Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00167/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00167-5/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-00165-PSG; -00166; 00167; -00168 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PRELIMINARY 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00165-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS

(Re: Docket Nos. 93, 94) 

) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00166-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS

(Re: Docket Nos. 92, 93) 

) 

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00167-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS

(Re: Docket Nos. 97, 98) 

Case 3:15-cv-00167-LB Document 230 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-00165-PSG; -00166; 00167; -00168 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PRELIMINARY 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 

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

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-00168-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS

(Re: Docket Nos. 77, 78) 

Plaintiff Adaptix Inc. seeks leave to amend its preliminary infringement contentions1 to

(1) reassert a theory of contributory infringement and (2) add four accused products: Boost Max 

N9520, Sprint Vital N9810, ZTE Grand S Pro and ZTE Unite II MF96U.2 Defendants ZTE USA, 

Inc., Boost Mobile, LLC, Sprint Spectrum L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., MetroPCS Communications, 

Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. oppose. Adaptix’s motion is GRANTED but only in very 

limited part. 

I.

Under Patent L.R. 3-6(b), “[a]mendment of the Infringement Contentions or the Invalidity 

Contentions may be made only be order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.”3

 The 

court must consider whether the moving party was diligent in amending its contentions and 

whether allowing such amendment would prejudice the non-moving party.4 “Although the 

existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional 

 

1

 Although this court no longer uses the term “preliminary” infringement contentions in its rules, 

for ease of reference and consistency with Adaptix’s styling, the court adopts it here. 

2 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket Nos. 93, 94. Adaptix also sought to modify its analysis of 

its assertion of 3x modes, but has withdrawn that request. See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket 

No. 105 at 1. 

3

 Patent L.R. 3-6(b). “Non-exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice 

to the non-moving party, support a finding of good cause include: (a) A claim construction by the 

Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment; (b) Recent discovery of 

material, prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) Recent discovery of nonpublic information 

about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the 

service of the Infringement Contentions.” Id. 

4 See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366-68 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Case 3:15-cv-00167-LB Document 230 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-00165-PSG; -00166; 00167; -00168 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PRELIMINARY 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 

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

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the [good cause] inquiry . . . is upon the moving party’s 

reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”5 

The four cases at issue—the ZTE Cases—are part of a second wave of suits brought by 

Adaptix and assigned to the undersigned following transfer from the Eastern District of Texas.

6

 

They follow a first wave of cases in which judgment was entered on February 2, 2015.7 The 

“Wave 2” cases were filed on May 28, 2013.8 Almost nine months later, on February 21, 2014, 

Adaptix served its preliminary infringement contentions.9 

In late June 2014, Adaptix took the deposition of third-party Qualcomm, Inc., during which 

Adaptix was told of the functionality in the accused products that it says gives rise to a contributory 

infringement theory.10 Adaptix had initially pleaded contributory infringement in its complaint11

but then dropped the theory by failing to include it in its preliminary infringement contentions.12 

By August 7, 2014, Adaptix informed Defendants of its intention to seek leave to reassert a 

 

5 Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Prop. Ltd., Case Nos. 08-cv-00877, 08-cv-00882, 08-cv-05398, 2010 WL 

3618687, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also O2 Micro Int’l, 467 F.3d at 1366 (“We agree with the Northern 

District of California that ‘good cause’ requires a showing of diligence.”); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-01846, 2012 WL 1067548, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) 

(“Only if the moving party is able to show diligence may the court consider the prejudice to the 

non-moving party” (citing CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 195, 201 (N.D. Cal. 

2009)).

6 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 121. 

7 See Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01776, 5:13-cv-01777, 5:13-cv-01778, 5:13-cv-01844, 5:13-cv-02023. 

8 See, e.g., Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 1. 

9 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 94 at 1. 

10 See id. (“During the course of this deposition, it was learned that the Qualcomm’s baseband 

processors used in Defendants’ accused handsets: (1) have separate hardware and embedded 

software modules to perform the patented processes, and (2) that the infringing modules have no 

non-infringing use. As the modules are separate, rather than combined, the fact that one module 

may operate in a non-infringing manner does not preclude a claim of contributory infringement 

against the separate modules that operate in an infringing manner.” (internal citations omitted)).

11 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 24-29, 44-49. 

12 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 102 at 5. 

Case 3:15-cv-00167-LB Document 230 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-00165-PSG; -00166; 00167; -00168 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PRELIMINARY 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 

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

contributory infringement theory.13 Adaptix also raised its intention to seek leave to add four 

additional accused products: Boost Max N9520, Sprint Vital N9810, ZTE Grand S Pro and ZTE 

Unite II MF96U.14 Recognizing that the latter two were newly released products that could not 

have been asserted earlier, Defendants responded that they would not oppose the addition of ZTE 

Grand S Pro and ZTE Unite II MF96U.15 But in light of release dates for Boost Max N9520 and 

Sprint Vital N9810 dating back to mid-2013 and January 2014, Defendants oppose their addition.16 

These motions to amend followed. 

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The parties further 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

III. 

 The basic question here is whether Adaptix was diligent in pursuing its proposed 

amendments. Based on the record presented, the answer to that question is no. 

First, Adaptix has not shown it was diligent in reasserting a contributory infringement 

theory. While it is true that Adaptix waited only 18 days after the Qualcomm deposition to seek 

amendment, Adaptix has not shown the deposition was the first time it learned of anything 

essential to its contributory infringement theory. Adaptix’s proposed contentions for all 

Defendants say nothing about processors that have separate hardware and software ‘modules’—the 

supposed new information learned at the deposition—and instead are based on allegations focused 

generally on the sale of the handsets themselves. This is the same level of information found in 

Adaptix’s original complaint. Particularly where Adaptix originally pleaded a contributory 

 

13 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 94 at 2. 

14 See Case No. 5:15-cv-00165: Docket No. 93 at 1. 

15 See id. at 1-2. Based on Defendants’ non-opposition, Adaptix’s motion is GRANTED as to 

these two products. 

16 See id. 

Case 3:15-cv-00167-LB Document 230 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:15-cv-00167-LB Document 230 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 5