WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al
ORDER granting 209 Sealed Motion for Leave to Supplement Infringement Contentions; denying 212 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 12/04/12. cc:attys 12-04-12 (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. 6:10-CV-521-LED
Jury Trial Demanded
Before the Court are Wi-Lan Inc.’ Motion for Leave to Supplement Infringement
Contentions (Dkt. No. 209), and Defendants’ Sony Mobile Communications AB and Sony
Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (“Sony Mobile”) Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No.
212). The Court hereby GRANTS Wi-Lan Inc.’s Motion and DENIES Sony Mobile’s Motion.
Defendants Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, and Ericsson
Inc. do not oppose Wi-Lan’s Motion for leave to supplement infringement contentions with
additional product names. Defendants Sony Mobile Communications AB; Sony Mobile
Communications (USA) Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. and Exedea, Inc.
(“Opposing Defendants”) however do oppose the addition of some of the products to the
infrigement contentions. Given that the possible prejudice to the Opposing Defendants is
minimal, and that no continuance is necessary if leave to supplement is granted, Plaintiff is
hereby GRANTED leave to supplement its infrigement contentions with the product names
identified in its Motion.
The Sony Mobile Defendants request that the Court grant a protective order barring WiLAN from obtaining discovery related to products that were not accused in its original
infrigement contentions. Sony Mobile argues that because the additional products were not listed
in the original infrigement contentions and Wi-Lan moved belatedly for leave to amend its
infrigement contentions, Wi-Lan should be barred from obtaining discovery related to such
products. Since the Court has granted leave for Wi-Lan to amend its infringement contentions,
the Court DENIES Sony Mobile’s Motion for Protective Order. Wi-Lan may obtain discovery
related to the products listed in its amended infrigement contentions.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of December, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?