Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC et al v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
130
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS by Hon. William Alsup denying 118 Motion to Amend/Correct ;.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
REMBRANDT PATENT INNOVATIONS
LLC, and REMBRANDT SECURE
COMPUTING, LP,
12
13
14
15
No. C 14-05094 WHA (lead)
No. C 14-05093 WHA (consolidated)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
/
16
17
INTRODUCTION
18
In this patent-infringement action involving initialization of computer systems, the
19
patent owner moves to amend its fifth amended disclosure of asserted claims and infringement
20
contentions. For the reasons stated below, the patent owner’s motion is DENIED.
21
22
STATEMENT
Plaintiffs Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC, and Rembrandt Secure Computing, LP
23
(collectively, “Rembrandt”) are non-practicing entities. Rembrandt Patent Innovations owns
24
United States Patent No. 6,185,678. Rembrandt Secure Computing is an exclusive licensee of
25
the ’678 patent and possesses the right to sue and recover for infringement thereof. Rembrandt
26
commenced this action in 2014 in the Eastern District of Texas, claiming that defendant Apple
27
Inc.’s “servers and other Apple electronic devices that support iTunes functionality, and any
28
Apple electronic devices configured or adapted to operate with Apple’s iPhone OS or iOS”
infringed the ’678 patent (Compl. at ¶ 13).
1
Pursuant to the Patent Local Rules in the Eastern District of Texas, Rembrandt served its
2
initial disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions in June 2014. Rembrandt
3
accused twenty products across three different categories of infringing the ’678 patent in their
4
initial infringement contentions (Schlesinger Decl., Exh. 1 at 3):
5
CATEGORY
ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN INITIAL
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
iPhone
iPhone, iPhone 3, iPhone 3G,
iPhone 3Gs, iPhone 4, iPhone 4s,
iPhone 5, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s
iPod
iPod Touch 1st Generation, iPod
Touch 2nd Generation, iPod Touch
4th Generation, iPod Touch 5th
Generation
iPad
iPad, iPad 2, iPad 3rd Generation,
iPad 4th Generation, iPad Air, iPad
Mini, iPad Mini 2
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
In October 2014, pursuant to the Patent Local Rules in the Eastern District of Texas,
14
Rembrandt served its first amended infringement contentions after it reviewed Apple’s source
15
code for the accused software products (id., Exh. 3). Later that month, a judge in the Eastern
16
District of Texas granted Apple’s motion to transfer the action to this district and assigned to
17
the undersigned judge (Dkt. No. 17).
18
In March 2015, Rembrandt served Apple with its second amended infringement
19
contentions, merely reformatting its extant contentions to comply with this district’s Rules.
20
Later in March, Rembrandt moved for leave to file its third amended infringement contentions,
21
which accused four new products that Apple released in late 2014 and added infringement
22
theories under the doctrine of equivalents for many of the asserted claim elements (Dkt. No. 68-
23
23):
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
CATEGORY
NEWLY-ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN
THIRD AMENDED INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS
3
iPhone
iPhone 6, iPhone 6s
4
iPod
[none]
5
iPad
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 3
2
6
Apple filed a statement of non-opposition, and an order granted Rembrandt’s motion (Dkt. Nos.
7
73 & 74).
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
In July 2015, Rembrandt sought leave to file its fourth amended infringement
contentions, which updated its source code citations (Dkt. No. 93). Apple filed a statement of
non-opposition, and an order granted Rembrandt’s motion (Dkt. Nos. 98 & 99).
In September 2015, Rembrandt sought leave to file its fifth amended infringement
contentions, which added one product that Apple released in July (Dkt. No. 101):
13
CATEGORY
NEWLY -ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN
FIFTH AMENDED INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS
15
iPhone
[none]
16
iPod
iPod Touch 6th Generation
17
iPad
[none]
14
18
Apple filed a statement of non-opposition, but noted that it asked Rembrandt whether its fifth
19
amendment would be its last, to which Rembrandt responded, “[w]e see no reason to agree that
20
this is the last product, especially since Apple is about to offer new products” (Dkt. No. 103).
21
An order granted Rembrandt’s motion to file its fifth amended infringement contentions (Dkt.
22
No. 104).
23
As a result of Rembrandt’s serial amendments, there are now twenty-five accused
24
hardware products as well as eight versions of the operating system at issue. Discovery
25
regarding those products is ongoing, including nineteen outstanding depositions (not including
26
30(b)(6) witnesses).
