Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al
Filing
231
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 198 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS 203 CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE. signed 11/5/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2013) Modified on 11/6/2013 (ndr, COURT STAFF).
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12
13
14
15
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS
(Docket No. 198)
AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ CROSSMOTION TO STRIKE
(Docket No. 203)
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; APPLE
COMPUTER, INC.; ARUBA NETWORKS,
INC.; MERU NETWORKS; and RUCKUS
WIRELESS,
Defendants.
10
11
No. C 13-159 CW
________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS AND
COUNTER-CLAIMS
________________________________/
Plaintiff Linex Technologies, Inc. moves for leave to amend
its infringement contentions against Defendants Hewlett-Packard
16
17
Company (HP); Apple Computer, Inc.; Aruba Networks, Inc.; Meru
18
Networks; and Ruckus Wireless.
19
the motion and cross-move to strike Linex’s infringement
20
contentions.
21
submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Linex’s Motion to Amend
22
and DENIES Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Strike.
23
Docket No. 203.
Docket No. 198.
Defendants oppose
Having considered the papers
BACKGROUND
24
25
26
Linex owns United States Patent Nos. 6,757,322 (the ‘322
patent), RE42,219 (the ‘219 patent), and RE43,812 (the ‘812
27
patent).
In May 2011 Linex filed this patent infringement suit,
28
contending that third-party Wi-Fi chipsets contained in
1
Defendants’ products infringe one or more claims.
2
On August 2, 2013, Linex filed a motion to amend its infringement
3
contentions.
4
filed a cross-motion to strike Linex’s infringement contentions on
5
the basis that they are deficient and unclear, and therefore fail
6
7
8
Docket No. 198.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
On August 16, 2013, Defendants
to offer reasonable notice of Linex’s infringement theory, as
required by Patent L.R. 3-1.
LEGAL STANDARDS
9
10
Docket No. 1.
A party may amend its infringement contentions upon a showing
11
of good cause and by order of the Court.
12
Examples of good cause include
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Patent L.R. 3-6.
(a) a claim construction by the Court different from
that proposed by the party seeking amendment; (b) recent
discovery of material, prior art despite earlier
diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of nonpublic
information about the Accused Instrumentality which was
not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the
service of the Infringement Contentions.
Patent L.R. 3-6.
Patent L.R. 3-6 “serves to balance the parties’
rights to develop new information in discovery along with the need
20
21
22
for certainty in legal theories at the start of the case.”
Apple,
Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 5632618, at *2 (N.D.
23
Cal.) (citing O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
24
467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
25
26
27
The good cause inquiry considers first whether “the party
seeking leave to amend acted with diligence in promptly moving to
amend when new evidence [was] released.”
28
2
O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at
1
1363.
2
question is whether the party ‘could have discovered [the new
3
information] earlier had it acted with the requisite diligence.’”
4
Apple, 2012 WL 5632618, at *6 (citing Google, Inc. v. Netlist,
5
2010 WL 1838693, at *2 (N.D. Cal.)).
6
7
8
9
“In considering the party’s diligence, the critical
party to show diligence.
Id.
The burden is on the moving
If the court finds that the moving
party was not diligent in amending its infringement contentions,
it does not need to consider the question of prejudice to the non-
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
moving party.
11
district court’s decision refusing leave to amend upon finding the
12
moving party was not diligent, without considering the question of
13
prejudice to the non-moving party).
14
was arguably not diligent, the court retains discretion to grant
15
See 02 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1368 (affirming the
leave to amend.
However, even if the movant
Apple, 2012 WL 5632618, at *6 (granting leave to
16
17
18
19
amend infringement contentions, even though court found plaintiff
failed to establish diligence, because of lack of prejudice to
defendant).
DISCUSSION
20
21
I.
22
23
24
25
26
Linex’s Motion to Amend
Linex filed its initial infringement contentions on May 15,
2013.
At that time, Linex asserts, it had not yet been given the
third-party chip suppliers’ source code for inspection.
Subsequently, on May 31, 2013, Marvell permitted Linex’s expert to
27
examine Marvell’s source code.
Linex accordingly incorporated
28
analyses of the Marvell source code and served its first amended
3
1
infringement contentions on July 2, 2013.
2
and 12, 2013, Qualcomm-Atheros allowed Linex’s expert to examine
3
Qualcomm-Atheros’ source code.
4
to incorporate analyses of the Qualcomm-Atheros source code.
5
Linex served these second amended contentions on July 17, 2013.
6
7
8
9
Similarly, on June 11
Linex then amended its contentions
Linex has shown diligence sufficient to meet the good cause
standard.
Courts typically grant leave to amend infringement
contentions after a patentee has been given the opportunity to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
inspect relevant source code.
11
Dell, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1228 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
12
the record demonstrates that Linex amended its infringement
13
contentions as it gained access to the relevant evidence from
14
Defendants.
15
See, e.g., Big Baboon Corp. v.
