Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CANON INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03640-CW (DMR)

Case No. 14-3643 CW (DMR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT

CONTENTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 365 (14-3640), 132 (14-3643)

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited LLC (“TPL”) and MCM Portfolio LLC 

(“MCM”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Canon Inc.; and Canon U.S.A., Inc. 

(“Canon”) and Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a joint 

discovery letter in which Plaintiffs move for leave to amend their infringement contentions. 

[Docket Nos. 365 (No. C 14-3640), 132 (No. C14-3643) (Joint Letter).] 1 Having considered the 

parties’ briefing and oral argument, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their infringement contentions is 

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

In these related patent cases, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ products infringe one or 

 

1 All further docket references are to the entries in the lead case, No. 14-3640-CW, Technology 

Properties Ltd. LLC v. Canon Inc., unless otherwise noted.

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 9
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

more patents issued to MCM and licensed by TPL. In March 2012, Plaintiffs filed suits against 

Canon and HP in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The suits involve 

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,295,443 (“the ‘443 patent”), 7,522,424 (“the ‘424 patent”), and 7,719,847 (“the 

‘847 patent”), all entitled “Smartconnect Universal Flash Media Card Adapters.” These patents 

relate to memory card readers, which are used in electronic devices such as laptops and printers to 

view digital photos and videos. The court issued a stay pending resolution of an action filed by 

TPL with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and lifted the stay in 

February 2014 after the ITC proceedings concluded. 

In August 2014, the court transferred the cases to the Northern District of California. In 

October 2014, these two cases, along with other patent infringement cases brought by Plaintiffs 

against various defendants, were related before the Hon. Claudia Wilken.2 On September 18, 

2015, Judge Wilken issued an order construing seven disputed claim terms. [Docket No. 334 

(Claim Construction Order).] On November 4, 2015, Judge Wilken issued an order amending the 

September 18, 2015 claim construction order, modifying its construction of two disputed claim 

terms; those modifications are not at issue in the present motion. [Docket No. 359.] Plaintiffs 

now seek leave to amend their infringement contentions based on the claim construction order.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

The local rules of the Northern District of California require parties to define their theories 

of patent infringement and invalidity early on in the course of litigation. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. 

Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “In contrast to the more 

liberal policy for amending pleadings, the philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly 

conservative, and designed to prevent the shifting sands approach to claim construction.” Positive 

Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No. C. 11-2226-SI, 2013 WL 322556, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 

2013) (citation omitted). Thus, this district’s Patent Local Rules permit parties to amend their 

infringement contentions “only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” See 

 

2

The remaining defendants in the related cases are Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, 

Inc. (“Seiko Epson”) (No. C 14-3646 CW). Seiko Epson does not join in this dispute.

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 9
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Patent L.R. 3-6. The Patent Local Rules provide a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that 

support a finding of good cause, provided there is no prejudice to the non-moving party. These 

include “(a) claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking 

amendment; (b) recent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent 

discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, 

despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions.” Patent L.R. 3-6. By 

requiring a showing of good cause, “Local Rule 3-6 serves to balance the parties’ rights to develop 

new information in discovery along with the need for certainty in legal theories at the start of the 

case.” Open DNS, Inc. v. Select Notifications Media, LLC, No. C-11-5101 EJD (HRL), 2013 WL

2422623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) (citing O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366).

The court may deny a motion for leave to amend infringement contentions if it would 

cause “undue prejudice to the non-moving party.” Patent L.R. 3-6. Where the moving party is 

unable to show diligence, there is “no need to consider the question of prejudice,” see O2 Micro, 

467 F.3d at 1368, although a court in its discretion may elect to do so, see, e.g., Dynetix Design 

Solutions Inc. v. Synopsys Inc., No. Cv-11-5973-PSG, 2012 WL 6019898, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 

2012). The moving party bears the burden of establishing diligence. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 

1366. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their infringement contentions based on the claim 

construction order as to each of the seven terms construed by Judge Wilken. Defendants oppose 

the amendments only as to two of the seven terms: “means for [identifying/determining] the type 

of memory card inserted into said port” and “contact pins integrated within the molded plastic.” 

