Geotag, Inc. v. DSW Inc.

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 6/11/2013. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
GEOTAG, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., ET AL.
YELLOWPAGES.COM, LLC, ET AL.
GEORGIO ARMANI S.P.A., ET AL.
AROMATIQUE, INC., ET AL.
GUCCI AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., ET AL.
ROYAL PURPLE INC, ET AL.
YAKIRA, LLC, ET AL.
WHERE 2 GET IT INC., ET AL.
EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.
AMERCO, ET AL.
7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL.
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.
CANON, INC., ET AL.
AMERICAN APPAREL INC.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.
AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS INC..
ANN INC.
BURLEIGH POINT LTD.
CATALOGUE VENTURES, INC.
BURBERRY LIMITED
BURLINGTON FACTORY WAREHOUSE
CORPORATION
CACHE INC.
THE WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY
CHARMING SHOPPES INC.
CHICO’S FAS INC.
CITI TRENDS INC.
CLAIRE’S BOUTIQUES, INC.
COLDWATER CREEK INC.
DAVID’S BRIDAL INC.
1

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-265
(LEAD CASE)
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-272
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-569
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-570
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-571
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-573
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-575
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-587
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-175
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-404
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-421
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-424
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-425
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-043
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-436
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-437
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-438
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-439
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-441
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-442
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-443
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-444
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-445
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-446
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-447
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-448
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-449
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-450
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-451
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-452

DELIAS INC.
DIESEL U.S.A. INC.
DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON, INC.
DOTS, LLC
DRAPER’S & DAMON’S INC.
EDDIE BAUER LLC
ESPRIT US RETAIL LIMITED
THE FINISH LINE INC.
FOREVER 21 RETAIL INC.
FORMAL SPECIALISTS LTD.
FREDRICK’S OF HOLLYWOOD STORES, INC.
GROUPE DYNAMITE, INC. D/B/A GARAGE
GUESS? RETAIL INC.
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP
HANESBRANDS INC.
HOT TOPIC INC.
HUGO BOSS FASHION INC.
J. CREW GROUP INC.
JIMMY JAZZ INC.
JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS INC.
ALCO STORES INC.
BROWN SHOE COMPANY INC.
COLLECTIVE BRANDS INC.
CROCS INC.
DSW INC. D/B/A DSW SHOE INC.
GENESCO INC.
HEELY’S INC.
AMERICAN GREETING CORPORATION
HALLMARK CARDS, INC.
HICKORY FARMS INC.
SPENCER GIFTS LLC
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC
THINGS REMEMBERED, INC.
THE YANKEE CANDLE COMPANY, INC.
BOSE CORPORATION
GUITAR CENTER INC.
24 HOUR FITNESS WORLDWIDE INC.
BALLY TOTAL FITNESS CORPORATION
BARE ESCENTIALS INC.
BIOSCRIP INC.

2

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-454
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-456
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-457
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-458
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-459
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-460
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-461
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-462
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-464
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-465
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-466
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-467
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-468
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-469
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-470
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-471
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-472
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-473
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-474
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-475
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-476
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-477
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-480
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-481
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-482
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-483
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-486
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-487
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-520
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-521
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-522
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-523
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-524
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-525
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-526
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-527
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-528
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-530
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-531
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-532
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-533

CRABTREE & EVELYN
CURVES INTERNATIONAL INC.
GOLD’S GYM INTERNATIONAL INC.
GREAT CLIPS INC.
L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL INC.
LIFE TIME FITNESS INC.
M.A.C. COSMETICS INC.
MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS
VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS,
INC.
REGIS CORPORATION
SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC
SEPHORA USA INC.
ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.
VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES, INC.
EYEMART EXPRESS, LTD.
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC.
NATIONAL VISION INC.
U.S. VISION INC.
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE INC.
PSP GROUP, LLC
WHERE 2 GET IT INC.
V.
GEOTAG, INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-534
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-535
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-536
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-537
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-538
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-539
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-540
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-541
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-542
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-543
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-544
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-545
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-547
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-548
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-549
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-550
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-551
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-552
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-555
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-556
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-149

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement Invalidity
Contentions, filed November 27, 2012.1 The Court having considered the same finds that the

1

Defendants’ have filed the motion in multiple cases as follows: Case No. 2:10-cv-265, Dkt. No. 353; Case No.
2:10-cv-272, Dkt. No. 141; Case No. 2:10-cv-569, Dkt. No. 186; Case No. 2:10-cv-570, Dkt. No. 554; Case No.
2:10-cv-571, Dkt. No. 466; Case No. 2:10-cv-573, Dkt. No. 362; Case No. 2:10-cv-575, Dkt. No. 572; Case No.
2:10-cv-587, Dkt. No. 379; Case No. 2:11-cv-175, Dkt. No. 358; Case No. 2:11-cv-404, Dkt. No. 435; Case No.
2:11-cv-421, Dkt. No. 82; Case No. 2:11-cv-424, Dkt. No. 85; Case No. 2:11-cv-425, Dkt. No. 75; Case No. 2:12cv-43, Dkt. No. 95; Case No. 2:12-cv-149, Dkt. No. 83; Case No. 2:12-cv-436, Dkt. No. 52; Case No. 2:12-cv-437,
Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-438, Dkt. No. 46; Case No. 2:12-cv-439, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-441, Dkt.
No. 51; Case No. 2:12-cv-442, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-443, Dkt. No. 52; Case No. 2:12-cv-444, Dkt. No. 48;
Case No. 2:12-cv-445, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-446, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-447, Dkt. No. 47; Case
No. 2:12-cv-448, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-449, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-450, Dkt. No. 48; Case No.
2:12-cv-451, Dkt. No. 52; Case No. 2:12-cv-452, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-454, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12cv-456, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-457, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-458, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-459,

