Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06946/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06946-13/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORETRONIC CORPORATION and

OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06946 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its

Preliminary Infringement Contentions

On November 6, 2006 plaintiff Seiko Epson Corporation (“Seiko” or “plaintiff”) brought this

action against Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc. (collectively “Coretronic” or

“defendants”) alleging infringement of various U.S. Patents relating to display projectors. Now

before the court is plaintiff’s motion to amend its preliminary infringement contentions. Having

considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the court

rules as follows.

BACKGROUND1

On June 19, 2007 Seiko served interrogatories on Coretronic that sought an identification of

all the companies for which Coretronic has designed and/or manufactured projectors along with the

trade names and designations of those projectors. The interrogatories also sought an identification,

inter alia, of Coretronic’s projectors that were substantially similar to the projectors Seiko then

understood to infringe the asserted patents. Coretronic’s responses, provided on July 19, 2007, did

not fully answer the interrogatories.

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In its July 20, 2007 preliminary infringement contentions, Seiko accused eighteen Coretronic

projectors of infringement. Subsequently, after attempting in vain to obtain responses to the

unanswered June 2007 interrogatories, Seiko brought a motion to compel that was heard by

Magistrate Judge LaPorte on February 26, 2008. Judge LaPorte granted the motion in part and

Coretronic’s supplemental responses were served on March 27, 2008.

The supplemental responses were all designated “Confidential - Outside Attorneys’ Eyes

Only.” Utermohlen Dec., Exh. 1. The responses identified many projectors as having

“potentially . . . the same configuration as those used in the accused products.” Id. at 2–3. Seiko’s

counsel sought to investigate these projectors by attempting to purchase an example of each

projector sold in the United States. However, Seiko’s counsel states that many of the products are

no longer available for purchase, even in used form. Accordingly, counsel wrote Coretronic on

April 8, 2008 asking to inspect samples of projectors not available for purchase. Id., Exh. 2. 

Coretronic refused that request a week later. Id., Exh. 3. Nevertheless, counsel did succeed in

purchasing three projectors, which they now claim infringe Seiko’s patents. Defendants do not

dispute that Seiko may amend its preliminary infringement contentions with respect to these three

projector models.

Plaintiff now moves to add twenty-four other projector models to its preliminary

infringement contentions. This is in addition to the eighteen initially identified. Each of these

models was identified by Coretronic in their supplemental discovery response to interrogatory

number 1. See id., Exh. 1 at 2–4.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the local patent rules, “[e]ach party’s ‘Preliminary Infringement Contentions’ and

‘Preliminary Invalidity Contentions’ shall be deemed to be that party’s final contentions . . . .” Pat.

L.R. 3-6. However, there is an exception with respect to preliminary infringement contentions:

If a party claiming patent infringement believes in good faith that (1) the Court’s

Claim Construction Ruling or (2) the documents produced pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4

so requires, not later than 30 days after service by the Court of its Claim Construction

Ruling, that party may serve ‘Final Infringement Contentions’ without leave of court

that amend its ‘Preliminary Infringement Contentions’ with respect to the information

required by Patent L.R. 3-1(c) and (d).

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Pat. L.R. 3-6(a). If the amendment does not fall into this exception, then amendments of preliminary

or final infringement contentions “may be made only by order of the Court, which shall be entered

only upon a showing of good cause.” Pat. L.R. 3-7.2

The “good cause” requirement disallows infringement contentions from becoming moving

targets throughout the lawsuit. Integrated Circuit Sys., Inc. v. Realtek, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1107

(N.D. Cal. 2004) (Zimmerman, J.). Specifically, with respect to Patent Local Rule 3-7’s predecessor

rule 16-9(c), this district has stated:

The patent local rules were adopted by this district in order to give claim charts more

‘bite.’ The rules are designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the case

early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed. 

Rule 16-9(c) advances this purpose by making it difficult subsequently to revise

claim charts through eleventh hour ‘discovery’ of facts. Unlike the 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 [and] ensure that litigants put all their cards on the table up front.