Defendants also oppose amendments to the preambles of the independent claims related to the 

amendments to “means for identifying/determining.”

Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists for the disputed amendments because they address 

the court’s construction of the two terms in a manner different from that proposed by the parties, 

as follows:

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 9
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Element Defendants’ 

Proposal

Plaintiffs’ 

Proposal

Court’s Construction

“means for 

[identifying/determining] 

the type of memory card 

inserted into said port”3

Structure: “a 

controller and card 

detect lines for the 

various cards, 

wherein the card 

detect lines for at 

least one type of 

memory card is 

multiplexed with 

data bus lines for at 

least one other type 

of card”

Function: 

“identifying the 

type of memory 

card inserted into 

said port”

Structure: “a 

controller”

Function: 

“identifying the 

type of memory 

card inserted into 

said port” 

Structure: “a controller 

and card detect lines”

Function: 

“[identifying/determining] 

the type of memory card 

inserted into said port”

“contact pins integrated 

within the molded 

plastic”

Contact pins are 

“embedded within 

molded plastic.” 

Contact pins do not 

correspond to 

floating contact 

pins. 

Plain and ordinary 

meaning; no 

construction 

necessary

“contact pins embedded 

within the molded plastic”

As to the first term, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend based on the court’s construction of this term to 

require “a controller and card detect lines,” arguing that neither party proposed this construction. 

Plaintiffs request amendment to provide further detail about how the accused products include 

“card detect lines,” and to include an infringement contention under the doctrine of equivalents.

Plaintiffs assert that the court’s construction of the structure as “a controller and card detect lines” 

(plural rather than singular) necessitates the addition of a doctrine of equivalents argument. They 

also seek leave to amend the preambles of the independent claims to “clarify Plaintiffs’ 

amendments to ‘means for identifying/determining” by “identify[ing] a category of infringing 

 

3

In the claim construction order, the court noted the parties’ agreement that these phrases are 

means-plus-function claims governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, which “permits an applicant to 

express a claim limitation as a means or step for performing a specified function without claiming 

the structure that performs the function.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 

947 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The parties “agree that the function is identifying the type of memory card 

inserted into the port,” but dispute the corresponding structure. Claim Construction Order at 17.

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 9
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

products” which “provide[s] supporting evidence for its amended contentions on ‘card detect 

lines.’” Joint Letter at 3 n.8. As to the second term, Judge Wilken held that “[c]onstruction of the 

term to require that the contact pins be embedded--that is, firmly fixed--in the molded plastic 

reflects [the] stated purpose” that “‘integrating’ the pins into the plastic is to build a physical 

structure that is sturdier than if the pins were merely resting upon the plastic.” Claim Construction 

Order at 24. Plaintiffs seek to add an infringement contention under the doctrine of equivalents in 

light of the court’s statement that the pins must be “firmly fixed.” Plaintiffs argue that neither 

party proposed a “firmly fixed” limitation. 

In response, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to introduce new 

theories of infringement. They argue that Plaintiffs have not acted diligently, because they have 

been on notice for years of the same constructions upon which they now rely to justify 

amendment.

A. Diligence

Plaintiffs argue that they acted diligently in seeking leave to amend their infringement 

contentions. Following the September 18, 2015 claim construction order, Plaintiffs worked with 

their expert to determine where amendment was appropriate. Plaintiffs prepared and served 

proposed amended contentions less than 30 days after the court’s order, and promptly moved for 

leave to amend once they learned that Defendants opposed certain amendments. Joint Letter at 3-

4. As noted, Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides that circumstances that support a finding of good 

cause include “[a] claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party 

seeking amendment.” Patent L.R. 3-6(a). There is no dispute that Judge Wilken declined to adopt 

the constructions proposed by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend on October 23, 

2015, just over one month after the court issued its claim construction order. [See Docket No. 

