Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 206

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying 179 Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Defendants from Relying on Contentions Not Disclosed in Final Invalidity Contentions (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SPEEDTRACK, INC., Plaintiff, v. WALMART.COM, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ No. C 06-7336 PJH ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM RELYING ON CONTENTIONS NOT DISCLOSED IN FINAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff's motion to preclude defendants from relying on contentions not disclosed in final invalidity contentions came on for hearing before the court on October 29, 2008. Plaintiff Speedtrack, Inc. appeared through its counsel Omer Salik. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and intervenor Endeca Technologies, Inc. (collectively "defendants") appeared through their counsel, Andrew Leibnitz. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion. Defendants' final invalidity contentions (a) sufficiently disclose the Cochran patent as an anticipating reference; and (b) set forth with reasonably specificity the combination of prior art references that allegedly render plaintiff's patent obvious. No violation of the patent local rules has therefore been committed. As noted at the hearing, however, in advance of the filing of any dispositive motions defendants must disclose every combination of prior art they intend to rely on at trial, so as to provide plaintiff with reasonable notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2008 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge