Lantiq North America, Inc. et al v. Ralink Technology Corporation et al
Filing
166
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 100 Motion to Strike 100 MOTION to Strike Lantiq's Infringement Contentions (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
15
16
RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE
(Re: Docket No. 100)
Defendants Ralink Technology Corporation, a California corporation, and Ralink
19
Technology Corporation, a Taiwanese corporation (collectively “Ralink”), move to strike Plaintiff
20
Lantiq Deutschland GMBH’s (“Lantiq”) Patent L.R. 3-1 disclosure of asserted claims and
21
infringement contentions. Lantiq opposes the motion. On May 1, 2012, the parties appeared for
22
hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ralink’s motion to strike is GRANTED.
24
Ralink moves to strike Lantiq’s Pat. L.R. 3-1 disclosure of asserted claims and infringement
25
contentions on the grounds that they include reference to products made and sold by Ralink’s
26
parent company, MediaTek, Inc. (“MediaTek”). At present, MediaTek is neither a party to the case
27
28
1
Case No.: C 11-234 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
nor is it an “opposing party” within the meaning of Pat. L.R. 3-1. 1 In addition to 50 accused Ralink
2
products, Lantiq’s infringement contentions also include 50 accused MediaTek products. Lantiq’s
3
contentions allege that Ralink and MediaTek directly infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,351,799 (the “’799
4
Patent”), that Ralink infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,061,904 (the “’904 Patent”), 2 and that Ralink and
5
MediaTek indirectly infringe both patents. Ralink complains that rather than specify the exact party
6
practicing each limitation as Pat. L.R. 3-1 requires, Lantiq has resorted to creating a fictitious non-
7
party identified only as “MediaTek/Ralink.” While Ralink acknowledges that it is a subsidiary of
8
MediaTek, it stresses that the two companies are separate entities (as evidenced by certain
9
Taiwanese government documents it has produced to Lantiq). Because MediaTek is not a party to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the case and Lantiq has not sought to “pierce the corporate veil,” Ralink argues that Lantiq’s
11
infringement contentions that reference “MediaTek/Ralink” should be struck. Finally, Ralink
12
complains that Lantiq served purposefully vague contentions by grouping Ralink and MediaTek
13
products together in groups of representative products. Such contentions fail to provide Ralink with
14
adequate notice of any alleged infringement specific to its own products.
15
Lantiq responds that Ralink has been dilatory in bringing this motion in the first place and
16
that there is no complication or delay attendant to including MediaTek products in Lantiq’s
17
contentions. Regardless of whether MediaTek is a party in the case, Lantiq argues that the
18
MediaTek-branded products identified in its contentions nevertheless are relevant. MediaTek itself
19
acknowledges publicly that at least some MediaTek-branded products incorporate Ralink
20
technology. Lantiq also notes that it did move to add MediaTek as a party to the case.
21
22
On April 30, 2012, the presiding judge granted Lantiq’s motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint adding three MediaTek entities, including MediaTek USA and MediaTek
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
On December 23, 2011, Lantiq filed a second amended complaint adding three MediaTek entities
as defendants in the case. On February 1, 2012, the presiding judge granted Ralink’s motion to
strike the second amended complaint on the grounds that Lantiq had not sought leave as is required
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See Docket No. 94. On February 21, 2012, Lantiq moved to file its
second amended complaint. See Docket No. 106.
2
Ralink states that while Lantiq’s contentions appear to allege that Ralink alone infringes the ‘904
Patent, a summary claim chart for the ‘904 Patent included with the contentions accuses
“MediaTek/Ralink” products of infringement.
2
Case No.: C 11-234 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
Wireless, Inc., as defendants in the case. 3 In light of this order, Ralink’s motion to strike Lantiq’s
2
contentions on the grounds that MediaTek is not a party appears to be moot.
3
The court nevertheless agrees that the contentions are vague and fall short of the
4
requirements set forth in Pat. L.R. 3-1, particularly with respect to the unspecific references to
5
“MediaTek/Ralink” products, the predicate acts for Lantiq’s indirect infringement claims 4 and
6
where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each accused MediaTek and Ralink
7
product. Now that MediaTek may be added as an opposing party, Lantiq should correct these
8
defects. Lantiq shall comply with this order no later than May 15, 2012.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated:
12
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
See Docket No. 164.
4
See Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell Inc., No. C-01-2079-VRW, 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 13, 2002); Bender v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., No. C 09-01152 SI, 2010 WL
2991257, *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2010). Lantiq should not delay serving it amended contentions
based on any outstanding discovery owed by Ralink or any other entity. See Shared Memory
Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., No. C 10-02475 MMC (JSC), 2011 WL 3878388 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 2, 2011).
3
Case No.: C 11-234 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
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?