Here,
As third-party chip suppliers provided Linex with
access to documents and source code, Linex promptly amended its
16
17
18
contentions to include citations to that third-party evidence.
Defendants also will not be prejudiced by Linex’s proposed
19
changes.
20
until July 28, 2014.
21
Linex’s amended infringement contentions.
22
proposed amendments to its infringement contentions do not add new
23
24
This case remains in its early stage.
Trial is not set
Defendants have sufficient time to review
patent claims or new products.
As Linex notes, its
See Apple, 2012 WL 5632618, at *3
(noting that proposed amendment did not add new claims or theories
25
26
27
of infringement); see also Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., 2007 WL
1454259 (N.D. Cal.), at *3 (finding no prejudice in permitting
28
4
1
amended infringement contentions where there was still “ample
2
time” to conduct discovery).
3
II. Defendants’ Motion to Strike
4
A.
5
6
7
8
9
“Separating” Limitation
Linex offers two theories of infringement regarding the
“separating” limitation.
Defendants initially contend that
Linex’s first theory is deficient because Linex does not identify
specifically the codes, signals and data symbols present in the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
accused products.
11
the HT-LTFs and P code portion of the signals and use the
12
circuitry of FFT and channel estimator blocks to do the
13
“separating.”
14
signals, which contain HT-LTFs and P codes, as well as payload
15
data.
Linex explains that the accused products detect
Linex identifies the OFDM packets as the different
Linex’s specifications as to its first theory of
16
17
18
infringement are sufficient enough to comply with L.R. 3-1.
Linex’s second theory of infringement regarding the
19
“separating” limitation contends that the accused products use HT-
20
LTfs, P code, and pilot portions of the signal to separate the
21
signals and use the circuitry of the FFT and MIMO equalizer to do
22
the “separating.”
23
24
Defendants argue that Linex’s second theory of
infringement is deficient because it does not adequately specify
the meaning of the terms.
Linex has again adequately specified
25
26
27
the components necessary to comply with L.R. 3-1.
Linex has
explained that the claimed “said different signals” are the entire
28
5
1
OFDM packets; the codes are HT-LTFs, P codes and pilots; and the
2
circuitry is the MIMO equalizer and the RTL source code.
3
B. Combining Limitation
4
Linex offers two theories contending that the accused
5
6
7
8
9
products meet the “combining” limitation.
First, during MIMO
equalization, the payload data portions received on different
receiving antennas are combined.
Second, during MIMO
equalization, the HT-LTF and P code preamble portions of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
signals received on different receiving antennas are combined.
11
Defendants argue that Linex’s two theories of combining are
12
deficient.
13
14
15
Contrary to Defendants’ charge of vagueness, Linex has
identified each of the components of the claim.
Linex has
detailed how MIMO equalization performs the “combining” limitation
16
17
18
and has identified each component of the claim.
Linex has
“forthrightly set forth the specifics of its infringement
19
contentions.”
20
322570 (N.D. Cal.), at *4.
21
C. “Multiplexer” Limitation
22
23
24
Infineon Techs. v. Volterra Semiconductor, 2013 WL
Claims 97 and 101 in the ‘812 patent contain the limitation
of “a multiplexer for multiplexing data derived from said plural
streams of data symbols to form a single stream of data
25
26
corresponding to the data from said single source data.”
27
Defendants assert that Linex has not explained how the accused
28
circuitry implicates the claim language.
6
1
Linex’s contentions comply with Patent L.R. 3-1.
2
identified the stream deparser and spatial combiner as the
3
multiplexer.
4
apply here.
5
Corp., 2009 WL 1607717, at * 4-5 (C.D. Cal.) the court denied the
6
7
8
9
Linex has
Further, cases cited generally by Defendants do not
For instance, in Diagnostic Sys. Corp. v. Symantec
patentee’s motion to amend on the basis that the infringement
contentions failed to identify how the source code of the accused
products infringed the claims.
Here, Linex’s contentions cite the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
specific modules in the source code, and these modules demonstrate
11
that the multiplexer may infringe the claims.
12
D. Doctrine of Equivalents
13
14
15
Defendants argue that Linex’s claims fail to comply with
Patent L.R. 3–1(e), which requires Linex to state “[w]hether each
limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be literally
16
17
18
present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the
Accused Instrumentality.”
L.R. 3-1(e).
“[J]udges of this court
19
have rejected plaintiffs' attempts to assert claims under the
20
doctrine of equivalents with blanket statements.”
21
LLC v. Belkin Intern., Inc., 2011 WL 1399257 *8 (N.D. Cal.).
22
Here, Linex does not offer merely boilerplate language asserting
23
24
the doctrine of equivalents.
OptimumPath,
Linex’s contentions are sufficient
to comply with L.R. 3-1(e).
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court GRANTS Linex’s
Motion to Amend and DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Strike.
7
1
This order terminates Docket Nos. 198 and 203.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
5
Dated: 11/5/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?