Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00010/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00010-9/pdf.json

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

SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00010-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 94

Currently before the Court is plaintiff Skyworks Solutions, Inc.’s motion for leave to 

amend infringement contentions. Dkt. 94. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 

motion.

On January 2, 2014, Skyworks filed this patent infringement suit against defendant Kinetic 

Technologies, Inc. (“Kinetic USA”). Dkt. 1. Skyworks accuses Kinetic USA of infringing U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,921,320 (“the ‘320 patent”)1and 8,539,275 (“the ‘275 patent”).

2

 Dkt. 62-9, Ex. HH

at 3:5-8. The patents in suit generally relate to a single-wire interface for controlling power to 

light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) that are incorporated into the displays of cell phones, smart 

phones, and other electronic devices. Id. at 8:1-3, 14-16. The complaint accuses five Kinetic 

USA products: KTD101, KTD102, KTD253, KTD259, and KTD262. Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 31, 

32 and 33.

 

1

Skyworks alleges infringement of the ‘320 patent claims 13, 15-22, 37-39, and 41-45.

2

Skyworks alleges infringement of the ‘275 patent claims 1, 3-6, 7-8, and 12-29.

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 119 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Skyworks served its original infringement contentions on May, 9, 2014. Dkt. 62, Armond 

Decl. at ¶ 35; see also Dkt. 62-9, Ex. HH. Skyworks’ original infringement contentions asserted 

forty-five total claims from the ‘320 and ‘275 patents against five properly accused Kinetic USA 

products.

3

Id. at 2:5-26. Skyworks’ original infringement contentions also accused twenty-one 

additional Kinetic USA products of infringing one or more of the asserted claims.

4

 Dkt. 62-9, Ex. 

HH. However, Skyworks failed to provide infringement charts for these twenty-one products

pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1, claiming this was due to limited publicly available information. Dkt. 

94 at 2:5-7; see Patent L.R. 3-1(c) (The party claiming patent infringement shall serve 

infringement contentions containing “[a] chart identifying specifically where each limitation of 

each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality”).

On May 29, 2014, Skyworks visited Kinetic USA’s Sunnyvale office to conduct an onsite 

inspection. Id. at 3:9-21. After completing a privilege review of the documents collected during 

the inspection, Kinetic USA produced over four million pages of documents on June 23, 2014. Id. 

at 4:3-8. Three days later, Kinetic USA informed Skyworks that it intended to file a motion for 

summary judgment with respect to noninfringement. Dkt. 94-7, Ex. 7. The motion was filed on 

August, 21, 2014, opposed on October 17, 2014, and heard on December 2, 2014. Dkt. 61, 69, 77. 

Supplemental briefing on the summary judgment issues was requested and received in January and 

February, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, Skyworks filed the present motion for leave to amend infringement 

contentions. Dkt. 94. A party may amend its infringement contentions “only by order of the 

Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” Patent L.R. 3-6. The local rule requires parties to 

provide early notice of their infringement contentions, and to diligently amend those contentions 

when new information comes to light in the course of discovery. Id. Skyworks seeks to amend its 

 

3

The five properly accused Kinetic products are those listed in the complaint: KTD101, KTD102, 

KTD253, KTD259, and KTD262.

4

The additional twenty-one accused Kinetic products are KTD104, KTD105, KTD108, KTD109, 

KTD112, KTD117, KTD118, KTD120, KTD134, KTD158, KTD202, KTD204, KTD205, 

KTD207, KTD209, KTD260, KTD263, KTD265, KTD267, KTD268, and KTD289.

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 119 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

infringement contentions to add specificity to the existing five claim charts and infringement 

charts for the twenty-one products that it identified but did not previously chart. Dkt. 94 at 2:3-14.

However, after Skyworks filed the present motion, the Court granted Kinetic USA’s 

motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to the five properly accused products in this 

case. See Dkt. 51. Now that Kinetic USA’s summary judgment has been granted in its entirety, 

Skyworks’ motion to amend infringement contentions is moot. There are no further contention 

statements required in this litigation.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court DENIES 

Skyworks’ motion for leave to amend infringement contentions as moot. Dkt. No. 94.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015

_____________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 119 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3