The Regents of the University of California et al v. Affymetrix, Inc. et al
Filing
267
ORDER granting Defendants' 216 Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions. Defendants are ordered to serve their amended invalidity contentions on Plaintiffs within 7 days from the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 8/24/2018. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA; and BECTON,
DICKINSON and COMPANY,
Case No.: 17-cv-01394-H-NLS
15
v.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
THEIR INVALIDITY
CONTENTIONS
16
AFFYMETRIX, INC.; and LIFE
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
[Doc. No. 216.]
Plaintiffs,
14
17
Defendants.
18
19
On July 18, 2018, Defendants Affymetrix, Inc. and Life Technologies Corp. filed a
20
motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions. (Doc. No. 216.) On August 13,
21
2018, Plaintiffs the Regents of the University of California, Becton, Dickinson and
22
Company, Sirigen, Inc., and Sirigen II Limited filed a response in opposition to
23
Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 262.) On August 17, 2018, the Court took the matter under
24
submission. (Doc. No. 263.) On August 20, 2018, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. No.
25
265.) For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their
26
invalidity contentions.
27
///
28
///
1
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
1
Background
2
On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Regents and Becton, Dickinson filed a complaint for
3
patent infringement against Defendants Affymetrix and Life Technologies, alleging
4
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,085,799, U.S. Patent No. 8,110,673, and U.S. Patent No.
5
8,835,113. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.) On September 8, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to
6
Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Doc. No. 37.)
7
On October 6, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order. (Doc. No. 55.) On
8
November 20, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff Becton, Dickinson’s motion for a
9
preliminary injunction without prejudice. (Doc No. 69.) On November 30, 2017, the Court
10
issued an amended scheduling order. (Doc. No. 76.)
11
On February 7, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for leave for
12
Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint and to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. No.
13
100.) On February 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint: (1) adding Sirigen
14
and Sirigen II as additional Plaintiffs and adding claims that Defendants’ products infringe
15
four Sirigen patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,547,008, U.S. Patent No. 9,139,869, U.S. Patent
16
No. 8,575,303, and U.S. Patent No. 8,455,613; (2) adding infringement allegations against
17
additional accused products; and (3) adding allegations of induced infringement against
18
Defendants. (Doc. No. 101, FAC.)
19
On February 23, 2018, the Court issued a second amended scheduling order. (Doc.
20
No. 105.) On March 26, 2018, the Court issued a claim construction order, construing
21
disputed claim terms from the ’799 patent, the ’673 patent, and the ’113 patent. (Doc. No.
22
138.) On May 1, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of
23
non-infringement of the ’799 patent. (Doc. No. 170.) On May 14, 2018, the Court denied
24
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’673 patent and the
25
’113 patent. (Doc. No. 183.)
26
By the present motion, Defendants move pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)(3) to
27
amend their invalidity contentions. (Doc. No. 216-1.) Specifically, Defendants seek to
28
amend their invalidity contentions for the ’673 patent and the ’113 patent to add two
2
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
1
additional prior references, the Yang reference and the Hou reference, and to clarify their
2
contentions as to the “AF750APC” reference. (Id. at 1; see Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl.
3
Ex. A.)
4
5
Discussion
I.
Legal Standards
6
Patent Local Rule 3.3 require a party opposing a claim of patent infringement to
7
serve on all parties its “Invalidity Contentions” within 60 days after being served with the
8
“Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.” Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)
9
provides:
10
11
12
13
As a matter of right, a party opposing a claim of patent infringement may
serve “Amended Invalidity Contentions” no later than the completion of claim
construction discovery. Thereafter, absent undue prejudice to the opposing
party, a party opposing infringement may only amend its validity contentions:
...
14
15
3. upon a timely motion showing good cause.
16
The Federal Circuit has explained that patent local rules such as these “requir[e] both
17
the plaintiff and the defendant in patent cases to provide early notice of their infringement
18
and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with diligence in amending those contentions
19
when new information comes to light in the course of discovery. The rules thus seek to
20
balance the right to develop new information in discovery with the need for certainty as to
21
the legal theories.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355,
22
1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “In contrast to the more liberal policy for amending pleadings,
23
‘the philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly conservative, and designed to
24
prevent the “shifting sands” approach to claim construction.’” Verinata Health, Inc. v.
