Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc
Filing
41
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Compel (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)
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
CREAGRI, INC.,
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
PINNACLIFE INC., LLC,
15
Defendant.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 11-cv-06635-LHK-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY
WITH PATENT L.R. 3-1
(Re: Docket No. 37)
In this patent infringement case, Defendant Pinnaclife Inc. (“Pinnaclife”) moves to compel
18
Plaintiff Creagri, Inc. (“Creagri”) to supplement its infringement contentions to comply with the
19
specificity requirements under Patent L.R. 3-1. Creagri responds that its contentions are sufficient
20
to meet its burden. The parties appeared for argument on October 16, 2012. Having reviewed the
21
parties’ papers and Creagri’s infringement contentions and after considering oral arguments, the
22
court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Pinnaclife’s motion.
23
I. BACKGROUND
24
25
Creagri alleges Pinnaclife’s Olivamine10 line of products directly and indirectly infringe
26
numerous claims in two patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,416,808 (“‘808 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
27
8,216,599 (“‘599 Patent”). The ‘808 Patent claims the composition ratios of olive-derived
28
1
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
polyphenols, while the ‘599 Patent claims methods of use of those polyphenols. Pinnaclife markets
Olivamine10 to its customers as a nutritional supplement to combat inflammation.
On August 15, 2012, as required by Patent L.R. 3-1, Creagri provided Pinnaclife with its
3
4
infringement contentions. Creagri asserted that Pinnaclife’s various Olivamine10 products directly
5
infringe claims 1 through 6 of the ‘808 Patent, based on ratios of hydroxytyresol to oleuropien
6
and/or hydroxytyresol to tyrosol (all of which are olive-derived chemicals) that fall within the
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
patent’s limits. It asserted that Pinnaclife’s Olivamine10 capsules directly and indirectly infringe
claims 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 14, and 16 of the ‘599 Patent by advertising that the olivederived polyphenols in its products aid with inflammation.
11
12
13
Pinnaclife argues that Creagri’s infringement contentions fail to “specifically identify the
factual bases for its infringement allegations.” 1 It seeks to compel Creagri to supplement its
disclosures as follows:
14
(1)
For claims 1-6 of the ‘808 Patent and claims 1-6, 8, and 10-14 of the ‘599 Patent,
specifically identify the factual basis for its contention that the accused products
contain the weight ratios of hydroxytyrosol, oleuropein, and tyrosol required by the
claims, including disclosure of testing data or other supporting documentation;
(2)
For claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 of the ‘599 Patent, specifically identify the factual
basis for its allegations of direct infringement, including how it contends Pinnaclife
performs each step of the claimed method;
(3)
For claims 6, 10, and 11 of the ‘599 Patent, specifically identify the factual basis for
its allegations that the accused products meet each additional limitation of the
dependent claim;
(4)
For claim 16 of the ‘599 Patent, specifically address and provide a factual basis for
any allegation that the accused product contains “substantially purified
hydroxytyrosol” and identify the condition the accused product is allegedly used to
treat;
(5)
For claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 of the ‘599 patent, specifically identify the factual
basis for its allegations of inducement, including identification of the third party
alleged to infringe and reference to all advertising or marketing materials,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
See Docket No. 34 at 2.
2
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
instructions for use, scientific papers, and videos that it contends induce
infringement by that third party;
1
2
(6)
For claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 of the ‘599 Patent, specifically identify the factual
basis for its allegations of contributory infringement, including identification of
third parties directly infringing these claims, what components of the claimed
invention are offered for sale, sold or imported within the United States, and how
that components are allegedly made or adapted for an infringing use; and
(7)
For claims 1-6 of the ‘808 Patent and claims 1-6, 8, and 10-14 of the ‘599 Patent,
specifically identify the factual basis for its allegations of infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents, including an identification of the embodiments of
Pinnaclife’s products that do not literally meet, but are equivalent to, the limitations
of each asserted claim.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Creagri responds that its infringement contentions are sufficiently specific to meet the standard.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
11
The Patent Local Rules of this District provide for a “streamlined mechanism to replace the
12
13
series of interrogatories that accused infringers would likely have propounded in its absence.” 2
14
These rules “require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in litigation and to adhere
15
to those theories once they have been disclosed.” 3 They “provide structure to discovery and enable
16
the parties to move efficiently toward claim construction and the eventual resolution of their
17
dispute.” 4
18
The requirements for disclosure of a patentee’s infringement theories are set forth in Patent
19
20
Local Rule 3-1. Rule 3-1(c) requires a party claiming infringement to provide, in chart format,
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
FusionArc, Inc. v. Solidus Networks, Inc., No. C 06-06770 RMW (RS), 2007 WL 1052900, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2007) (quoting Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell Inc., No. C-01-2079VRW, 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002)).
