Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02028/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02028-8/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

SICK A.G., and SICK, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

OMRON SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 06-2028 CW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: OSTI'S PRELIMINARY

INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint meet and confer letter, dated March 12, 2007,

regarding the sufficiency of defendant Omron Scientific Technologies, Inc.'s ("OSTI") Preliminary

Invalidity Contentions. First, plaintiff Sick A.G. ("Sick") moves the Court for an order striking new

prior art references disclosed by OSTI on February 26, 2007. Second, Sick seeks an order

compelling OSTI to amend its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions to specifically identify the

combinations of prior art references that allegedly render claims under the '669 patent obvious. The

Court shall address each request in turn. 

A. Motion to Strike Previously Undisclosed Prior Art

First, Sick argues that OSTI's newly-disclosed references are untimely and should be

stricken. Sick asserts that under Patent Local Rule 3-6, a party's preliminary invalidity contentions

are deemed to be the party's final contentions. OSTI agues that it should be permitted to revise its

invalidity contentions because it discovered four of the prior art references within days of the

February 26, 2007 revised contentions, and discovered the fifth reference within one month of the

revised contentions. OSTI asserts that Sick will not be prejudiced if OSTI is allowed to revise its

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 68 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

invalidity contentions since discovery does not close until December 2007. 

The Patent Local Rules were adopted to further the goal of full and timely discovery and to

provide all parties with adequate notice and information for litigating their cases. Fresenius Med.

Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90856, 12 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Under

Patent Local Rule 3-7, a party may modify or amend its preliminary invalidity contentions by Court

order upon a showing of good cause. Patent L.R. 3-7. 

 Here, the Court recognizes that OSTI amended its preliminary invalidity contentions without

first securing a court order. However, the Court would have found good cause because OSTI served

its revised contentions more than nine months before the close of discovery and the District Court's

claim construction hearing. Further, the new references contained in OSTI's revised contentions

were all recently discovered by OSTI. Thus, the goals of full, timely discovery and adequate party

notice and information weigh in favor of permitting OSTI to amend its preliminary invalidity

contentions. 

 B. Motion to Compel Invalidity Contentions that Comply with Local Rules

Second, Sick argues that OSTI's invalidity contentions fail to comply with Patent Local Rule

3-3. Sick's opposition to OSTI's contentions centers around OSTI's grouping of prior art references

with summary combination statements in which OSTI claims that any reference from one group can

be combined with any reference from another group to make a claim obvious. OSTI responds that

its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions do specifically identify prior art combinations that render

claims under the '669 patent obvious, and that grouping makes the contentions easier to understand

and is not prohibited by the Patent Local Rules. OSTI claims that each potential combination could

be separately and explicitly stated, but the substance would not be affected and would only serve to

make the contentions longer, highly repetitious, and quite laborious to compile and read. 

 The Patent Local Rules are designed to require the parties to crystallize their theories early in

the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed. General Atomics v.

Axis-Shield ASA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58939, 4 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Under Patent Local Rule 3-3, if

a party alleges in its preliminary invalidity contentions that a combination of items of prior art makes

a claim obvious, the party must identify each such combination and the motivation for combining

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 68 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

such items. Patent L.R. 3-3(b). 

A plain reading of Patent Local Rule 3-3(b) indicates that OSTI is required to specifically

identify each combination and the motivation for the combination. On its face, this rule does not

preclude OSTI from grouping its prior art references, so long as each combination and the

motivation for such combination is identified. Given the volume of information involved in OSTI's

contentions, grouping prior art references would seem more efficient than spelling out every

combination where doing so would be redundant, and where such information could be readily

derived from the grouped prior art references. 

 The danger inherit in allowing OSTI to group prior art in its contentions lies in the possibility

of inaccuracy. Where combinations and the motivations for such combinations are identified

summarily between groups, there is a risk of including a combination that fails or a motivation that

is inapplicable. If each specific combination were spelled out along with the motivation for the

combination, a failing combination would be glaring and could be omitted, and an inaccurate

motivation for a specific combination could be changed. The risks of inaccurate identification of

combinations and corresponding motivations does not exist where the motivation for all

combinations within a claim are truly identical and where all combinations within specified groups

are possible.

However, even if this Court could fashion an order that would reduce the risk of inaccurate

identification in OSTI's prior art groups, the purpose behind the Patent Local Rules would still

require explicit identification of each combination and corresponding motivation in this case. The

Patent Local Rules are designed to force the parties to explicitly state their theories of the case and

to adhere to those theories once disclosed. The danger here is that it will be difficult for the parties

and the District Court to determine exactly which theories OSTI has stated, and it will be difficult to

later force OSTI to adhere to those theories. 

 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS OSTI to explicitly identify each combination of prior art

that allegedly renders a claim obvious and the motivation for combining the items. By OSTI's own

admission, it has already disclosed all of the information that it needs to accomplish this. If the

sheer number of possible combinations and corresponding motivations makes explicit identification

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 68 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

of each too time-consuming, OSTI is encouraged to narrow its contentions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 68 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 4