Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 134

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND MAINTAINING MARCH 20 HEARING REGARDING FRE 706 EXPERT by Judge Alsup granting 116 Motion for Leave to File. Response date noon on March 19. Hearing March 20. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 12-05579 WHA

QIANG WANG,
Plaintiff,
v.
PALO ALTO NETWORKS, NIR ZUK,
and FENGMIN GONG,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
AND MAINTAINING MARCH 20
HEARING REGARDING FRE 706
EXPERT

14
15

In this misappropriation of trade secrets and patent-infringement action, plaintiff’s

16

unopposed motion for leave to amend his infringement contentions is GRANTED. The hearing

17

set for MARCH 20 AT 8:00 A.M., however, remains on calendar to discuss proposed FRE 706

18

experts. By NOON ON MARCH 19, the parties may file a joint statement regarding their FRE 706

19

meet and confer.
STATEMENT

20
21

Prior orders set forth the procedural history of this action (Dkt. Nos. 41, 85). In brief,

22

this action was filed in October 2012. An August 2013 order, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s

23

motion to add a patent infringement claim (Dkt. Nos. 85, 86). The case schedule was thus

24

extended approximately two months (i.e., the deadlines for fact discovery and opening expert

25

reports were continued from January 2014 to March 25, 2014 and trial was continued from April

26

2014 to July 2014) (Dkt. Nos. 43, 88).

27

In November 2013, the parties filed a joint claim construction statement wherein they

28

identified proposed constructions for nine disputed phrases. In January 2014, when plaintiff
filed his reply claim construction brief, he amended his constructions for five phrases. Leave to

1

file a sur-reply was thus granted (Dkt. Nos. 95, 102, 103). Oral argument on three disputed

2

phrases occurred on February 26.

3

In February 2014, plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend his infringement

4

contentions. A March 2013 order invited the parties to discuss appointing a FRE 706 expert for

5

the upcoming jury trial (Dkt. No. 129).

6

In March 2014, defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of their opposition to plaintiff’s

7

motion to amend the infringement contentions as proposed by plaintiff. The same day,

8

defendants moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s trade-secret-misappropriation claim

9

based on the statute of limitations (Dkt. No. 131).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANALYSIS
Patent Local Rule 3-6 states that infringement contentions may be amended only by order

12

of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause. Plaintiff Qiang Wang argues that there is

13

good cause to amend his infringement contentions because the proposed amendment does not

14

add “any new claims theories or products; he is simply identifying the algorithm which PAN

15

actually implemented” (Br. 5). Plaintiff details that he served his infringement contentions in

16

September 2013, inspected defendant Palo Alto Networks’ (“PAN”) source code in November

17

2013, obtained source-code printouts in December 2013, received defendant Nir Zuk’s

18

supplemental interrogatory responses in January 2014, took the depositions of Stone Li (PAN

19

source code author) and Mr. Zuk in January 2014, and filed the instant motion in February 2014.

20

Even though PAN’s source code was allegedly available to plaintiff since July 31, 2013 and Mr.

21

Wang did not have to wait until January 2014 to depose Mr. Zuk and Mr. Li, this motion is now

22

unopposed. Therefore, plaintiff may amend his contentions as proposed. All existing deadlines

23

remain in place.

24
25

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, leave to amend plaintiff’s infringement contentions as proposed in

26

Exhibits A and B of the declaration of Gary S. Fergus is GRANTED. The hearing on March 20

27

for this motion is hereby VACATED. Nevertheless, both sides shall appear, as previously

28

scheduled on March 20, to discuss proposed FRE 706 expert(s).
2

1
2

By NOON ON FEBRUARY 19, the parties may file a joint statement regarding their FRE
706 meet and confer. All existing deadlines remain in place.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: March 14, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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