Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05659/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05659-66/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

uPI SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION, MAXCHIP

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,

POWERCHIP TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION, SILICON XTAL,

AMANDA DAI, and JACKY LEE,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05659 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING

IN PART MOTION

TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT

CONTENTIONS

INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action, after a series of mandatory stays lasting seven years

was finally lifted, plaintiff seeks leave to amend its infringement contentions. For the reasons

stated below, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Richtek Technology Corporation owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,315,190 (“the ’190

patent”), 6,414,470 (“the ’470 patent”), and 7,132,717 (“the ’717 patent”), which cover

technologies used in direct-current-to-direct-current (DC-DC) power controllers. It alleges that

defendant uPI Semiconducter Corporation sells power management products that incorporate

Richtek’s proprietary and patented technologies, and that the remaining defendants also infringe

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 491 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Richtek’s patents by manufacturing, importing, selling, and marketing uPI’s infringing

products.

Richtek commenced this action in December 2009. In January 2010, an order stayed the

case pending final determination in an investigation by the International Trade Commission

(Dkt. No. 26). The ITC terminated its investigation after uPI entered a consent order and an

order lifted the stay in October 2010 (Dkt. No. 89). Richtek served its initial infringement

contentions pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-1 in November 2010. In January 2011, an order

suspended all motion practice and allowed discovery regarding whether the Court could

exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant Powerchip Technology Corporation. 

Because the allegations in Richtek’s complaint broadly referred to the accused products

as “power-management products,” Richtek was ordered in January 2011 to “file papers

identifying the specific chips or devices it contend[ed] infringe[d] the patents in suit. If Richtek

already has specifically identified the accused products via infringement contentions, then

Richtek may file and rest on its contentions” (Dkt. No. 235). Richtek filed and served amended

infringement contentions (its first such amendment), accusing twenty-nine products that had not

been identified in its initial infringement contentions. Richtek did not specifically seek leave to

amend its intial infringement contentions. 

In February 2011, Richtek filed a discovery letter because defendants refused to produce

documents concerning the twenty-nine new products identified in its first amended infringement

contentions (Dkt. No. 266). That letter indicated that defendants refused such production

because Richtek had not sought leave to file its first amended infringement contentions. That

discovery dispute was never resolved because the case was stayed the next day due to Richtek’s

commencement of an action before the ITC alleging that uPI had violated its consent order. An

order stayed this action pending the resolution of the ITC proceedings. An order lifted the stay

in January 2016 (Dkt. No. 443). 

The parties appeared for a case management conference in February. The parties’ joint

case management statement omitted any reference to the February 2011 letter concerning

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 491 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 6
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 *

 After this motion was fully briefed, defendants moved to amend their invalidity contentions to

include newly-discovered prior art references.

3

Richtek’s first amended infringement contentions, although it detailed the history of motion

practice in the case. 

Richtek now seeks leave to file its second amended infringement contentions to drop all

claims for infringement against defendants that have been dismissed and to add three uPI

products that Richtek did not learn about until after it served its first amended infringement

contentions in January 2011 (and while the merits of the case were stayed). The new accused

products were not developed or released until after the complaint was filed herein. uPI opposed

Richtek’s motion and the other defendants filed a separate notice joining in the opposition. This

order follows full briefing and oral argument.*

ANALYSIS

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a supplemental

pleading, not merely an amended pleading, is necessary to set forth “any transaction,

occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Thus,

the filing of a complaint sets the cut-off date for the scope of a case, subject to the possibility of

supplementation. Nevertheless, for some time, patent owners have made open-ended

allegations in their complaint that do not specifically identify the accused products and used

amendments to their infringement contentions to expand the scope of the case to encompass

products developed or released after the date of the complaint without the need to file a

supplemental complaint — essentially sneaking new products into the case through the back

door of infringement contentions. The result of this development is that patent infringement

actions often expand to the point of unmanageability.