3
O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see
also Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., C 95-1987 FMS, 1998 WL 775115, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Nov. 5, 1998).
4
27
28
Am. Video Graphics, L.P. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 359 F. Supp.2d 558, 560 (E.D. Tex. 2005); cf.
Network Caching Tech., 2002 WL 32126128 at *5 (noting that the infringement contention
requirement of Patent Local Rule 3-1 are designed to “facilitate discovery”).
3
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
“where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” Rule
3-1(d) requires a party claiming indirect patent infringement to identify:
[a]ny direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that
contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar as alleged direct infringement
is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of each such party in the direct
infringement must be described.
3
4
5
6
Rule 3-1(e) requires the party to state “[w]hether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged
7
to be literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality.”
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
These rules do not, as is sometimes misunderstood, “require the disclosure of specific
evidence nor do they require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case.” 5 But to the extent
appropriate information is reasonably available to it, a patentee must nevertheless disclose the
11
12
13
elements in each accused instrumentality that it contends practices each and every limitation of
each asserted claim. 6
III.
14
15
16
17
DISCUSSION
Pinnaclife’s objections to Creagri’s infringement contentions fall into four general
categories: (1) Creagri’s infringement contentions under the ‘808 Patent, (2) Creagri’s infringement
contentions under the ‘599 Patent, (3) Creagri’s indirect infringement contentions, and (4)
18
Creagri’s doctrine of equivalents contentions. The court considers each category in turn.
19
20
21
5
See DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Tech., LLC, Case No. 11-cv-03729-PSG, 2012 WL 1309161, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) (quoting Whipstock Serv., Inc. v. Schlumberger Oilfied Sers., No. 6:09cv-113, 2010 WL 143720, at *1(E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2010)).
22
6
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cf. FusionArc, at *1 (denying motion to strike infringement contentions where “the record
demonstrates that [patentee] FusionArc’s [infringement contentions] reasonably disclose all of the
information it presently possesses”). Where the accused instrumentality includes computer
software based upon source code made available to the patentee, the patentee must provide
“pinpoint citations” to the code identifying the location of each limitation. See Big Baboon Corp. v.
Dell, Inc., 723 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1228 (C.D. Cal. 2010). In at least one instance, this court has gone
further, holding that even when no source code has been made available by the defendant, “reverse
engineering or its equivalent” may be required for at least one of the accused products to identify
where each limitation of each claim is located. Network Caching, LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. C 012079 VRW, 2002 WL 32126128, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002).
4
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
A.
‘808 Patent
The ‘808 Patent covers other ranges for the ratio of chemicals that differ based on the
2
3
composition of the dietary supplement. Relying and citing to Pinnaclife’s advertisements, Creagri
4
asserts throughout its contentions that Olivamine10’s “Hydroxytyrosol 7% standardized”
5
ingredient in its various products falls within the patent’s ratios and, therefore, infringes:
6
Olivamine10 Products contain a weight ratio of hydroxytyrosol to oleuropein of between
5:1 and about 200:1. Olivamine 10 Products contain olive leaf extract. Olive leave extract
contains oleuropein. Hydrolysis of oleuropein obtained from olive leaves and fruit results
in hydroxytyrosol. Publicly accessible documentation indicates that Olivemaine10
Products are “Hydroxytyrosol 7% standardized.” The ratio of hydroxytyrosol, obtained by
hydrolysis of oleuropein, to oleuropein is between about 5:1 and about 200:1. 7
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Pinnaclife argues that Creagri’s infringement contentions insufficiently specify how the
11
12
amounts of hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, and oleuropein that Olivamine10 products contain violate the
13
‘808 Patent. It asserts that Creagri’s reliance on advertising materials, which do not provide the
14
weight ratios of the chemicals in Olivamine10, fails to provide enough factual support for the
15
contentions. Pinnaclife suggests that Creagri must provide testing data or other facts beyond what
16
it has so far indicated to support its contentions.
17
Pinnaclife’s argument overstates the requirements of Patent L.R. 3-1. Creagri must identify
18
how Pinnaclife’s products infringe with as much specificity as possible with the information
19
20
21
currently available to it. 8 But it is not obligated at this point to supply evidence to support its
infringement theory. 9 Creagri asserts, and Pinnaclife does not dispute, that it relies exclusively on
22
23
24
7
See Docket No. 35 Ex. 1 at 5 (internal citations omitted).
8
Cf. FusionArc, 2007 WL 1052900, at *1.
25
26
27
28
9
See Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. v. Or-Cal, Inc., Case No. C 11-04100 WHA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
52486, at *6-*7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) (“To fulfill its Rule 3-1 obligation, plaintiff need not
provide evidentiary support . . . .”).
