Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation

Filing 203

ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Infringement Contentions (ECF No. 189 ) is granted. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/20/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Case 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK Document 203 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

LINKSMART WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY,
LLC,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK
ORDER

7
Plaintiff,
v.

8
9

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,

10
Defendants.
11
12

I.

SUMMARY

13

Plaintiff Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC alleges that Defendants Caesars

14

Entertainment Corporation, Golden Nugget, Inc., Landry’s Inc., Las Vegas Sands Corp.,

15

MGM Resorts International, and Wynn Las Vegas LLC infringe U.S. Reissued Patent No.

16

RE46,459 (ECF No. 1-1)1 in this consolidated patent case2 because they have systems at

17

their hotels that ask guests for login information the first time those guests connect to the

18

WiFi. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended

19

infringement contentions.3 (ECF No. 189 (“Motion”).) Because Plaintiff admittedly did not

20

comply with LPR 1-12 in filing its amended infringement contentions, has alternatively not

21

shown the good cause requiring diligence that could have permitted its filing of those

22

amended infringement contentions, and as further explained below, the Court will grant

23

the Motion.

24
25

1The

26

2The

27
28

’459 Patent reissued from U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118. (ECF No. 110 at 5.)

Court consolidated Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00864-MMD-NJK, 2:18-cv-00865MMD-NJK, 2:18-cv-00867-MMD-NJK, and 2:18-cv-00868-MMD-NJK under this case.
(ECF No. 45.)
3Plaintiff

filed a response (ECF No. 196), and Defendants replied (ECF No. 198).

Case 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK Document 203 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 6

1

II.

BACKGROUND

2

The Court incorporates by reference the relevant factual background provided in

3

the Court’s claim construction order, and does not recite it here. (ECF No. 137 (“Claim

4

Construction Order”) at 1-3.) As pertinent to the Motion, in the Claim Construction Order,

5

the Court construed the term “redirection server” to mean “a server configured to redirect

6

a user to a location on the public network that is different from the network location in the

7

user’s request[.]” (Id. at 5-10.) This is the construction advanced by Defendants, not

8

Plaintiff. (Id.)

9

A brief timeline is also pertinent to the Motion. Plaintiff served its initial infringement

10

contentions on September 26, 2018. (ECF No. 196 at 4.) The Court amended its Local

11

Rules—including LPR 1-12, upon which the Motion relies—on April 17, 2020. (Id.) The

12

Court issued the Claim Construction Order on May 8, 2020. (ECF No. 137.) United States

13

Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe subsequently set the discovery cutoff for September 8,

14

2020. (ECF No. 145.) Then, on Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 178), Judge Koppe extended

15

the fact discovery cutoff date to December 8, 2020 (ECF No. 187). Plaintiff served its

16

amended infringement contentions on the evening of December 8, 2020. (ECF No. 189-

17

3.) But Plaintiff did not first seek the Court’s leave to amend, on the mistaken belief it was

18

not required to do so. (ECF No. 196 at 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel erroneously relied on a local

19

copy of the prior version of the Court’s Local Rules—which did not require the Court’s

20

leave to file amended infringement contentions—instead of the current version of the Local

21

Rules posted to the Court’s website. (Id.)
Defendants

22

requested

a

meet-and-confer

regarding

Plaintiff’s

amended

23

infringement contentions the evening of December 8, 2020, and the parties met and

24

conferred on December 10, 2020. (ECF No. 189-18.) The parties then followed up with an

25

email thread, previewing the arguments that now figure prominently in the Motion and

26

Plaintiff’s response. (Id.) Unable to resolve their dispute, this Motion followed.

27

///

28

///
2

Case 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK Document 203 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 6

1

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

"The District of Nevada’s Local Patent Rules, like the local patent rules for the

3

Northern District of California, are designed to require the parties to provide ‘early notice

4

of their infringement and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with diligence in amending

5

those contentions when new information comes to light in the course of discovery.”’ Silver

6

State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1161-62 (D. Nev.

7

2014) (“Silver State”) (quoting O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d

8

1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“O2 Micro”)). “In contrast to the liberal policy for amending

9

pleadings under Rule 15, the philosophy behind amending claim charts under the Local

10

Patent Rules is decidedly conservative[.]” Id. at 1162 (citation and internal punctuation

11

omitted). As the Motion is based on LPR 1-12 (ECF No. 189 at 2), that rule provides:

12
13
14
15
16
17

Other than as provided in LPR 1-18a no other amendments to disclosures
may be made other than as set forth herein absent a showing of good cause.
Non-exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue
prejudice to the nonmoving party, support a finding of good cause include:
(a) material changes to the other party’s contentions; (b) recent discovery of
material prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of
nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality despite earlier
diligent search. The duty to supplement discovery responses does not
excuse the need to obtain leave of the court to amend contentions.

18

22

Id. LPR 1-18a, in turn, provides:
Within 14 days of a Claim Construction Order the parties are required to
meet and confer in order to reasonably limit the number of claims and prior
art references asserted. Within 30 days of a Claim Construction Order, the
parties are to amend their disclosures accordingly, and include any other
amendments to their disclosure at that time.

23

Id. Considered together, these rules require that a party amend its disclosures—to the

24

extent those changes are based on a claim construction order—within 30 days of that

25

order issuing. See id. Otherwise, a party who wishes to amend its disclosures such as

26

infringement contentions must: (1) first obtain the Court’s leave, see LPR 1-12; (2) show

27

good cause for the requested amendment, see id.; (3) demonstrate it acted diligently, see

19
20
21

28
3

Case 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK Document 203 Filed 01/20/21 Page 4 of 6

1

Silver State, 32 F. Supp. 3d at 1162 (citation omitted); and (4) show the other party would

2

not be “unfairly prejudiced by ‘eleventh-hour alterations.’” See id. (citation omitted).

