Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.

Filing 141

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE OR TO COMPEL AMENDMENT OF CELLSPIN'S INVENTIVENESS CONTENTIONS by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR; denying (170) Motion to Compel in case 4:17-cv-05933-YGR; denying (117) Motion to Strike in case 4:17-cv-05934-YGR. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2020)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

OAKLAND DIVISION

4
5

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,

6
7
8

v.
FITBIT, INC.,

11

14

17

20

v.

23

Case No. 17-cv-05930-YGR

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC.,

Dkt. Nos. 97, 98

Defendant.
v.

Case No. 17-cv-05931-YGR

NIKE, INC.,

Dkt. No. 121

Defendant.
v.

Case No. 17-cv-05932-YGR

UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,

Dkt. No. 101

Defendant.

21
22

Dkt. No. 123

Defendant.

18
19

Case No. 17-cv-05929-YGR

MOOV, INC.,

15
16

Dkt. No. 140

v.

12
13

Case No. 17-cv-05928-YGR
Defendant.

9
10

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE OR TO COMPEL AMENDMENT OF
CELLSPIN’S INVENTIVENESS CONTENTIONS

Plaintiff,

v.
Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR

FOSSIL GROUP, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 43, 69

Defendants.

24
25

v.

26

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,

27

Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR
Dkt. No. 117

Defendants.

28
1

1
2

v.
Case No. 17-cv-05936-YGR
NIKON AMERICAS, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 119

Defendants.

3
4
5

Defendants in the above-captioned patent infringement cases move to strike or, alternatively, to

6

compel plaintiff’s inventiveness contentions.1 Defendants object to five aspects of plaintiff’s inventiveness

7

contentions served on June 19, 2020: plaintiff “buries” the contentions in 1,400 pages of charts; the

8

contentions cite inadmissible evidence as support; plaintiff reserves the right to rely on additional documents

9

in rebuttal; plaintiff reserves the right to rely on inventor and expert testimony; and the contentions fail to tie

10
11

the inventive concepts to the language of specific limitations.
Defendants largely misunderstand the nature of contentions. Contentions do not require a party to

12

prove its case with admissible evidence. See AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 769 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir.

13

2014) (analyzing this district’s local rules). Nor do they require premature expert discovery. See Amgen

14

Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14-cv-04741-RS (MEJ), 2017 WL 1352052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017).

15

Instead, the purpose of contentions is to “require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the

16

litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.” Shared Memory Graphics LLC v.

17

Apple, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted). As such, contentions require

18

parties to disclose theories and facts—not all evidence to support those theories and facts. See Asia Vital

19

Comopnents Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, 77 F. Supp. 3d 990, 1003-04 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Finjan, Inc. v.

20

Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-HSG (JSC), 2018 WL 620169, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018). The

21

Court’s scheduling order recognizes this distinction by requiring plaintiff to serve its “full and final

22

contentions” (along with “factual and legal bas[e]s” that support those contentions), and to separately

23

produce all evidence upon which plaintiff may rely in support of its contention. (Dkt. No. 113.)

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court has previously found the asserted patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Following
reversal by the Federal Circuit based on plaintiff’s allegations of an “inventive concept” under the second
step of Alice, the Court required plaintiff to produce inventiveness contentions disclosing and supporting
such “inventive concepts.”
2

1

Plaintiff, on the other hand, adopts the opposite extreme and argues that it is not bound by its

2

contentions at all because defendants have the burden to prove invalidity. That, too, misunderstands the

3

nature of contentions. “The ultimate burden of invalidity . . . does not dictate the scope of discovery.” SPH

4

Am., LLC v. Res. in Mot., Ltd., 13cv2320 CAB (KSC), 2016 WL 6305414, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)

5

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the party who carries

6

the burden on an issue to make a prima facie case before it is entitled to discover rebuttal information. Id.;

7

see Amgen, 2017 WL 1352052, at *2 (granting motion to compel validity contentions); Finjan, Inc. v. ESET,

8

LLC, 17CV183 CAB (BGS), 2018 WL 4772124, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018) (same); Implicit Networks,

9

Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 3:10-cv-4234, Dkt. No. 92 at 2 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2012) (explaining that

10
11

validity contentions are based on information equally available to both parties).
Here, plaintiff has the better knowledge of the alleged inventive concept of the patents. Moreover,

12

the Court has already found—and has had its decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit—that the asserted

13

patents are directed to patent ineligible idea and that the specification provides scant support for an inventive

14

concept. The case therefore hinges on plaintiff’s allegations of an inventive concept beyond the already-

15

determined patent ineligible idea. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1307, 1316-19 (Fed. Cir.

16

2019). Under these circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to require plaintiff to produce inventiveness

17

contentions to prevent a “shifting sands” approach to ligation where defendants prove that a certain

18

implementation was conventional only to have plaintiff assert a wholly new inventive concept. See O2

19

Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, plaintiff

20

will be restricted to arguing the alleged inventive concepts disclosed in its contentions and any new theories

21

will be struck pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

22

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s cover pleading and chart attached to defendants’ motion and

23

cannot conclude that plaintiff violated the Court’s scheduling order. The cover pleading identifies fourteen

24

alleged inventive concepts and the chart states an inventive concept tied to the limitation at hand. (See Dkt.

25

No. 117-5 at 38.) To the extent that defendants contend that other inventive concepts are not tied to specific

26

limitations, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to discuss any alleged inventive concept for which

27

the underlying limitation or limitations are unclear. The Court DENIES defendants’ motion.

28
3

1
2

In light of the timing of this Order, the parties shall advise the Court whether any adjustment of the
scheduling order is necessary.

3
4

This Order terminates docket number 117 in case number 4:17-cv-5934.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2020
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4