344.] 

In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for the proposed 

amendments because they seek to introduce new theories of infringement for the first time in a 

case that the parties have been litigating since March 2012. Specifically, they argue that the 

court’s recent claim construction order “is not the first one construing the claims at issue.” Joint 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 9
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Letter at 5. According to Defendants, the parties first exchanged proposed constructions for the 

claims at issue in this case in July 2012 in the ITC. They contend that the ITC respondents, 

including Canon and HP, initially proposed a construction for the term “contact pins are integrated 

within the molded plastic” that construed “integrated” as “embedded,” consistent with Judge 

Wilken’s construction. They also proposed that the structure for the term “means for identifying” 

included “a controller that reads card detect lines.” Joint Letter at 5. On October 5, 2012, the ALJ 

presiding over the ITC proceeding issued an order adopting the respondents’ proposed 

construction of “integrated” as “embedded,” and stated that the structure for “means for 

identifying” could include card detect lines. Id. 

Following the lifting of the stay and transfer of the cases to this District, Plaintiffs served 

infringement contentions that incorporated by reference their ITC expert report, which applied the 

ALJ’s claim construction. Plaintiffs served supplemental infringement contentions on March 6, 

2015. According to Defendants, the court’s recent claim construction order “is, with few 

exceptions, consistent with the ALJ’s constructions and/or constructions previously proposed by 

Defendants.” Therefore, Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments “are improper because [Plaintiffs] had 

all the information [they] needed to raise these arguments for years, but never included them in 

[their] contentions until now.” Joint Letter at 6. 

“[D]iffering claim construction in and of itself does not constitute good cause [to amend 

infringement contentions].” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. C 12-00865 SI, 2014 

WL 789197, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) (citation omitted). “[T]he moving party must still 

establish its diligence.” Id. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ diligence must be measured from 

2012, when Defendants first proposed constructions of the disputed terms in the ITC proceeding 

and the ALJ construed the disputed terms in a manner purportedly consistent with Defendants’ 

proposed constructions. Defendants do not cite any cases in which a court assessed diligence 

dating back to an ITC or similar proceeding. Instead, they cite Cisco Systems, Inc. v. 

Teleconference Systems, LLC, No. 09-cv-01550 JSW (NC), 2012 WL 9337627, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. 

June 11, 2012), in support of their position. In Cisco Systems, the court measured the moving 

party’s diligence in seeking leave to amend its infringement contentions from the date the 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 6 of 9
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

opposing party served its proposed meritorious construction, rather than from the date the court 

issued its claim construction order. 

The court notes that courts in this district have split in interpreting Patent Local Rule 3-

6(a), which provides that “a claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the 

party seeking amendment” may support a finding of good cause to amend. For example, in 

Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132169, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 12, 2013), one court held that Patent Local Rule 3-6(a) “imposes no different standard 

when the different claim construction was first proposed by the opposing party.” Similarly, in 

Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-cv-01300-JSW (MEJ), 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 73935, at *16-17 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2015), the court rejected the argument that a party 

seeking leave to amend its infringement contentions must “establish it acted with diligence from 

the time it received the proposed claim constructions, not from the time those constructions [] 

were ultimately ordered by the Court,” citing Emblaze. In comparison, the court in Verinata held 

that the moving party had failed to establish diligence in moving to amend its invalidity 

contentions where the court had adopted the opposing party’s proposed constructions and the 

moving party’s original contentions were “based on how [the moving party] understands Plaintiffs 

may be construing the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.” 2014 WL 789197, at *2-3; see also

Sunpower Corp. Sys. v. Sunlink Corp., No. C-08-2807 SBA (EMC), 2009 WL 1657987, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009) (moving party failed to show good cause where “[t]he risk of the 

construction rendered by the presiding judge was well known and anticipated by [the moving 

party]” and the moving party had already served “[p]rior art and claims charts anticipating that 

construction.”). 

