Kenu, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc.

Filing 42

Order by Hon. James Donato denying Belkin's 39 Motion for Leave to Amend Its Invalidity Contentions. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KENU, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01429-JD

v.
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY
CONTENTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 39

12
13

In this patent case, defendant Belkin International, Inc. has filed a motion for leave to

14

amend its invalidity contentions. Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this motion to be suitable for

15

decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and denies it.

16

The sole basis of Belkin’s motion is that its counsel “inadvertently failed to include

17

Belkin’s Window Mount product as part of its invalidity contentions that were served on October

18

5, 2015.” Dkt. No. 39 at 1. It seeks permission to make that late addition now.

19

Under the rules, invalidity contentions may be amended “only by order of the Court upon a

20

timely showing of good cause.” Patent L.R. 3-6. Diligence is a precondition to demonstrating

21

good cause, and even if diligence is shown, the moving party must also demonstrate that the other

22

party will not be prejudiced by the amendment. Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN

23

BHD, Case No. 14-cv-2864-JD, Dkt. No. 115 (N.D. Cal. March 10, 2016).

24

Belkin has forthrightly acknowledged that mistakes or omissions alone generally do not

25

“rise to the level of good cause.” Dkt. No. 39 at 3. Belkin nevertheless urges the Court to excuse

26

its neglect, but the other cases Belkin points to for support are distinguishable. For example, in

27

Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., Case No. C 05-01550 SI, 2007 WL 1454259, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May

28

17, 2007), the proposed late change at issue was the addition of “significant new prior art” -- a

1

third-party website -- that had been discovered by CashEdge’s new counsel. That alone is

2

different from the circumstance here, where the omitted prior art was Belkin’s own product.

3

Moreover, in Yodlee, the Court specifically noted the greater difficulties in identifying prior art in

4

cases that involve “internet-based technology” as opposed to other cases “dealing with more

5

traditional technology.” Id., at *2. This case involves a piece of hardware that allows users to

6

mount their cell phones to their cars, and falls firmly in the latter category, making Yodlee even

7

less applicable.
Belkin’s motion fails to establish diligence or good cause. To allow the requested

9

amendment here would be to gut our patent local rules, which were “designed to require parties to

10

crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

have been disclosed.” Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices Inc., No. C 95-1987 FMS,

12

1998 WL 775115, at *2 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 1998).

13
14
15
16

The Court denies the requested leave to amend. This order terminates docket number 39,
and the hearing that was set for November 17, 2016, at 10 a.m. is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2016

17
18
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2