Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04405/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04405-36/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

PLEXXIKON INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04405-HSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT 

REPORT

REDACTED VERSION

Re: Dkt. No. 179

Pending before the Court is Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s motion to strike 

portions of the expert report by Dr. Michael L. Metzker. The Court heard argument on this 

motion on November 1, 2019. See Dkt. No. 341. As indicated during the hearing and as detailed 

below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Plexxikon, Inc. accuses Defendant’s drug Tafinlar® of infringing two of its 

patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,469,640 (the ’640 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 9,844,539 (the ’539 

Patent). Both patents claim priority to a common provisional patent application filed on July 17, 

2007. However, in its infringement contentions, dated January 2, 2018, Plaintiff contended that 

both the ’640 Patent and the ’539 Patent are entitled to a priority date “at least as early as March 

10, 2005” based on “a project meeting held on that date” during which “the inventors conceived of 

the claimed invention.” See Dkt. No. 179-4, Ex. 2 at 8–9. As required by Patent L.R. 3-2(b), 

Plaintiff concurrently produced documents in support of its claim to this earlier priority date. See 

id. On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff served amended infringement contentions. See Dkt. No. 179-6,

Ex. 4. However, Plaintiff reiterated that it was “entitled to a priority date at least as early as March 

10, 2005.” Id. at 8–9.

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 1 of 8
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

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiff served Defendant with a supplemental interrogatory response, 

which again asserted that “[t]he subject matter of the Asserted Claims was conceived at least as of 

March 10, 2005, for at least the reason that the inventors conceived of the claimed invention at 

least as of a project meeting held on that date.” See Dkt. No. 179-7, Ex. 5 at 12. For the first time,

Plaintiff also noted that “[t]he inventors’ conception is further shown, along with constructive

reduction to practice, by draft patent applications and claims prepared before the dates” of 

Defendant’s proffered prior art references, including one dated February 16, 2007. See id. at 14.

Plaintiff did not, however, amend its infringement contentions to identify another priority date.

On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff served Dr. Metzker’s rebuttal report. See Dkt. No. 179-3, Ex. 

1. The report set forth, inter alia, Dr. Metzker’s opinions regarding the priority date of the 

asserted claims. See id. at ¶ 5(c). Although Dr. Metzker offers support for Plaintiff’s March 2005 

priority date,1 in the alternative he contends that “the inventors of the ’640 and ’539 patents 

conceived of the inventions of those claims by no later than February 2, 2007, when a draft patent 

application delineating virtually all the claimed compounds was drafted . . . .” Id. at ¶ 23

(emphasis added); see also id. at ¶¶ 5(c), 57–69, 81.

Defendant moves to strike portions of Dr. Metzker’s rebuttal expert report to the extent he 

proffers an alternative priority date of February 2, 2007. See Dkt. No. 179. Defendant contends 

that Plaintiff failed to disclose this theory and the supporting documentation in its infringement 

contentions as required under Patent L.R. 3-2(b). See id. at 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Patent L.R. 3-1, Plaintiff is required to serve its infringement contentions on all 

parties and such contentions must include, inter alia, “the priority date to which each asserted 

claim allegedly is entitled” and “[a]ll documents evidencing the conception.” See Patent L.R. 3-

1(f); 3-2(b). The Court set January 2, 2018, as the deadline for Plaintiff’s infringement 

1 Dr. Metzker asserts that the “inventions of claim 1 of the ’640 Patent and claim 1 of the ’539 

Patent were reduced to practice by March 18, 2005,” and that they were conceived of by March 

14, 2005, rather than March 10, 2005. See Dkt. No. 179-3, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 5(c), 23. However, 

Defendant does not appear to challenge this slight variation, stating instead that it “is a 

‘permissible application’ of Plexxikon’s disclosed March 10, 2005 theory.” See Dkt. Nos. 179 at 

7, n.4.

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 2 of 8
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

contentions. See Dkt. No. 57.

As this Court has previously noted, “‘[t]he Northern District of California’s Patent Local 

Rules exist to further the goal of full and timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate 

notice and information with which to litigate their cases.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 

13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 9460295, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015) (quoting Verinata Health 

Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. C 12-00865 SI, 2014 WL 4100638, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014)). 

