Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SYNAPTICS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND FINAL INFRINGEMENT

CONTENTIONS

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to amend its Final Infringement

Contentions to add accused products that include Type 2 code. After reviewing the parties’

submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b),

and GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.

Elantech has shown good cause for amending its contentions. First, Synaptics placed

the products with type 2 code squarely at issue in this lawsuit by moving for summary

judgment that products with type 2 code do not infringe the ‘352. The parties’ vigorously

contested the issue, and the Court carefully considered the question and concluded that

products with Type II Code do infringe, although it denied Elantech’s cross motion for

summary judgment because it had not moved for partial summary judgment. 

Second, Synaptics does not dispute that it agreed not to oppose a motion by Elantech

to amend its Final Infringement Contentions to include products including type 2 code should

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 261 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\orderreamendfinalic.wpd2

the Court deny Synaptics’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to type 2

code. 

Third, while Elantech should have filed its motion to amend shortly after the Court

issued its summary judgment ruling, and certainly before it filed its motion for summary

judgment as to products containing type 2 code, Synaptics has not been prejudiced by this

delay. Synaptics has known since it filed its own motion and agreed not to oppose an

amendment that the type 2 code, and thus products including type 2 code, are at issue in this

lawsuit. In contrast to the lack of prejudice to Synaptics, denying the proposed amendment

will prejudice the administration of justice. Such a ruling would merely force Elantech to

file a new lawsuit to address an issue this Court has already decided in this lawsuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 261 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 2