Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01697/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01697-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNILOC 2017 LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01697-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

AMEND; GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 94

1. Uniloc’s motion to amend its infringement contentions is granted for good cause. See

Patent Local R. 3-6. Uniloc timely moved to amend its contentions upon receipt of material, nonpublic information regarding the Apple Watch, and Apple has not demonstrated that it will suffer 

prejudice as a result of the amendment. In any event, the original infringement contentions 

impermissibly charted the Apple Watch along with the iPhone and iPad. See Patent Local R. 3-

1(c); Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., 2019 WL 955000, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 27, 2019). The Court would have ordered Uniloc to file compliant infringement contentions, 

rather than impose the “severe sanction” of striking the contentions outright. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. 

Amazon.com, Inc., 2018 WL 3328423, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2018). The amended contentions 

remedy this particular deficiency.

2. Apple’s motion to strike Uniloc’s amended infringement contentions is denied in large 

part. The contentions are sufficient to place Apple on reasonable notice of Uniloc’s theory for 

relief. That theory may be inconsistent with the proper claim construction of the patent or with 

the real-world facts of how Apple’s devices operate. But Apple cannot say it is in the dark on 

Uniloc’s theory of infringement.

Case 3:19-cv-01697-VC Document 106 Filed 12/13/19 Page 1 of 2
2

The one exception is that Apple’s motion to strike is granted with respect to Uniloc’s 

boilerplate reservation of rights to argue the doctrine of equivalents. Of course, Uniloc may seek 

to amend its contentions for good cause if future developments support the application of this 

doctrine where its applicability is not apparent at present. See Patent Local R. 3-6. But Uniloc 

may not insert a placeholder in the absence of a present theory. See Patent Local R. 3-1(e);

Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01697-VC Document 106 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 2