“‘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.’” Id. (quoting Verinata

Health, 2014 WL 4100638, at *1). The Court has wide discretion to manage its cases, including

in the application of the Patent Local Rules. SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 

1287, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff responds that by listing March 10, 2005, as the earliest priority date to which each 

asserted claim is allegedly entitled, Plaintiff complied with the Patent Local Rules and the Court’s 

scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 208 at 1. Plaintiff urges that Dr. Metzker’s rebuttal report

maintains the March 2005 priority date, but simply proffers intermediate dates—namely, February 

2, 2007—in response to Defendant’s prior art references. During the hearing on this motion, 

Plaintiff also argued that the draft patent applications, on which these intermediate priority dates 

are premised, are privileged. Plaintiff explained that although it ultimately decided to waive 

privilege, it would be unreasonable to expect Plaintiff to make such privilege waiver 

determinations so early in the course of this litigation. See Dkt. No. 341 (“Hearing Tr.”) at 47:24–

53:3. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A. Patent Local Rules

As an initial matter, Plaintiff appears to concede—as it must—that it did not explicitly 

identify February 2, 2007, as an alternative priority date in the infringement contentions that it 

served on January 2, 2018. See Dkt. No. 208 at 8 (arguing that it was not required to disclose “the 

possibility that it might rely on a later priority date as an alternative position”). Plaintiff 

nevertheless raises several arguments that it properly complied with its obligations under Patent 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 8
4

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

L.R. 3-2(b), and should not be precluded from relying on the February 2, 2007 priority date.

First, Plaintiff reads the Patent Local Rules as requiring disclosure of only the earliest of

all possible priority dates. See Dkt. No. 208 at 6–9. Plaintiff thus contends that it was free to rely 

on a later priority date in response to Defendant’s invalidity arguments, even one almost two years 

after the identified March 10, 2005, priority date. Id. Plaintiff suggests that this would not 

prejudice Defendant or frustrate the purpose of the Patent Local Rules because, armed with the 

earliest possible priority date, Defendant could identify all prior art relevant to its invalidity 

contentions. Id. at 8–9.

But Plaintiff’s interpretation cannot be squared with the plain language of the Patent Local 

Rules. Rule 3-1(f) requires a party claiming patent infringement to identify “the priority date to

which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled.” See Patent L.R. 3-1(f) (emphasis added). It does 

not request the “earliest priority date” or even “a priority date.” Similarly, Rule 3-2(b) requires a 

party claiming patent infringement to produce “[a]ll documents evidencing the conception,

reduction to practice, design, and development of each claimed invention, which were created on 

or before the priority date identified pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1(f).” Patent L.R. 3-2(b) (emphasis 

added). The Rules plainly require Plaintiff to identify specific dates, and not simply a range of 

dates running from the earliest possible priority date through to some unidentified end date.

Accord Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc., No. 17-cv-06946-JST (KAW), 2019 WL 1528422 (N.D. Cal. 

April 9, 2019) (“[C]ourts in this district have held that the Patent Local Rules require[] a patent 

holder to assert a specific date of conception, not a date range.”) (quotations omitted) (collecting 

cases).

Moreover, under Plaintiff’s interpretation, defendant would not have any certainty in 

Plaintiff’s infringement theories, including the timing of conception or reduction to practice, 

before it had to formulate its invalidity contentions. Allowing Plaintiff to identify a range of 

dates, however, would “allow[] it to reverse the order of the procedure contemplated by [the 

Northern District’s] Patent Local Rules, giving it a preview of [the accused infringer’s] invalidity 

contentions before offering a concrete conception date.” Harvatek Corp. v. Cree, Inc., No. C 14-

05353 WHA, 2015 WL 4396379, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2015). Plaintiff’s opposition highlights 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Second, and relatedly, Plaintiff suggests that Defendant is not prejudiced by this alternative 

February 2, 2007, priority date, because the draft patent applications were produced and 

referenced in Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory response in May and June 2018. See Dkt. No. 