5
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
Pinnaclife’s publicly available advertisements and marketing materials for its allegations.
Disclosure of the factual bases of its allegations is all that is required at this stage. 10
Pinnaclife also argues that Creagri failed to meet its obligations because it did not provide
3
4
contentions for each product, instead grouping the products together in its chart. All of the
5
products Creagri grouped together contain the same hydroxytyrosol product that Creagri alleges
6
infringes the ‘808 Patent. Creagri specified that the hydroxytyrosol compound was the infringing
7
8
9
element of each of the products. Pinnaclife, therefore, has sufficient notice of Creagri’s
infringement theory for each product.
Creagri’s contentions provide sufficient information to Pinnaclife of its theories of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
infringement. It has identified the Pinnaclife products that contain hydroxytyrosol as those
12
products it alleges are infringing, and it has asserted that the percentage of hydroxytyrosol in the
13
products infringes the ratios protected in its patents. Pinnaclife has enough facts to ascertain
14
Creagri’s theory of infringement.
15
16
B.
‘599 Patent
The ‘599 Patent protects a method of treating certain types of bodily inflammation through
17
18
the use of hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, and oleuropein in varying ratios. 11 In its infringement
19
contentions, Creagri asserts that Pinnaclife’s Olivamine10 Capsule infringes the ‘599 Patent
20
because it contains ratios of the olive-derived polyphenols that fall within the patent and is used as
21
a treatment for inflammatory conditions. Pinnaclife argues that Creagri’s contentions fail to
22
provide the factual bases for the allegations.
23
Here, Pinnaclife has at least one point. For example, Creagri alleges that the Olivamine10
24
25
Capsule infringes claim 6, which protects the method of treating inflammation “wherein said
26
10
27
See id. (noting disclosure of the basis for a plaintiff’s infringement contention is all that is
necessary for Rule 3-1).
11
28
See Docket No. 35 Ex. 1 at 10-13.
6
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
administering further comprises administering a second disease treatment agent.” 12 In its
2
contention, Creagri states only that “[t]he Olivamine10 Capsule product literally infringes this
3
Claim for the same reasons as Claim 1 above, and because the administration further comprises
4
administering a second disease treatment agent.” 13 It cites to Pinnaclife’s website, but the site does
5
not state that the Olivamine10 Capsule is or should be used in conjunction with other treatments. 14
6
In its papers, Creagri asserts that the other ingredients in the capsules are the “second disease
7
8
9
treatment agent.” It does not, however, make that contention in its Patent L.R. 3-1(c) table.
Creagri merely repeats the language of the ‘599 Patent to allege that Pinnaclife infringed – it
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
provides no factual allegations of how Pinnaclife employed the method detailed in claim 6. Patent
11
L.R. 3-1 requires more than mere repetition of the claim language. 15 Creagri is obligated to make
12
these contentions more specific.
13
On the other hand, many of Pinnaclife’s other arguments again overstate Creagri’s
14
obligations under Patent L.R. 3-1. To illustrate, Pinnaclife asserts that Creagri’s contentions “do
15
16
not provide any factual basis for asserting that Pinnaclife’s recommended dosage satisfies the
17
additional limitations of claims 10 and 11.” Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein the agent is
18
administered at a dosage of between about 0.3mg/kg and 1 mg/kg per day” and Claim 11 includes
19
the limitation “wherein the agent is administered at a dosage of about 0.6 mg/kg per day.” 16 For
20
Claim 10, Creagri contends, among other things, that:
21
22
12
See id. 1:21.
23
13
Id.
14
See id. 2:1.
24
25
26
27
15
Cf. Renesas Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp., Case No. C03-05709JF(HRL), 2005 WL
2000926, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2005) (noting that because plaintiff had done more than merely
parrot the claim language, it was not required to supplement its contentions).
16
28
See id. 1:23-24.
7
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
The Olivamine10 Capsule product literally infringes this Claim . . . because it is
administered to a subject with a dose corresponding to between about 0.3 mg/kg and 1
mg/kg per day. The recommended dosage is two capsules containing a total of 1300 mg of
Olivamine10. 17
1
2
3
Creagri repeats the same assertion for Claim 11. 18 Creagri has provided a specific factual
4
5
allegation: Pinnaclife’s recommended dosage of 1300 mg of Olivamine10 infringes the method
6
described in its ‘599 Patent. Creagri does not at this time have to prove through evidence that the
7
recommended dosage in fact does infringe its patent. It only has to provide enough information for
8
Pinnaclife to understand its theory of infringement.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Likewise, Creagri contends that the “hydroxytyrosol 7% standardized” ingredient of the
Olivamine10 Capsule meets the limitation in claim 16 that the protected product contains
11
12
“substantially purified hydroxytyrosol or a substantially purified mixture of hydroxytyrosol and
13
oleuropein.” 19 Creagri alleges that the ingredient in the Olivamine10 Capsule meets those
14
limitations, which is sufficient notice to Pinnaclife of its theory of infringement. Once again, at
15
this stage, Creagri does not have to prove its allegation.