25
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
26
To establish “good cause” under Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)(3), the moving party must
27
demonstrate that it “has acted diligently and the opposing party will not be prejudiced.” Id.
28
(“‘[T]he moving party bears the burden of demonstrating good cause.’”); see O2 Micro,
3
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
1
467 F.3d at 1355. “‘[T]he diligence required for a showing of good cause has two subparts:
2
(1) diligence in discovering the basis for amendment; and (2) diligence in seeking
3
amendment once the basis for amendment has been discovered.’” Karl Storz Endoscopy-
4
Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-CV-00876-RS (JSC), 2016 WL 2855260, at *3 (N.D.
5
Cal. May 13, 2016). Further, in the context of a motion for leave to amend contentions,
6
“[p]rejudice is typically found when amending contentions stand to disrupt the case
7
schedule or other court orders.” Id.; see WhatsApp Inc. v. Intercarrier Commc’ns, LLC,
8
No. 13-CV-04272-JST, 2014 WL 12703766, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2014).
9
II.
Analysis
10
A.
11
Defendants have demonstrated that despite their current need to amend their
12
contentions to add two recently discovered prior art references, they were diligent in their
13
previous prior art searches. On May 15, 2018, Defendants served Plaintiffs with their
14
second amended invalidity contentions regarding the ’673 patent, the ’113 patent, and the
15
’799 patent. (Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. H.) Less than two weeks prior,
16
Defendants also served Plaintiffs with their initial invalidity contentions regarding the ’008
17
patent, the ’869 patent, the ’303 patent, and the ’613 patent. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. G.) These
18
invalidity contentions spanned 247 pages and included 107 prior art references and
19
numerous claim charts. (Id. Exs. G, H.) The thoroughness of Defendants’ prior invalidity
20
contentions demonstrates their diligence. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 WL
21
2855260, at *4 (“[Defendant’s] initial invalidity contentions themselves belie a finding that
22
its search was not diligent: they included over 500 prior art references among the 31 claim
23
charts and 400 additional pages of analysis addressing [plaintiff]’s claims. It strains
24
credulity to imagine that [defendant] was not diligent in uncovering and evaluating this
25
many references.”).
Diligence
26
In addition, Defendants’ diligence in preparing their prior invalidity contentions is
27
underscored by the number of patents and claims at issue in this case. In the present action,
28
Plaintiffs allege infringement of over a hundred patent claims. (Doc. No. 101, FAC ¶¶ 54,
4
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
1
61, 72, 84, 93, 104, 111.) Courts “have found good cause to amend invalidity contentions
2
due to the large scope of the initial prior art search” based on the number of claims being
3
asserted in the action. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 WL 2855260, at *5; see, e.g.,
4
Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., No. C 12-01106 WHA, 2013 WL 1949051, at
5
*2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2013).
6
Further, Defendants were diligent in moving to amend their contentions. Defendants
7
became aware of the Hou and Yang references sometime after May 15, 2018, during the
8
time when they were preparing their IPR petitions. (Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. ¶ 11.)
9
Defendants gave Plaintiffs notice of their intent to move for leave to amend their
10
contentions to include these two references on July 11, 2018, and Defendants filed the
11
present motion on July 18, 2018, about two months later. (Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. ¶
12
12; Doc. No. 216.) The less than two months period between the time Defendants
13
discovered the references at issue and the time Defendants gave Plaintiffs notice of their
14
intent to amend their invalidity contentions is reasonable and establishes Defendants’
15
diligence in seeking leave to amend.1 See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 WL 2855260,
16
at *7 (finding diligence where the defendant moved for leave to amend within two months
17
of discovering the references at issue and within one month of filing its IPR petition);
18
Radware Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C-13-02021-RMW, 2014 WL 3728482, at *2
19
(N.D. Cal. 2014) (“[U]nder these particular facts, three months’ delay in moving for leave
20
to amend does not undermine [defendant’s] diligence.”).