208 at 7–8. And fact discovery did not close until January 17, 2019. See Dkt. No. 80. Plaintiff 

suggests that Defendant had ample time to adjust its litigation strategy, to the extent necessary, 

based on this information. However, Plaintiff did not indicate in its infringement contentions that 

it intended to rely on different, or intermediate, priority dates. Nor did it do so in its supplemental 

interrogatory responses, which only noted that “[t]he inventors’ conception is further shown, along 

with constructive reduction to practice, by draft patent applications and claims prepared before the 

dates” of Defendant’s proffered prior art references. See id. at 14. Defendant should not have to 

surmise Plaintiff’s shifting priority date(s) and infringement theories based on an oblique reference

made in discovery or by piecing together documents that Plaintiff produced. Absent an 

amendment, Defendant was within its right to rely on the March 10, 2005, priority date that 

Plaintiff disclosed in its infringement contentions.

Having failed to amend its infringement contentions, Plaintiff cannot use Dr. Metzker’s 

expert report—served several months after the close of fact discovery—to introduce a new priority 

date for the asserted claims. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 5:12-cv-630-LHKPSG, 2014 WL 173409, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) (“Expert reports may not introduce theories 

not set forth in contentions.”). The resulting prejudice is apparent, as Defendant “selected 

particular intervening prior art based on the March 10, 2005 priority date” and “did not pursue 

evidence in discovery to challenge that the inventors conceived of the invention as of the February 

2, 2007 date.” See Dkt. No. 230 at 8–9; see also Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys., No. 11–

cv–02243–JST, 2014 WL 709865, at *15, n.7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2014) (declining to require a 

showing of prejudice “because prejudice is inherent in the assertion of a new theory after 

discovery has closed, and because to impose such a burden would create an incentive for late 

disclosure”).2

2 To the extent Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s motion to strike is an improper second 

motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 208 at 2, 14, the Court is not persuaded. This is not a 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 6 of 8
7

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

B. Attorney-Client Privilege Exception

During the hearing Plaintiff raised a new argument in opposition to Defendant’s motion to 

strike, suggesting that there should be some exception to the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-

1 based on attorney-client privilege. See Hearing Tr. at 47:24–53:3. Plaintiff argued that it should 

not be required “to make decisions with respect to privilege waiver up front at that initial stage 

before seeing the prior art at issue and what priority dates may be in play.” Id. at 48:6–10, 14–22.

Although Plaintiff noted in passing in its opposition that it decided to waive privilege over 

the draft patent applications after receiving Defendant’s invalidity contentions, see Dkt. No. 208 at 

9, it did not argue that this was a distinct basis for denying Defendant’s motion to strike. By 

raising this argument for the first time at oral argument, Plaintiff deprived Defendant of the 

opportunity to respond. The Court finds that it would be improper to address this belated 

argument as a basis for denying Defendant’s motion. See Civil L.R. 7-3(d) (limiting the 

circumstances in which supplemental material may be proffered after the date the opposition or 

reply brief was filed); cf. Cedano–Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066, n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“[W]e decline to consider new issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).

Nevertheless, even if the Court were to consider it, the Court has already explained at 

length that the Patent Local Rules are designed so that the patent holders must “crystallize” their 

theories of the case early in the course of litigation. See, e.g., Bender, 2010 WL 363341, at *1; 

OpenTV, Inc., 2016 WL 3196643, at *3. The Court sees no reason why such early determinations 

should not include issues of privilege waiver, to the extent they are implicated. Plaintiff as the 

patent holder should already know the conception date of the patented inventions, even before 

filing the action, and it should not be an onerous burden to disclose this as required under the 

Patent Local Rules. The Court declines to adopt an exception to the Patent Local Rules that would 

encourage patent holders to evade their disclosure requirements by claiming privilege until they

are certain of the other parties’ litigation strategy.

//

factual dispute about the priority date of the ’640 and ’539 Patents, but rather a procedural 

question about Plaintiff’s compliance with the Patent Local Rules.

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 7 of 8
8

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff did not disclose the February 2, 2007, priority date in its infringement contentions. 

Plaintiff could not amend this deficiency through Dr. Metzker’s rebuttal report. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS the motion and STRIKES the portions of Dr. Metzker’s rebuttal report that

contain or refer to a February 2, 2007, priority date. Plaintiff is further precluded from arguing 

that the asserted claims are entitled to a priority date earlier than July 17, 2007, other than its 

properly disclosed March 10, 2005, date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 416 Filed 04/10/20 Page 8 of 8