Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc.

Filing 147

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 117 Motion to Amend.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SEGAN LLC,

7

Case No. 14-cv-01315-VC
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND

9
ZYNGA INC,

10

Docket No. 117
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Segan's motion to amend its infringement contentions is granted. Segan filed its most

12
13

recent set of infringement contentions on November 17, 2014. On December 11, 2014, Segan filed

14

a motion to amend its infringement contentions.1 Segan acted with diligence in moving to amend,

15

as it filed its motion within three weeks of the date of the hearing on Zynga's motion for a bond,

16

which focused in large part on the parties' proposed claim constructions, and which took place

17

before final claim construction statements were due. And there is no prejudice, because although

18

Zynga contends that Segan's new infringement contentions represent a significant departure from

19

Segan's previously-asserted infringement theory, Zynga has also acknowledged that its summary

20

judgment/claim construction brief – which Zynga filed on January 23, 2015 – addresses both

21

infringement theories. Zynga does not contend that additional discovery is needed for proper

22

adjudication of Segan's new infringement theory, nor does it contend that the case schedule needs

23

to be altered in any way.
At the hearing on Segan's motion to amend its infringement contentions, Zynga requested

24
25

permission to file a motion to strike those infringement contentions with Judge Spero, on the

26
27
28

1

In its motion to amend Segan failed to follow Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), as it only included one
"exemplar" claim chart. Segan has now corrected this deficiency; on January 9, 2015, it filed claim
charts for each of Zynga's accused products.

1

ground that Segan's latest set of contentions fail to comply with the procedural requirements Judge

2

Spero imposed on the filing of any new set of contentions. If Zynga wishes to persist in the

3

argument that certain of Segan's contentions should not be considered, it may bring that motion

4

before this Court rather than before Judge Spero, and should notice a hearing for the same date as

5

the summary judgment/Markman hearing.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

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
2