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