27
28
Rembrandt now moves to file its sixth amended infringement contentions, seeking to
add four new versions of Apple’s hardware products and the newest version of Apple’s mobile
3
1
operating system, iOS 9, which Apple released soon after Rembrandt served its fifth amended
2
infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 118):
3
CATEGORY
NEWLY ACCUSED PRODUCTS
(PROPOSED SIXTH AMENDED
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS)
5
iPhone
iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus
6
iPod
[none]
7
iPad
iPad mini 4th Generation, iPad Pro
4
8
The newly-accused hardware products are updated iterations of hardware products that already
9
accused in this action, and Apple admits that the relevant source code in the previous version of
its operating system, iOS 8 (already accused in this action), is representative of iOS 9. Apple
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
opposes Rembrandt’s motion (Dkt. No. 121).
12
Fact discovery closes on March 31, 2016, and the trial is set for July 11, 2016.
13
This order follows full briefing, including supplemental briefing regarding recent
14
amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and oral argument.
15
ANALYSIS
16
Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a supplemental
17
complaint, not merely an amended complaint, is necessary to set forth “any transaction,
18
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” In other
19
words, the filing date of a complaint ordinarily determines the cut-off date for the scope of the
20
case, and a party must seek leave to extend the case to include claims based on facts that
21
occurred after that date.
22
On December 1, 2015, the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The
23
amended Rules apply to pending cases “insofar as just and practicable.” H.R. Doc. No. 114-33,
24
at 2 (2015). The changes included the deletion of Rule 84, which provided, “[t]he forms in the
25
Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity that these rules
26
contemplate.” The Appendix referenced in Rule 84 included Form 18, an example complaint
27
for patent infringement. Form 18 merely included an allegation that the defendant infringed the
28
asserted patent by making, using, or selling “electric motors” without specifying the model of
4
1
the accused motors. The Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to Rule 84, the pleading standard
2
set forth in Form 18, not the pleading standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
3
(2007), controls. In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rule 84 has been
4
abrogated, so In re Bill of Lading no longer applies.
5
Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) requires patent owners to identify each accused product of
6
which the patent owners is aware by serving infringement contentions on the accused infringer
7
“not later than 14 days after the Initial Case Management Conference.” Patent Local Rule 3-6
8
provides that a party may amend its infringement contentions “only by order of the Court upon
9
a timely showing of good cause.”
Rembrandt specifically identified the accused products of which it was aware at the time
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
in its complaint, but it also accused “all reasonably similar products” (Compl. ¶ 13). It has
12
added products released after the filing date to this case by repeatedly amending its
13
infringement contentions (with Apple’s consent), but it has not sought leave to file a
14
supplemental complaint, apparently relying on the belief that its reference to “all reasonably
15
similar products” satisfied the pleading standard set forth on Form 18, even as to newly-released
16
products. Form 18, however, no longer applies.
17
With repeated amendments to its infringement contentions, Rembrandt has already made
18
this case increasingly unmanageable, and has already put undue pressure on the discovery and
19
trial schedule (which schedule is unlikely to be adjusted). It is time to prepare for the trial of
20
the already-accused products, which trial will begin on July 11, 2016. There must be some
21
reasonable cut-off date after which Rembrandt cannot further expand the case simply because
22
Apple’s product cycle has outpaced the resolution of this case. This order would come to the
23
same conclusion even if the issue were simply a matter of our local patent rules (i.e., good cause
24
not shown), but the failure to recognize the pleading problem provides an alternative ground.
25
At oral argument, counsel for plaintiffs cited LSI Corporation v. Funai Electric
26
Company, Ltd., No. 15-4307, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015) (Edward M. Chen), which
27
denied a motion to dismiss a complaint that failed to specifically identify accused products.
28
That decision is easily distinguished. First, although the decision issued after December 1, it
5
1
applied the pleading standard of Form 18. (The order did not address the amendments to the
2
Rules.) Second, the issue there was whether or not to dismiss a pending complaint, not, as here,
3
whether or not to allow a party to expand the case based on facts that occurred after the case
4
had been filed. LSI Corporation is inapposite.
5
6
This order holds that Rembrandt may not amend its infringement contentions or file a
supplemental complaint to expand the case at this late juncture.
7
8
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motion to amend their infringement contentions
(complying with Iqbal) for follow-on products, paying the filing fee, and seeking to relate the
11
For the Northern District of California
is hereby DENIED. This is, of course, without prejudice to Rembrandt filing a new complaint
10
United States District Court
9
new case to the undersigned judge.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: December 13, 2015.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?