This court need not resolve this split, because regardless of the proposed constructions

before the ITC, the district court in this case did not simply adopted the constructions proposed by 

Defendants. Instead, Judge Wilken adopted a modified version of Defendants’ proposed 

constructions for each of the two disputed terms. As to the first disputed term, Defendants 

proposed “a controller and card detect lines for the various cards, wherein the card detect lines for 

at least one type of memory card is multiplexed with data bus lines for at least one other type of 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 7 of 9
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

card.” The court construed this term as “a controller and card detect lines,” specifically rejecting 

Defendants’ contention that the data bus lines “be multiplexed in all embodiments of the patent.” 

Claim Construction Order at 19. 

As to the second disputed term, Defendants proposed a construction that the pins are 

“embedded within molded plastic,” and that “contact pins do not correspond to floating pins.” 

While a portion of the court’s construction was consistent with Defendants’ proposal, (“contact 

pins embedded within molded plastic,”) the court also concluded “that the claims do not

necessarily disallow the use of floating pins in every embodiment,” and declined to define the 

claim term with reference to floating contact pins. Claim Construction Order at 23-24. Further, 

the court noted that “[c]onstruction of the term to require that the contact pins be embedded--that 

is, firmly fixed--in the molded plastic reflects [the] stated purpose” of “‘integrating’ the pins into 

the plastic . . . to build a physical structure that is sturdier than if the pins were merely resting upon 

the plastic.” Claim Construction Order at 24. As Plaintiffs note (and Defendants do not dispute), 

the “firmly fixed” condition was never proposed by any party to these proceedings. Therefore, the 

court’s construction of the two terms at issue differed from Defendants’ proposals. It is therefore 

inappropriate to measure Plaintiffs’ diligence from a date earlier than the court’s claim 

construction order.4 See MyMedicalRecords, Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-02538-

ODW(SHx), 2014 WL 5810363, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (holding that it was reasonable to 

wait to move to amend infringement contentions until after claim construction order; noting 

“[n]either party had any way of predicting how the Court would rule on the claim construction 

dispute before it issued the Claim–Construction Order.”)

 

4 Defendants also cite Angioscore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, Inc., No. 12-cv-03393-YGR, 2015 

WL 75187, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015), for the proposition that a party seeking to amend 

infringement contentions based upon a claim construction order must show good cause and “must 

also demonstrate that (1) the Court’s construction was ‘so different that amended infringement 

contentions were necessary,’ and must (2) give a reason for why it waited until so late in the 

litigation to disclose its position on infringement.” However, the court in Angioscore did not cite 

any authority for this additional test. The court notes that it has not found any cases following this 

portion of Angioscore, and the court respectfully declines to follow it here. Further, Angioscore is 

distinguishable, as the court denied a motion for leave to amend infringement contentions as 

untimely where the moving party waited five months after the claim construction and summary 

judgment order to seek leave to amend. Id. at *5.

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 8 of 9
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

 The court concludes that Plaintiffs have established diligence in seeking leave to amend

one month after the court issued the claim construction order. See, e.g., Chrimar, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 73935, at *16-21 (finding moving party had demonstrated diligence by moving for leave to 

amend infringement contentions less than one month after claim construction order).

B. Prejudice

Plaintiffs argue that the proposed amendments do not prejudice Defendants in any way,

given that expert discovery is open until June 16, 2016 and trial is set to begin December 5, 2016, 

over ten months away. Defendants assert only that Plaintiffs’ “proposal of new infringement 

theories after over three years represents exactly the ‘shifting sands approach’ that the Patent 

Local Rules are designed to prevent.” Joint Letter at 8 (citation omitted). Defendants do not set 

forth any actual prejudice that would result from permitting Plaintiffs leave to amend their 

infringement contentions, nor do they articulate any other basis for prejudice. Accordingly, the 

court finds that Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by permitting Plaintiffs to amend their 

infringement contentions. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their infringement 

contentions is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall serve amended infringement contentions within 14

days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 182 Filed 04/06/16 Page 9 of 9