Altera Corporation v. PACT XPP Technologies, AG

Filing 176

Order by Hon. James Donato granting in part and denying in part 133 Altera's Motion For Leave To Amend Its Invalidity Contentions. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALTERA CORPORATION,

Case No. 14-cv-02868-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

PACT XPP TECHNOLOGIES, AG,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 133

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
In this patent infringement declaratory judgment action, Altera, the declaratory judgment

12
13

plaintiff and accused infringer, moves to amend its invalidity contentions. The Court grants the

14

motion in part and denies it in part.

15

I.

16

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case was filed by Altera in this district on June 20, 2014. See Dkt. No. 1. On

17

November 19, 2014, PACT, as the patentee and party asserting infringement, served its initial

18

infringement contentions, as required by Patent Local Rule 3-1. See Declaration of Karl Kramer ¶

19

4, Dkt. No. 134. After reviewing Altera’s source code, PACT served amended infringement

20

contentions on December 22, 2014. See id. ¶ 5. The next day, it served supplemental

21

interrogatory responses, in which it asserted earlier priority dates for the asserted patent claims

22

than it had previously. See Supplemental Response to Altera Interrogatory No. 2, Dkt. No. 139-3.

23

It proceeded to file a motion to amend its infringement contentions on January 8, 2015, see Dkt.

24

No. 56, which the Court granted on February 19, 2015, see Dkt. No. 100.

25

Altera served its initial invalidity contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-3 on January

26

5, 2015. Kramer Decl. ¶ 7. It then served a subpoena on third party Rambus on January 7, 2015;

27

according to Altera, Rambus produced its documents in two waves, the first on January 30, 2015,

28

and the second on February 26, 2015. See id. ¶ 10.

Altera served amended invalidity contentions on March 24, 2015, in which it modified 33

1
2

of the 55 claim charts included in its original set of contentions. See id. ¶ 11. After failing to

3

obtain PACT’s agreement to all of its changes, it filed this motion for leave to amend its invalidity

4

contentions on April 15, 2015. See Dkt. No. 33.

5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
This district’s Local Patent Rules allow amending infringement contentions “only by order

6

of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” See Patent L.R. 3-6. A precondition to

8

demonstrating good cause is “a showing that the party seeking leave to amend acted with diligence

9

in promptly moving to amend when new evidence is revealed in discovery.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.

10

v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1363 & 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). If diligence is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

shown, then the moving party must also demonstrate that the other party will not be prejudiced by

12

the amendment. See Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 13-cv-

13

02420-LHK, 2015 WL 1227817, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015).

14

III.

15

DISCUSSION
Altera’s proposed amendments fall into four categories: correction of “obvious errors”;

16

amendments allegedly responsive to PACT’s amended infringement contentions; amendments in

17

response to the earlier priority dates PACT disclosed on December 23, 2014; and adding language

18

that was inadvertently omitted in the charts dealing with claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,119,181.

19

PACT does not oppose the amendments in the first category, so those changes are permitted.
Responses to PACT’s Amended Infringement Contentions

20

A.

21

The changes that Altera claims are justified by the amended infringement contentions

22

PACT served on December 22, 2014, are limited to the addition of language dealing with the

23

Altera Application Briefs 113 and 114 references, the Altera Flex 10K Datasheet reference, and

24

the Altera 1995 Databook reference to the portion of Exhibit F.2 of its invalidity contentions

25

dealing with claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,565,525. See Amended Invalidity Contentions at 1687,

26

1772-74, Dkt. No. 138-3. (Altera also seeks to make changes to Exhibits F.4 and F.5, but PACT

27

does not oppose these so the Court allows them.) Altera claims that the functionality described in

28

the new citations is similar to aspects of Altera’s devices that were cited for the first time in
2

1
2

PACT’s amended infringement contentions.
A comparison of PACT’s amended contentions with Altera’s suggests that the proposed

3

amendments to Exhibit F.2 can fairly be characterized as responsive to PACT’s changes. As the

4

Court told the parties at the February 18, 2015, hearing in this case, such responsive amendments

5

would be permitted. See Feb. 18, 2015, Hearing Tr. 15:14-20, Dkt. No. 131.

6

The Court is concerned about why Altera took three months after PACT’s amended

7

infringement contentions to serve amended invalidity contentions. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at

8

1367 (affirming district court’s holding that three months delay showed lack of diligence);

9

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. C 12-00865 SI, 2014 WL 789197, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 26, 2014) (holding that a delay of “almost three months” was improper); Apple, Inc. v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 1067548, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27,

12

2012) (finding “over two and a half months” too long). But see Nuance Comm’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy

13

Software House, C 08-02912 JSW (MEJ), 2012 WL 2427160, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2012)

14

(finding a “few months” diligent); Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No.

15

C09-05897 RS (HRL), 2011 WL 940263, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) (finding four months

16

diligent). Altera says it held off so that it could combine these changes with other additions based

17

on the completion of Rambus’s production, which are addressed below, and because it did not

18

know until February 19, 2015, that the Court would allow PACT’s proposed amended contentions.

19

It is generally good practice to move to amend contentions on a rolling basis (or at least to

20

serve each set of changes as it’s completed) to minimize prejudice to the other party and to avoid

21

conflating the diligence inquiry for multiple sets of amendments. But in this specific case, given

22

the Court’s prior indication that it would allow responsive changes, the fact that some courts in

23

this district have permitted delays of similar length, and Altera’s desire to move with respect to all

24

its amendments at one go, the Court excuses a delay that might otherwise be fatal to Altera’s claim

25

of diligence. The Court also finds that the amendment is not prejudicial because they preceded the

26

deadline for PACT's opening claim construction brief by several weeks, giving PACT enough

27

time to incorporate any necessary changes into its claim construction positions. The amendments

28

in this category are permitted.
3

B.