3

The question of whether to grant Plaintiff leave to amend its infringement

4

contentions under the Local Patent Rules is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit

5

Court of Appeals. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1364. “Decisions enforcing local rules

6

in patent cases will be affirmed unless clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; based

7

on erroneous conclusions of law; clearly erroneous; or unsupported by any evidence.” Id.

8

at 1366-67 (citation omitted). And “the proper procedure to challenge such amended

9

contentions is through a motion to strike.” Bravo Co. USA, Inc. v. Badger Ordnance LLC,

10

Case No. 2:14-cv-00387-RCJ-GWF, 2016 WL 6518436, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2016).

11

IV.

DISCUSSION

12

Defendants argue the Court should grant the Motion because: (1) Plaintiff violated

13

LPR 1-12 by not first seeking the Court’s leave to file its amended infringement

14

contentions; and, alternatively because (2) Plaintiff cannot establish good cause for its

15

desired amendments, as it was (3) not diligent in filing its amended contentions; and (4)

16

Defendants would be unduly prejudiced if the Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on its

17

amended contentions filed right at the close of discovery. (ECF No. 189 at 5-8.) Plaintiff

18

responds that Defendants are not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s late amendment because the

19

theories reflected in its amended contentions are not really new, concedes it did not

20

comply with LPR 1-12 because its counsel mistakenly was looking at an old version of the

21

Local Rules, but nonetheless argues good cause exists for Plaintiff’s amended contentions

22

because Defendants were slow to produce discovery. (ECF No. 196 at 6-10.) The Court

23

agrees with Defendants.

24

To start, there is no dispute that Plaintiff’s amended infringement contentions

25

violate LPR 1-12 because Plaintiff filed them without first seeking the Court’s leave.4 (ECF

26
27
28

4To

the extent Plaintiff sought to amend its infringement contentions to respond to
the Court’s construction of “redirection server” in the Claim Construction Order, as
suggested by the fact that Plaintiff sought to add more detail to its amended infringement
4

Case 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK Document 203 Filed 01/20/21 Page 5 of 6

1

Nos. 189 at 5, 196 at 9.) The fact that Plaintiff’s noncompliance was inadvertant is of no

2

moment. See LPR 1-12 (declining to make the voluntariness of a party’s compliance a

3

consideration). Moreover, the current version of LPR 1-12 applies to this case even though

4

this case was filed before the current version of LPR 1-12 became effective. See LPR 1-

5

3 (“The court may apply all or part of these rules to any case already pending on the

6

effective date of these rules.”).5 In addition, Plaintiff never attempted to retroactively seek

7

the Court’s leave to file its amended contentions after it learned from Defendants that it

8

must. (ECF No. 196 at 9.) The Court accordingly sees no reason not to apply LPR 1-12

9

as written, and will grant the Motion because of Plaintiff’s admitted noncompliance with

10

LPR 1-12.

11

Alternatively, the Court will grant the Motion because Plaintiff’s primary argument

12

in response to the Motion is unpersuasive on its own terms. In gist, Plaintiff argues it had

13

good cause to amend its infringement contentions because Defendants were slow in

14

producing discovery, and Plaintiff amended its contentions in response to discovery

15

produced by Defendants. (ECF No. 196 at 10.) But even Plaintiff states Defendants

16

produced the discovery that Plaintiff seems to argue triggered its desire to amend its

17

infringement contentions at the end of August, 2020, and Plaintiff did not file its amended

18

contentions until December 8, 2020—over three months later. (Id. at 5, 10.) Diligence is

19

an element of good cause under LPR 1-12, see Silver State, 32 F. Supp. 3d at 1162

20

(citation omitted), and waiting over three months does not show diligence, see O2 Micro,

21

467 F.3d at 1366-68 (affirming the district court’s finding that waiting three months to file

22

amended contentions after receiving new discovery is not diligent). Plaintiff also mentions,

23
24
25
26
27
28

contentions indicating that Defendants’ systems connect to public network locations,
Plaintiff’s amended contentions are clearly untimely and thus also violate LPR 1-18a. (ECF
Nos. 137 (filed May 8, 2020), 189-3 (dated December 8, 2020).) See also LPR 1-18a
(providing that amended contentions responsive to a Claim Construction Order must be
filed within 30 days of that order issuing).
5Plaintiff

also concedes that the most recent version of the Local Rules became
effective April 17, 2020. (ECF No. 196 at 4.) Plaintiff served its amended infringement
contentions nearly 8 months after the new version of the rules became effective. (ECF No.
189-3.)
5

Case 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK Document 203 Filed 01/20/21 Page 6 of 6

1

but then ignores, the fact that it sought and obtained an extension of the discovery cut-off

2

date from September 8 to December 8, 2020. (ECF No. 196 at 4-5.) This further cuts

3

against a finding of diligence.

4

In sum, the Court will grant the Motion because Plaintiff admits it did not comply

5

with LPR 1-12, and alternatively because Plaintiff has not established good cause for its

6

attempted amendments in any event.

7

V.

CONCLUSION

8

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

9

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

10
11
12
13

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the Motion.
It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended
infringement contentions (ECF No. 189) is granted.
DATED THIS 20th Day of January 2021.

14
15
16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6