Id. (quoting Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., No. C 95-1987 FMS, 1998 WL 775115, at

*2–*3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 1998) (Smith, J.)).

To effectuate purposes of both transparency and efficiency, application of the rule turns on:

1) plaintiff’s ability to learn of the additional devices prior to the final infringement contentions date;

and 2) prejudice to the parties. This inquiry first considers whether plaintiff was diligent in

amending its contentions and then considers prejudice to the non-moving party. O2 Micro Intern.

Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366–68 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

DISCUSSION

In order to show good cause, Seiko claims it was unaware that Coretronic manufactured

these twenty-four other potentially infringing projector models until it received Coretronic’s

supplemental responses. Defendants refuse to publicly disclose these model numbers due to

competitive reasons, Utermohlen Dec., Exhs. 2 & 3, and consequently, Seiko claims that due to the

non-public nature of this information, it could not have made these allegations of infringement at the

time it filed its preliminary infringement contentions. The court agrees.

The parties’ dispute, however, centers around the addition of projector models identified in

Coretronic’s supplemental response as “potentially . . . the same configuration as those used in the

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

accused products” that Seiko has not even inspected thus far. Indeed, Seiko’s only basis for the

addition of these projectors is based on Coretronic’s representations. With respect to interrogatory

number 1, Judge LaPorte’s order asked Coretronic to “identify, under oath, any model designations

or other names under which projectors have been sold having the same configurations, with respect

to ventilation or mounting of the lamp reflector to the lamp housing, as the defined Coretronic

Projectors . . . .” Docket No. 155 (hereinafter “Order regarding Motion to Compel”) at 2. The order

also went on to say that “[n]o response under this Order is deemed an admission of infringement or a

legal conclusion.” Id. Coretronic answered the interrogatory, listing the twenty-four projector

models at issue here, stating:

Coretronic conducted a reasonable investigation to determine models of projectors

that potentially may have the same configuration with respect to ventilation and/or

lamp modules. . . . Coretronic has found no records or knowledge that would readily

identify projectors that actually have the same configuration as the accused

Coretronic Projectors, but in good faith provides the following list of projectors that

potentially may have the same configuration with respect to ventilation and/or lamp

modules based on information obtained during its investigation . . . .

Utermohlen Dec., Exh. 1 at 2–3. Seiko claims it is relying upon the interrogatory answer merely for

the factual assertion therein—that the projectors are similarly designed—not a legal conclusion on

the issue of infringement.

It is clear that Coretronic’s responses to Judge LaPorte’s order do not constitute an

admission. Indeed, Judge LaPorte explicitly stated so in her order. Furthermore, during the hearing

on this matter, with respect to interrogatory number 15, Judge LaPorte stated that Seiko cannot “be

encouraged to play any kind of games by saying, [w]ell, we gotcha because you said this was the

same; therefore, somehow, you know, this plays into a legal conclusion.” Rader Dec., Exh. 1 at

26:23–27:2. She also made it clear that Seiko was to conduct its own investigation before making

any new allegations. Id. at 19:14–16 (“plaintiffs will have to do their own investigation with the

Answer to Interrogatory 15.”), 17:14–21 (“it’s the plaintiff’s problem to conduct their own

investigation of the list”). These admonitions, however, were with respect to the much broader

interrogatory number 15, which required Coretronic to “identify[], by brand and model number, all

projector models designed and/or manufactured by Coretronic from January 1, 2004 to the present

that have been sold under a brand name other than Coretronic or Optima.” Order regarding Motion

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

to Compel at 2. Coretronic has not identified any statements that evidence the same duty to

investigate with respect to interrogatory number 1, the answers to which are at issue here. 

Consequently, Seiko’s reliance on Coretronic’s interrogatory responses in order to assert its new

allegations is not directly contrary to Judge LaPorte’s specific instructions.3

During the motion to compel hearing, Judge LaPorte explicitly contemplated the present

motion. She stated that she “wouldn’t allow a huge broadening of the case.” At the same time,

however, she stated that the factors she “would be looking more favorably on: Are there identical or

very similar products that are just marketed under a different name, and essentially raises [sic] the

same set of issues; looking at a case, you know, that would make sense for a judge, and ultimately a

jury, if necessary.” Rader Dec., Exh. 1 at 7:16–8:14.

