record below, Judge Cousins’ order, and Round

2

Rock’s motion for relief, and finds no basis to conclude that Judge Cousins clearly erred or

3

reached legal conclusions that were contrary to law. Round Rock’s motion for relief is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3