InteraXon Inc. et al v. Neurotek, LLC et al
Filing
135
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore Regarding 127 130 Discovery Letter Briefs. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
INTERAXON INC., et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-05290-KAW
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEFS
9
10
NEUROTEK, LLC, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 130
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff InteraXon's discovery letter brief and
14
Defendant Jonathan Cowan's response. (Dkt. Nos. 127, 130.) The Court deems the matter
15
suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having reviewed
16
the papers filed by the parties and the relevant legal authority, the Court resolves the parties'
17
discovery disputes as set forth below.
18
19
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs InteraXon and InteraXon U.S., Inc. (collectively, "InteraXon") filed this suit
20
against Defendants NeuroTek, LLC, MindWaves, Ltd., and Dr. Jonathan D. Cowan (collectively,
21
"Defendants") on November 18, 2015, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and a declaration
22
of invalidity as to Patent No. 5,983,129 ("'129 Patent"). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) InteraXon
23
manufactures the MUSE Headband. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Around October 2013, Defendants accused
24
InteraXon of infringing on the '129 Patent, and offered to license it. (Compl. ¶ 29.) In November
25
2014, Defendants demanded that InteraXon "cease and desist" from infringing on the '129 Patent,
26
or enter into a licensing agreement. (Compl. ¶ 30.) The parties began negotiations for a license,
27
during which Defendants withdrew the cease and desist demand, but InteraXon alleges that
28
Defendants threatened to reinstate that demand around May 2015. (Compl. ¶ 32.) InteraXon then
1
filed the instant suit. Cowan has filed a counterclaim for infringement on the '129 Patent.
2
(Answer, Dkt. No. 63 ¶ 45.)
3
4
II.
DISCUSSION
The parties' letters concern Cowan's Infringement Contentions, as required by Patent Local
Rule 3-1. Patent Local Rule 3-1 "governs the disclosure of asserted claims and infringement
6
contentions ('ICs')." Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1024
7
(N.D. Cal. 2010). It requires the party asserting infringement to: "(a) identify each claim that is
8
being infringed; (b) identify each accused product for each claim; (c) provide a chart identifying
9
specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found in each accused product; and (d)
10
specify whether infringement is literal or based on the doctrine of equivalents." Id.; see also Pat.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
L.R. 3-1. To satisfy the rule, the party asserting infringement "is required to include in its
12
infringement contentions all facts known to it, including those discovered in its pre-filing inquiry."
13
Id. Further, the specificity required by Rule 3-1 "must be sufficient to provide reasonable notice
14
to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement,"
15
and "to raise a reasonable inference that all accused products infringe." Id. at 1025 (internal
16
quotations omitted). Thus, a patent holder "must map specific elements of [the] alleged infringing
17
products onto the Plaintiff's claim construction." Id.
18
First, Plaintiffs contend that Cowan has failed to provide a meaningful claim chart
19
identifying where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within the accused infringing
20
product. (Dkt. No. 127 at 2.) Cowan responds that he needs more information to comply, and
21
seeks to complete all discovery before being required to modify his ICs. (Dkt. No. 130 at 2, 5.)
22
Having reviewed the ICs, the Court finds that the ICs are not in compliance with Rule 3-1 as they
23
fail to specify where the various components and software functions are found. Compare with
24
Shared Memory Graphics, 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1025-26 (finding sufficient specificity where the
25
plaintiff identified specific chips which constituted particular elements of a claim, but that other
26
contentions were too vague because they failed to specifically identify which structures constitute
27
the display data distribution bus); contrast with Case No. C-14-775 EMC, Grecia v. Apple Inc.,
28
2015 WL 81893, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015) (finding adequate ICs where the plaintiff defined
2
what the metadata was and its form, identified specific locations in the accused system that
2
practiced the infringing steps of reading from and writing into the metadata (including exemplar
3
screenshots), and explained how the read and write requests were made (including screenshots
4
with detailed labels showing how the system prompts and confirms requests)). Further, it is
5
insufficient to state that the location is "a combination of the answers to 1A-E" as this requires
6
Plaintiffs to guess as to what this "combination" is. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Case No.
7
13-cv-5808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) ("At a minimum, Finjan was
8
required to expressly discuss the particular claim elements in each Claim and map those elements
9
onto the features of the allegedly infringing products. . . . Neither the Court nor the Defendants
10
should be required to guess which aspects of the accused products allegedly infringe each claim
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
element."). Cowan also provides no documentation in support of his theory of infringement, as
12
required by Patent Local Rule 3-2. As such, Cowan's ICs are inadequate.
13
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Cowan cannot assert the doctrine of equivalents without
14
explaining why or how it applies. (Dkt. No. 127 at 4-5.) Cowan does not respond. The Court
15
agrees that Cowan must describe his bases for asserting the doctrine of equivalents; otherwise,
16
"[i]f a plaintiff does not have a factual basis to asset the doctrine of equivalents in its infringement
17
contentions at that time, it should not do so. It is improper to assert the doctrine of equivalents
18
with generic 'placeholder' language on the hope that future discovery might support such an
19
assertion." Finjan, 2015 WL 15174920, at *10. In any case, if Cowan should later find, through
20
discovery, sufficient evidence in support of this theory, Cowan can move the Court to amend his
21
infringement contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6 upon a showing of good cause. See id.
22
Therefore, in his revised ICs, Cowan must provide a basis for the doctrine of equivalents or the
23
Court will strike the language asserting the doctrine of equivalents.
24
Finally, Plaintiffs challenge Cowan's failure to provide a chart or documentation with
25
respect to the accused products other than the InteraXon Muse, which Cowan contends is the
26
principal infringing product. (Dkt. No. 127 at 5; see also Cowan's Initial Patent Disclosures
27
Revision 1A, Dkt. No. 127, Exh. 3 at 2.) Cowan again does not respond. In general, "a separate
28
claim chart for each accused product is not mandatory under Patent Local Rule 3-1(c)." Finjan,
3
1
2015 WL 15174920, at *3. A combination chart is permissible "if each accused product allegedly
2
infringes in the same way." Id. Here, the additional accused products cannot possibly infringe in
3
the same way as the InteraXon Muse; Cowan himself describes the additional products as
4
"specialized software for developers . . . which they can use to create and sell adaptions of the
5
Muse software," while the InteraXon Muse is a physical product. (Cowan's Initial Patent
6
Disclosures Revision 1A at 2.) Cowan's chart then explains that Claim 1A takes place in the EEG
7
sensors attached to the Muse's band, a location that would not exist in the software products. (See
8
id. at 3.) The InteraXon Muse and the software products are not functionally identical and there is
9
no showing that they infringe on each claim in the same way. While Cowan may be able to
provide a single chart for the software products (assuming Cowan makes an adequate showing that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the software products are functionally identical and infringe Patent '129 in the same way), he
12
cannot use a single chart for both the InteraXon Muse and the software products.
13
III.
CONCLUSION
14
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Cowan's ICs are inadequate and not in
15
compliance with the Patent Local Rules. Cowan is to provide revised ICs within 14 days of the
16
date of this Order. Until Cowan serves ICs that are compliant with the Patent Local Rules, the
17
Court will not permit Cowan to seek discovery from InteraXon. The Court denies Cowan's
18
request for sanctions and additional discovery.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 21, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?