1

Responses to PACT’s New Priority Dates

The newly-added citations in Altera’s second category are asserted to be in response to the

2
new priority dates PACT asserted in its December 23, 2014, supplemental interrogatory
3

responses.1 The new references, like the parts of Gaul, are three in number: German Patent

4
Application DE 44 16 881 A1, by Martin Vorbach, one of the named inventors on the patents-in5
suit; Ralph D. Wittig, OneChip: An FGPA Processor with Reconfigureable Logic (1995); and the
6
Rambus ASIC Cell User Guide and Specification (1993).
7
The problem is that each of these would have been relevant prior art even under PACT’s
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

initial claimed priority date, and could, and probably should, have been included in Altera’s initial
infringement contentions. Altera’s rejoinder is that “[t]he Wittig and Rambus references were
added to strengthen existing references that predate PACT’s new priority dates” and “[t]he
Vorbach reference was added to replace an existing reference that may not predate PACT’s new
priority dates.” See Altera’s Reply at 6:24-25, Dkt. No. 157. What Altera means by that is

13
completely unclear. Altera had nothing to lose by charting the references in the first place.
14
Presumably, a party asserting invalidity would want each of their theories to be as strong as
15
possible, even if it thought it had other, more squarely on-point theories that depended on later art.
16
It would be one thing if Altera, on finding out PACT's earlier alleged date of conception, renewed
17
its search for prior art that predated the new date and as a result turned up the three references.
18
But that is not what Altera says happened here: Altera does not claim that it found the three
19
20

references it seeks to add for the first time after PACT’s amended infringement contentions were
served. In fact, Altera doesn’t say when it came upon the Wittig reference at all, which is a

21
necessary precondition to determining whether it was diligent in amending its contentions to
22
include it. And it is clear that Altera knew about the Vorbach application even before PACT
23
disclosed its new priority date, since it was cited in its initial invalidity contentions. See Proposed
24
Amended Invalidity Contentions at 7, Dkt. No. 135-1. Leave to add the proposed citations to the
25
26
1

27
28

PACT claims that the relevant priority dates were made known to Altera before December 23
through its earlier document productions. That does not hold water: Altera is entitled to be told
what priority dates PACT claims for its own asserted patents, and not be forced to divine it from a
document production.
4

1
2

Vorbach and Wittig references that fall into this category is denied.
The situation with respect to the Rambus reference is unclear. Altera does not specifically

3

say when it obtained the reference, but the fact that it was one of the documents Altera requested

4

in its January 7, 2015, subpoena to Rambus suggests that it did not have a copy when it served its

5

initial invalidity contentions. See Altera Subpoena to Rambus at PDF p. 8, Dkt. No. 159-1. If so,

6

Altera will be permitted to add citations to this reference for the reasons given with respect to the

7

third category, addressed below. If not, leave is denied for the same reasons given for the Vorbach

8

and Wittig references.

9
10

C.

Documents Obtained from Rambus

The third category of edits Altera seeks to make consists of citations to documents

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

obtained from Rambus via subpoena. The subpoena was served on January 7, 2015, and

12

Rambus’s production was completed on February 26, 2015. See Kramer Decl. ¶ 10.

13

PACT’s main argument against these proposed changes is that Altera could have issued its

14

subpoena earlier. Maybe so, but it could also legitimately have felt that the subpoena was

15

necessary only when PACT disclosed its new priority dates on December 23, 2014. It is

16

understandable that the earlier priority dates would affect Altera’s calculus in deciding whether to

17

issue a subpoena, since in making that decision, Altera was bound to balance the potential value of

18

Rambus’s production against the downside of putting a third party to the trouble of dredging up

19

documents relevant to technologies that might end up being irrelevant.

20

The Court finds that the gap of slightly less than one month between the completion of

21

Rambus’s production and the service of the amended invalidity contentions is not a sign of

22

indolence, and finds no prejudice. Leave to add citations to the Rambus-produced documents is

23

granted.
Correcting Errors in Charts for Claim 17 of the ’181 Patent

24

D.

25

The final category of proposed changes seeks to add certain citations and language that the

26

parties apparently agree was inadvertently omitted from Altera’s initial charts. What appears to

27

have happened is that Altera’s initial charts misquoted the first element of the claim and then

28

based the charted invalidity theory on the incorrectly-quoted element. See, e.g., Proposed
5

1

Amended Invalidity Contentions at 499-500, Dkt. No. 136-1. Altera claims in briefing that it

2

discovered the error on March 7, 2015. See Dkt. No. 157 at 8:24-26. Cases in this district are split

3

on whether correcting an inadvertent error is consistent with diligence. Compare West v. Jewelry

4

Innovs., Inc., No. C 07-1812 JF (HRL), 2008 WL 4532558, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008) and

5

Berger v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., No. C 05-02523 CRB, 2006 WL 1095914 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

6

25, 2006) with Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 12-00630 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL

7

5632618, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). Since PACT does not suggest any bad faith on Altera’s

8

part, and sinking an invalidity theory due to an honest if careless mistake is a harsh result, the

9

Court allows the correction.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2015

12
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6