On December 1, 2015, the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The

amended Rules apply to pending cases “insofar as just and practicable.” H.R. Doc. No. 114-33,

at 2 (2015). The changes included the deletion of Rule 84, which provided, “[t]he forms in the

Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity that these rules

contemplate.” The Appendix referenced in Rule 84 included Form 18, an example complaint

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 491 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 6
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

for patent infringement. Form 18 merely included an allegation that the defendant infringed the

asserted patent by making, using, or selling “electric motors” without specifying the model of

the accused motors. The Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to Rule 84, the pleading standard

set forth in Form 18, not the pleading standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544

(2007), controls. In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rule 84 has been

abrogated, so In re Bill of Lading no longer applies.

Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) requires patent owners to identify each accused product of

which the patent owner is aware by serving infringement contentions on the accused infringer

“not later than 14 days after the Initial Case Management Conference.” Patent Local Rule 3-6

provides that a party may amend its infringement contentions “only by order of the Court upon

a timely showing of good cause.” Richtek contends that it should be granted leave to file its

second amended infringement contentions to include new products released since it served its

first amended infringement contentions in 2011 because it acted diligently and because

defendants would suffer no undue prejudice. For their part, defendants respond that Richtek

should have brought this motion 14 days after the case management conference in January

(after the stay was lifted). Richtek’s request to add new products, however, does not merely

seek an amendment. Rather, it seeks to supplement the operative pleadings. Richtek has failed

to request to supplement its first amended infringement contentions or its complaint.

In the only decision to address the propriety of the addition of new products to a case

through amendments to infringement contentions following the abrogation of Rule 84, the

undersigned judge held that “[t]here must be some reasonable cut-off date after which [the

patent owner] cannot further expand the case simply because [the accused infringer’s] product

cycle has outpaced the resolution of this case,” and denied the patent owner’s motion seeking

leave to amend its infringement contentions to add new products seven months before trial. 

Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 14-5094, 2015 WL 8607390, at *3 (N.D.

Cal. Dec. 13, 2015). There, as here, the patent owner failed to recognize that the addition of

new products required a supplemental pleading, not merely an amendment.

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 491 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 6
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

Here, our problem is not the rapid pace of the accused infringer’s product development

(as it was in Rembrandt), but rather the sluggish pace of this litigation due to a series of

mandatory stays pending the resolution of proceedings at the ITC. Now that the case here is

back on track and with trial scheduled in December, it is time for the case to narrow, not

expand. Accordingly, Richtek may not add new products to this case, although it remains free

to pursue claims based on those products (and any others it uncovers in discovery) in a

subsequent proceeding.

Defendants also contend that Richtek’s failure to seek leave to file its first amended

infringement contentions way back in 2011, also precludes it from asserting claims based on the

twenty-nine products it added to the case with that amendment. Richtek should have sought

leave to add new products to the case (indeed, such a request may have been denied at the time);

and its February 2011 letter seeking discovery relief regarding those products demonstrates that

there was at least some disagreement among the parties as to which were the operative

infringement contentions. Nevertheless, defendants failed to raise this issue in the joint case

management statement or at the case management conference after the stay was lifted in

January 2016, and they declined to move to strike Richtek’s first amended infringement

contentions, waiting instead to raise the issue in their opposition to this motion more than two

months after the stay was lifted. Defendants do not offer any indication that they will be

unfairly prejudiced by the inclusion of the twenty-nine products in Richtek’s first amended

infringement contentions. Rather, it appears that defendants are simply latching on to an

opportunity to obstruct the progress of this case. Although, as stated, Richtek’s motion is

denied to the extent it seeks to add three new products, this order holds that the case will

include all products identified in Richtek’s first amended infringement contentions (including

the twenty-nine additional products accused therein).

Finally, Richtek has plainly showed good cause to remove contentions relating to parties

that have been dismissed from the action (a motion that would not require supplementation). 

To that extent only, Richtek’s motion to file its second amended infringement contentions is

GRANTED.

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 491 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 6
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its second amended

infringement contentions GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may remove

claims against parties that have been dismissed. All products identified in the first amended

infringement contentions remain in the case, but the new products identified in the proposed

second amended infringement contentions may not be included.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 491 Filed 04/29/16 Page 6 of 6