16
17
Pinnaclife’s argument that Creagri fails to provide a factual basis for the contention that it
infringes the method detailed in claim 1 also has no merit. Creagri’s contentions include:
18
The Olivamine10 Capsule product is a dietary supplement for use in treating an
inflammatory condition in a subject in need of such treatment. See e.g. CAI000197-198
and www.pinnaclife.com (where Pinnaclife’s webpage states Olivamine10 “Acts as an
Anti-Inflammatory” and cites “Bitler”) [sic] See also CAI001596. Pinnaclife’s website
and documentation further states that reasons you may need Olivamine10 include the
following: “Inflammation is the Root of all Disease. Inflamation is Caused by Cells that die
Unnaturally Which is Often Caused by Free Radical Damage” . . . “Some Inflammation
Based Diseases are: Cancer, Neurodegenerative Disease, Cardiovascular Disease and
Diabetes.” 20
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
See id. 1:22.
18
See id. 1:23.
19
See id. 1:29.
20
Id. 1:10.
25
26
27
28
8
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
Creagri also points to “Adobe Acrobat files regarding the use of antioxidants, including
3
hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, and oleuropein for use in a variety of inflammatory conditions” that are
4
hosted on Pinnaclife’s website. 21 Creagri has provided sufficiently specific factual contentions to
5
provide notice to Pinnaclife of its theory of infringement, namely that through Pinnaclife’s
6
promotion of the Olivamine10 Capsules for treatment of inflammation it infringes the ‘599 Patent.
7
8
9
At this point, the contentions are sufficient to meet the obligations of Patent L.R. 3-1.
C.
Pinnaclife complains that the indirect infringement claims within Creagri’s infringement
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Indirect and Contributory Infringement Claims
11
contentions do not provide the specificity required by Patent Local Rule 3-1(d). Pinnaclife argues
12
that Creagri must identify both the direct infringers and their acts of direct infringement. It also
13
argues that Creagri fails to specify how it contributorily infringes on the ‘599 Patent.
14
Throughout its ‘599 Patent infringement contentions, Creagri adds boilerplate language
15
16
alleging Pinnaclife engaged in indirect and contributory infringement, such as “advising others to
17
use the . . . product in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use . . . in an infringing
18
manner; and distributing instructions, scientific papers, and videos that guide customers to use the .
19
. . product in an infringing manner.” 22 Creagri fails to identify what advertisements and
20
instructions lead to what infringing behavior. Although Creagri is not obligated to identify the
21
third-party infringers, 23 it must still disclose how exactly it believes Pinnaclife indirectly or
22
contributorily infringed on the ‘599 Patent. Its boilerplate language does not suffice.
23
24
25
21
See id. at 1:15.
22
See Docket No. 35 Ex. 1 at 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21.
23
See Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
26
27
28
9
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
D.
Doctrine of Equivalents
Pinnaclife argues that Creagri failed to comply with Patent L.R. 3-1(e), which requires it to
2
3
state “[w]hether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be literally present or present
4
under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality.” In its table, Creagri adds
5
boilerplate language to each of its contentions essentially arguing the alternative that “[t]o the
6
7
8
extent [the infringement claimed] is not literally present with the . . . product, this element is met
under the doctrine of equivalents.” 24
“The doctrine of equivalents exists to prevent a fraud on the patent” and not “to give a
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
patentee a second shot at proving infringement” if it is not “literally present.” 25 Creagri cannot
11
merely add boilerplate language asserting that the doctrine of equivalents has been met as an
12
alternative theory. 26 It must specify in what way Pinnaclife’s products infringe under the doctrine
13
of equivalents, or drop the contention altogether, as it suggested it would at the hearing.
14
IV.
CONCLUSION
15
Creagri must supplement its contentions regarding indirect and contributory infringement
16
17
and the doctrine of equivalents. It must also supplement its contentions regarding infringement of
18
claim 6 of the ‘599 Patent. The rest of Creagri’s contentions suffice to provide Pinnaclife with its
19
theories of infringement. Creagri shall serve its amended infringement contentions no later than
20
December 16, 2012.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
24
See, e.g., Docket No. 35 Ex. 1 at 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 21.
25
26
Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Case No. C 05-00334 RMW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
123187, at *41 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2008).
27
26
28
See id. (“The Patent Local Rules require a limitation-by-limitation analysis, not a boilerplate
reservation.”).
10
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
Dated: November 2, 2012
2
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
3
4
5
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
11
Case No.: 11-6635 LHK (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?