Coretronic stated that these particular models may potentially have the same configuration as

those already identified as allegedly infringing. Thus, Seiko has a basis to assert that these newly

discovered models may also be infringing. Seiko’s use of discovery to expand its infringement

contentions does not change the court’s analysis. Indeed, discovery is often used to garner

information not available to the proponent in order to thereafter expand the scope of litigation. This

expansion is legitimate where it comes within the metes and bounds of the patent claims already in

issue. Seiko’s failure to purchase or physically examine the projectors is not fatal. Seiko has

represented that it has been unable to inspect the projectors in spite of diligent efforts to do the same. 

Consequently, it may rely on Coretronic’s representation that the projectors in question potentially

have the same configuration as the other allegedly infringing products. As noted above, this does

not lead to any legal conclusions, just further allegations. In sum, good cause has been shown.

Coretronic claims they will be unfairly prejudiced if they are required to respond to

discovery requests regarding these newly asserted products. However, Seiko was unaware of these

products until Coretronic disclosed them to Seiko. In fact, Seiko could not have known of these

products until Coretronic’s disclosure. Coretronic’s prejudice, if any, is therefore self-inflicted. Had

Coretronic released this information earlier, Seiko could have incorporated these potentially

infringing products into its preliminary infringement contentions. Furthermore, the court notes that

no prejudice stems from the fact that a claim construction order has already issued. Here, the only

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

basis for the addition of these projectors is their potential identical configuration relative to

previously identified projectors. Coretronic has not demonstrated how their case strategy would

have been different had the projector models in question here been listed in the preliminary

infringement contentions.

In any event, the court is aware of the unique situation created by this holding at this stage in

the litigation. Seiko alleges that only limited additional discovery is necessary. Consequently, the

court will stay any discovery with respect to the newly asserted projectors until a decision is

rendered on the parties’ summary judgment motions regarding invalidity unless the parties stipulate

otherwise or establish a compelling reason to lift the stay. As Seiko proposes, this discovery will be

limited to the issues of damages and infringement.

Finally, Coretronic claims that, as of June 19, 2007, Seiko specifically knew of two of

projector models in question here since those projectors were included in Seiko’s first set of

interrogatories. See Rader Dec., Exh. 5 at 2–3. Therefore, they claim, Seiko cannot demonstrate

good cause with respect to these two models because it knew of their existence and nevertheless

failed to include them in its preliminary infringement contentions. Seiko explains the delay by

stating that it is merely seeking to add additional model names for projector configurations that it has

already claimed are infringing. This argument falls flat because this motion is directed toward the

addition of specific projector model names into the infringement contentions, not new

“configurations.” Seiko claims that if a certain projector configuration has already been accused,

then adding to the preliminary infringement contentions specific projector models that practice that

configuration is basically irrelevant. However, Seiko brought this motion, which undercuts the

entire argument that specific infringing models need not be listed. Nevertheless, Seiko demonstrates

good cause with respect to these two projector models by stating that Coretronic withheld specific

information regarding their manufacture when they initially responded to Seiko’s interrogatories. 

Specifically, defendants only now disclose that these two projectors are potentially configured in the

same manner as two other projectors. This information, previously unknown to Seiko, constitutes

good cause for the amendment.

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend its preliminary infringement

contentions is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

1. Seiko’s motion to seal the following documents is hereby GRANTED: 1) Motion to Amend its

Preliminary Infringement Contentions; 2) Exhibits 1, 4 and 5 to Seiko’s proposed supplemental

preliminary infringement contentions; and 3) Exhibit 1 of Utermohlens’s declaration in support of the

Motion to Amend Preliminary Infringement Contentions.

2. The district’s newly amended patent rules do not apply here since they are effective only for

cases filed on and after March 1, 2008.

3. For the same reasons, the court DENIES Coretronic’s request for sanctions against Seiko for

bringing this motion.

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 201 Filed 06/23/08 Page 8 of 8