3

motion should be DENIED.
I. Applicable Law
A party’s invalidity contentions are deemed to be the party’s final invalidity contentions
unless amendment or supplementation is permitted by the Local Patent Rules. P.R. 3-6. In
limited circumstances, amendment of invalidity contentions is permitted as of right. P.R. 3-6(a).
Otherwise, amendment “may be made only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only
upon a showing of good cause.”

P.R. 3-6(b).

When determining whether a party has

demonstrated good cause, the Court considers: (1) the explanation for the party’s failure to meet
the deadline; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice from allowing the
amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. S & W Enters.,
L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
II. Discussion
Defendants served their invalidity contentions on August 17, 2012. By the present
motion, Defendants seek leave pursuant to Patent Rule 3-6(b) to supplement their invalidity
contentions to include 36 additional prior art references describing the following five prior art

Dkt. No. 55; Case No. 2:12-cv-460, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-461, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-462, Dkt.
No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-464, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-465, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-466, Dkt. No. 47;
Case No. 2:12-cv-467, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-468, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-469, Dkt. No. 47; Case
No. 2:12-cv-470, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-471, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-472, Dkt. No. 48; Case No.
2:12-cv-473, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-474, Dkt. No. 62; Case No. 2:12-cv-475, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12cv-476, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-477, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-480, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-481,
Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-482, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-483, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-486, Dkt.
No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-487, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-520, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-521, Dkt. No. 48;
Case No. 2:12-cv-522, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-523, Dkt. No. 51; Case No. 2:12-cv-524, Dkt. No. 44; Case
No. 2:12-cv-525, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-526, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-527, Dkt. No. 45; Case No.
2:12-cv-528, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-530, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-531, Dkt. No. 42; Case No. 2:12cv-532, Dkt. No. 43; Case No. 2:12-cv-533, Dkt. No. 43; Case No. 2:12-cv-534, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-535,
Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-536, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-537, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-538, Dkt.
No. 46; Case No. 2:12-cv-539, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-540, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-541, Dkt. No. 44;
Case No. 2:12-cv-542, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-543, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-544, Dkt. No. 48; Case
No. 2:12-cv-545, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-547, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-548, Dkt. No. 45; Case No.
2:12-cv-549, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-550, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-551, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12cv-552, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-555, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-556, Dkt. No. 44. For brevity, the Court
cites only to the briefing filed in Case No. 2:10-cv-265.

4

systems: (1) EAAsy Sabre; (2) Prodigy; (3) America On Line (“AOL”); (4) CompuServe; and
(5) Delphi (collectively “the Supplemental References”). According to Defendants, their “first
inkling” of the relevance of the Supplemental References came on September 5, 2012, when
Defendants’ counsel received an email from co-counsel stating that “he had gone through some
old boxes of books while cleaning out his garage and came across [an early AOL User Guide].”
(Dkt. No. 353 at 5, Ex. 1 ¶ 4.) Defendants thereafter searched for earlier versions of the AOL
User Guide, as well as additional similar references relating to online Internet service providers.
On November 12, 2012, Defendants disclosed the Supplemental References to Plaintiff GeoTag,
Inc. (“GeoTag”).
The Court is not persuaded that Defendants have acted diligently in discovering such
Supplemental References. The Defendants should have, at the least, timely uncovered the AOL
User Guide that triggered Defendants’ search into the Supplemental References because it had
been in the possession of Defendants’ counsel. While Defendants argue that “it is often more
difficult to identify web-based prior art” (Dkt. No. 353 at 8), the Supplemental References here
are not obscure internet references but include what might well be described as the largest and
most popular internet systems of the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, Defendants did not appear to
encounter any difficulty in finding and attaining the references once the discovery of the AOL
User Guide prompted the search. (See Dkt. No. 353 Ex. 1 ¶¶ 4-7.) Moreover, the patent-in-suit
itself discloses both AOL and Compuserve, and Defendants’ original invalidity contentions cited
a system that explicitly ran on Prodigy.

Ultimately, Defendants’ only explanation for its

untimely invalidity contentions is that counsel happened upon a reference while cleaning out his
garage. Such happenstance discovery in these circumstances does not demonstrate the diligence
necessary to support the late supplementation now requested. In the Court’s view, to hold

5

.

otherwise would render “the explanation for the party’s failure to meet the deadline” a nonfactor.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ Opposed Motion for
Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions should be and is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of June, 2013.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6