Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01470/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01470-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

05cv1470

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL MINTZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIETZ & WASTON, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-1470-L(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND FINAL INVALIDITY

CONTENTIONS [doc. #141]

Defendants seek leave to amend their final invalidity contentions. [doc. #141] The

motion has been fully briefed. The Court considers this matter on the papers submitted and

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below,

the Court grants defendants’ motion.

Defendants served their final invalidity contentions on March 23, 2009. Their motion to

amend those contentions was filed on April 8, 2009. In seeking to amend their invalidity

contentions, defendants’s counsel states that in an April 3, 2009 conversation with Henricus

Kartner (“Kartner”), they learned that all the elements of the invention claimed in the ‘148 patent

were known in the United States prior to invention by the applicants, Neil and Marcus Mintz,

and the Mintzes did not invent the subject matter sought to be patented. These two grounds are

based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (f). Section 102(a) provides: “A person shall be entitled to a

patent unless– (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or

Case 3:05-cv-01470-L-JMA Document 169 Filed 06/29/09 Page 1 of 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

2 05cv1470

described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the

applicant for patent” and § 102(f) prohibits the patenting of an invention made by someone else. 

In support of their motion, defendants note that Kartner, a resident of the Netherlands, 

and his company, Anka BV, developed a new type of netting for meat in the 1980s. Anka BV

provided a sample of the net to Bram Kline (“Kline”), a sales agent, who took the sample to

United States trade sales. In 1991, Kline showed Anka BV’s netting sample to the Mintzes and

they received a sample of the netting. In their recent conversation, Kartner told defendants that

the Mintzes did not purchase the netting from Anka BV but instead filed the patent for their

product – the product that became the ‘148 patent. Kline began working for the Mintzes after

showing him the Anka BV sample.

Recognizing that to amend their final invalidity contentions requires a showing of good

cause, defendants argue they were diligent in promptly moving to amend when new evidence

was revealed in discovery and amendment would not result in any prejudice to plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that defendants wasted opportunities to conduct discovery,

failed to diligently contact Kartner, had knowledge of Kline since June 2007, and failed to use

proper discovery procedures. 

The parties rely on O2 Micro Intern. LTD v. Monolithic Power Systems, 467 F.3d 1355,

1362 (Fed. Cir. 2006) as the standard to apply in determining whether leave to amend the final

invalidity contentions should be granted eventhough the case “primarily presents questions

concerning the interpretation and application of the Northern District of California’s local rules

for patent cases.” The O2 Micro court noted that “[t]he burden is on the movant to establish

diligence rather than on the opposing party to establish a lack of diligence.” Id. at 1363 (citing

Genentech, Inc. v.Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d 761, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

The local patent rule addressed in the O2 Micro case demands “good cause” which

requires “a showing that the party seeking leave to amend acted with diligence in promptly

moving to amend when new evidence is revealed in discovery.” Id. (citing U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D.

Cal. Patent L.R. 3-7)).

Here, defendants filed their motion to amend 13 court days after submitting the final

Case 3:05-cv-01470-L-JMA Document 169 Filed 06/29/09 Page 2 of 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

3 05cv1470

invalidity contentions and three court days after their April 3, 2009 discovery of Kartner’s

statements about the invalidity of plaintiffs’ ‘148 patent. The Court finds and concludes that

defendants acted with diligence in promptly moving to amend their final invalidity contentions

after their contact with Kartner.

An additional aspect of diligence concerns whether defendants diligently pursued

information about the Anka BV nets from Kartner. Defendants contend that they have attempted

to obtain and develop information about the nets by seeking discovery from plaintiffs throughout

the ligitation. During 2007, defendants served requests for production numbers 49, 50, 96 and

115 that concern documents and electronic data related to the “‘148 patent foreign counterpart”

and a sample of Anka BR fabric that was within plaintiffs’ control. Similarly, defendants served

interrogatories to both Neil and Marcus Mintz dating from 2006. Conducting discovery seeking

information about the Anka BV net demonstrates diligence on defendants’ part.

Similarly, defendants made efforts to locate and contact Kartner in the Netherlands but

were only successful on April 3, 2009. Defendants provided specific enough information to

show that their attempts to reach Karnter were diligently undertaken. 

Taking a view toward the entirety of the discovery process and because defendants have

offered an adequate explanation for the delay, the Court finds and concludes that defendants

have established diligence in pursuing information concerning the Anka BV nets and Kartner.

Finally, the Court finds that plaintiffs have made no showing of prejudice if the final

invalidity contentions are amended. A slight delay in completing this litigation is insufficient to

find prejudice. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to amend final invalidity contentions is GRANTED. 

Defendants shall file their amended final invalidity contentions within five days of the filing of

this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01470-L-JMA Document 169 Filed 06/29/09 Page 3 of 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

4 05cv1470

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01470-L-JMA Document 169 Filed 06/29/09 Page 4 of 4