21
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants could not have been diligent in their previous prior
22
art searches because the Hou and Yang references were both published in major journals
23
in the relevant field and both references are cited in “Huang (2004),” a reference that was
24
included in Defendants’ initial December 15, 2017 invalidity contentions. (Doc. No. 262
25
26
1
27
28
Plaintiffs criticize Defendants for failing to state the precise date on which they discovered the
Yang and Hou references. (Doc. No. 262 at 6-7, 11.) But regardless what that specific date was, it is
undisputed that it was less than two months between the date of discovery and the date Defendants notified
Plaintiffs of their intent to amend their contentions, a reasonable period of time.
5
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
1
at 7-8.) But other courts have rejected similar arguments, particularly in a case such as
2
this, where the defendant is facing an enormous number of a claims and a correspondingly
3
enormous number of relevant prior art references. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016
4
WL 2855260, at *5 (“[T]he mere possibility that [defendant] might have discovered the
5
references earlier does not defeat its diligence.”). “Unsuccessful prior art searches,
6
standing alone, do not demonstrate an absence of diligence.” Network Prot. Scis., 2013
7
WL 1949051, at *2. In sum, Defendants have demonstrated that they were diligent in
8
discovering the prior art references at issue and moving to amend to include them in their
9
contentions.
10
B.
11
Turning to the prejudice, here, Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiffs would
12
not be prejudiced by amendment of the invalidity contentions. This action is currently in
13
the middle of the discovery and claim construction stages of the case. A claim construction
14
hearing on the ’008 patent, the ’869 patent, the ’303 patent, and the ’613 patent is scheduled
15
for August 31, 2018. (Doc. No. 105 at 14.) Initial expert reports are not due until
16
November 9, 2018, and the close of fact and expert discovery is not until January 24, 2019.
17
(Id. at 14-15.) The pretrial motion cutoff is not until February 14, 2019, and the trial date
18
is scheduled for May 14, 2019. (Id. at 15-16.) “Therefore, [Plaintiffs] will not be
19
prejudiced by amendment of the invalidity contentions because ‘there is still ample time
20
left in the discovery period.’” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. C 12-
21
05501 SI, 2014 WL 1648175, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (finding no prejudice where
22
the fact discovery deadline was four months away, the expert discovery deadline was seven
23
months away, and the trial date was ten months away).
Prejudice
24
Further, Defendants’ proposed amended invalidity contentions would not pose a risk
25
to any of the above discovery and motion deadlines or the Court’s trial schedule. “Courts
26
have found no prejudice where, as here, the proposed amendments did not pose a risk to
27
discovery and motion deadlines or the trial schedule.” Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016
28
WL 2855260, at *7.
6
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
1
In addition, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that they will suffer prejudice if
2
the Court grants Defendants’ motion because they will be forced to spend additional time
3
analyzing and responding to the amended contentions. (See Doc. No. 262 at 13.) Plaintiffs
4
will have to spend additional time analyzing and responding to the prior art references at
5
issue regardless of whether Defendants amend their invalidity contentions because those
6
references are already at issue in the co-pending IPR proceedings. Moreover, a complaint
7
that amendment of the contentions would cause Plaintiffs “to perform more work than it
8
would have to perform otherwise . . . is not prejudice.” Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016
9
WL 2855260, at *9; see Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 505, 510
10
n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Generally, the issue is not whether the defendant would be required
11
to engage in additional work in response to newly amended claims.”). In sum, Defendants
12
have demonstrated that the proposed amendments to their invalidity contentions would not
13
prejudice Plaintiffs.2
14
Conclusion
15
For the reasons above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to amend their invalidity
16
contentions. The Court orders Defendants to serve their amended invalidity contentions
17
on Plaintiffs within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 24, 2018
20
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court notes that even if it assumed that Defendants were not diligent, the lack of any prejudice
at all to Plaintiffs from the proposed amendments would lead to Court to exercise its discretion and still
grant Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am.,
2016 WL 2855260, at *3 (“[T]he court retains discretion to grant leave to amend even in the absence of
diligence so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party.”); see Twilio, Inc. v. TeleSign Corp., No.
16CV06925LHKSVK, 2017 WL 3581186, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017).
7
17-cv-01394-H-NLS
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?