Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063-34/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

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 05-4063 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THEIR PRELIMINARY

INVALIDITY

CONTENTIONS

Defendants move for leave under Patent Local Rule 3-7 to amend

their preliminary invalidity contentions to add nine additional

prior art references. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The matter

was submitted on the papers. Having considered all of the parties'

papers, and good cause appearing, the Court grants Defendants'

motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the owner of the five patents at issue. On

October 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed this action. Its second amended 

complaint accuses sixteen defendants of infringing seventy-four

claims. 

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 449 Filed 04/30/07 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

Defendants state that, from the beginning of this dispute,

they have searched diligently for prior art relevant to the patents

at issue. As an example of their diligence, Defendants note that,

in January, 2006, two of the Defendants hired an independent search

firm to search for prior art. Nonetheless, Defendants did not

locate seven of the nine prior art references currently at issue

until after they served their preliminary invalidity contentions,

containing 180 references, in August, 2006. Defendants acknowledge

that they were aware of the two remaining references prior to

filing their invalidity contentions because they were among the

approximately 300 references cited during the prosecution of the

five patents; but they contend that the materiality of those two

references only became apparent after their invalidity contentions

were filed. 

In February, 2007, Defendants notified Plaintiff of their

intent to seek leave to amend their contentions. One month later,

approximately eight months after Defendants served their

preliminary invalidity contentions, they provided their amended

contentions to Plaintiff and requested its consent to their motion

for leave to amend. Plaintiff did not consent and, on March 29,

2007, Defendants sought leave to amend their invalidity contentions

to add nine additional prior art references. They contend that

amendment of their contentions is largely a formality. According

to Defendants, a majority of the proposed changes conform the

invalidity contentions in this case to those served on Plaintiff in

a related arbitration by Plaintiff against Amkor Technology,

involving the same patents. The Amkor Arbitration is on a schedule

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 449 Filed 04/30/07 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

ahead of this case. 

DISCUSSION

This district has adopted the Patent Local Rules that "require

parties to state early in the litigation and with specificity their

contentions with respect to infringement and invalidity." O2 Micro

Int'l, Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1359 

(Fed. Cir. 2006); see also id. at 1364 (noting that the Patent Local

Rules were "designed specifically to 'require parties to crystallize

their theories of the case early in the litigation' so as to

'prevent the ‘shifting sands' approach to claim construction'")

(quoting Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 1998 WL 775115,

at *2 (N.D. Cal.)). Under the Patent Local Rules, the parties'

ability to amend their infringement and invalidity contentions is

restricted. As explained by the Federal Circuit, "Apart from

amendments designed to take account of the district court's claim

construction, amendments are permitted only for 'good cause' even

though the period allowed for discovery typically will not have

expired." O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1360. Good cause requires a

showing of diligence; the burden is on the party seeking to amend

its contentions "to establish diligence rather than on the opposing

party to establish a lack of diligence." Id. at 1366-67. 

Nonetheless, "preliminary infringement contentions are still

preliminary." General Atomics v. Axis-Shield ASA, 2006 WL 2329464,

*1 (N.D. Cal.). The local contention rule "is not a straitjacket

into which litigants are locked from the moment their contentions

are served"; rather, there is "a modest degree of flexibility, at

least near the outset." Comcast Cable Communications Corp. v.

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 449 Filed 04/30/07 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

Finisar Corp., 2007 WL 716131, *2 (N.D. Cal.).

This case is not near the outset. But, as Defendants note, the

cases Plaintiff cites where good cause was not found "were much

further developed than this case at the time" their respective

motions to amend were filed. See General Atomics, 2006 WL 2329464,

at *2. For example, in Atmel, the defendants sought to amend their

contentions after claim construction had been completed and "well

over one year after preliminary infringement contentions were

served." Id. Here, Defendants seek to amend their invalidity

contentions well in advice of the deadline for any expert reports

that may be effected and briefing on claim construction. 

Defendants show that they were diligent in seeking to amend

their preliminary contentions. Allowing them to amend their

contentions at this point in the litigation will promote the fair

resolution of this cause without causing any prejudice to Plaintiff. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have established good

cause to amend their preliminary contentions.

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, Defendants' motion for leave to amend

their preliminary invalidity contentions (Docket No. 418) is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/30/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 449 Filed 04/30/07 Page 4 of 4