Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02463/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02463-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

GEOVECTOR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02463-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STRIKE, STAYING DISCOVERY, AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 45

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Samsung International, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc., (collectively “Samsung”), have 

filed a Motion to Strike Infringement Contentions, Compel Supplementation of Patent Local Rule 

3-2 Document Production, and Stay Discovery, arguing that plaintiff GeoVector Corporation

(“GeoVector”)’s infringement contentions do not comply with the Patent Local Rules in various 

ways and therefore do not put Samsung sufficiently on notice of GeoVector’s infringement 

theories.1 Motion (“Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 45) at 15. GeoVector responds that Samsung has been given 

reasonable notice of its infringement contentions because it has outlined its general infringement 

theories in its complaints and in discussions with counsel and that Samsung has demonstrated an 

understanding of GeoVector’s theories. Opposition (“Oppo.”) at 9-12 (Dkt. No. 51). Argument is 

unnecessary and I VACATE the hearing set on January 11, 2017. After carefully considering the 

briefs and filings in this case, I GRANT Samsung’s motion to strike and GRANT GeoVector 

leave to amend its direct and indirect infringement contentions as outlined below.

 

1

In its motion Samsung also argued that GeoVector had failed to produce all documents required 

under Patent L.R. 3-2. Mot. at 2. However, because GeoVector represented in its opposition that 

it does not have any additional documents to produce, Samsung is no longer seeking to compel 

additional production. Reply at 9.

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 14
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

BACKGROUND

In this patent case GeoVector accuses Samsung of direct and indirect infringement of 

GeoVector’s patents related to augmented reality technology. Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”) ¶ 2. On November 2, 2016, GeoVector served its infringement contentions on Samsung. 

Mot. at 2. The infringement contentions assert infringement of Claims 1, 20, 22, and 23 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,037,936 (“the ’936 Patent”); Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,301,536 (“the ’536 

Patent”); and Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,138 (“the ’138 Patent”). Id. They accuse a 

number of Samsung products by naming particular products by name or model number, but also 

accuse various groups and categories of Samsung products including (1) all Samsung “smart 

phones” with a screen, camera processor, compass, and accelerator; (2) the Samsung Galaxy, 

Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab “product lines”; (3) all Samsung “tablets” shipped 

between 2010 and 2013; and (4) all Samsung “phablets.” Id. The contentions also accuse all 

“augmented reality (AR) applications” but list only one third-party application, named Layar, in 

the supporting claim charts. Id. at 3. The charts make reference to other AR applications, listed in 

Exhibit B, but do not offer any explanation of how those AR applications work or how they 

infringe the specific claim limitations. GeoVector includes a single chart for each patent in suit, 

each one listing dozens or hundreds of accused products. Id. For many of the claim limitations 

GeoVector does not identify a specific component within a particular Samsung product that 

infringes but instead uses general language to indicate that all accused products infringe the 

limitation at issue. Id.

On November 15, 2016, Samsung served a letter on GeoVector indicating Samsung’s 

position that the infringement contentions were deficient in an attempt to resolve the issues 

without court intervention. Mot. at 6. Over the next few weeks, the parties made various attempts 

to discuss the infringement contentions but were unable to resolve any issues. 

Samsung filed this motion to strike on December 7, 2016. It contends that GeoVector’s 

infringement contentions fail to comply with the Patent Local Rules for the following reasons: (1) 

GeoVector’s contentions do not provide sufficient specificity in identifying the accused products, 

as required by L. R. 3-1(b); (2) GeoVector’s contentions improperly combine hundreds of accused 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 14
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

products into three claim charts, in violation of L. R. 3-1(c); (3) GeoVector does not identify 

where each asserted claim limitation is found within each accused instrumentality as required by 

L. R. 3-1(c); (4) GeoVector’s indirect infringement allegations contain only boilerplate and do not 

meet the standard required by L. R. 3-1(d); and (5) GeoVector asserts the doctrine of equivalents 

as an alternative theory without explanation in violation of L. R. 3-1(e). Mot. at 9-13. Samsung 

contends that, as a result of these deficiencies, GeoVector’s infringement contentions fail to put 

Samsung on notice of GeoVector’s theories of the case and the precise substance of its allegations. 

Samsung therefore seeks an order striking GeoVector’s Infringement Contentions and staying all 

discovery directed to Samsung and the accused products, including the obligation to serve 

invalidity contentions, until after GeoVector has served new infringement contentions that comply 

with the local rules. Mot. at 16.

In opposition, GeoVector argues that its infringement contentions comply with the local 

rules because Samsung has been put on notice of what GeoVector’s claims are. Oppo. at 15. It 

notes that Samsung has demonstrated an understanding of GeoVector’s claims in hearings and 

meet and confers, asserts that Samsung is “well-aware of which of its devices contain GeoVector’s 

innovations,” and argues that it will supplement its doctrine of equivalents contentions after 

Samsung provides additional information about its devices through discovery. Id. at 16-17. 

In reply Samsung asserts that GeoVector fundamentally misunderstands the standard 

required by the local rules. Reply at 1 (Dkt. No. 52). It notes that the local rules require a plaintiff 

to compare a product to each asserted claim and apply each and every element and limitation of 

the claim to that product. Id. Further, while a plaintiff is not required to reverse engineer a 

product, it must provide a level of detail that would be obtained through reverse engineering or its 

equivalent. Id. Samsung asserts that GeoVector’s infringement contentions, which combine 

hundreds of products together in three charts and mix and match different products to various 

claims and limitations, does not comply with the local rules. Id.

LEGAL STANDARD

Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires:

[A] party claiming patent infringement shall serve on all parties a ‘Disclosure of 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 14
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

Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions[]’ . . . [which] shall contain the 

following information:

(a) Each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly infringed by each opposing 

party, including for each claim the applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. § 

271 asserted;

(b) Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, 

process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each 

opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific 

as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or 

model number, if known. Each method or process shall be identified by name, if 

known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results 

in the practice of the claimed method or process;

(c) A chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is 

found within each Accused Instrumentality, including for each limitation that such 

party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), 

act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed 

function.

(d) For each claim which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an 

identification of any direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged 

indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar 

as alleged direct infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of 

each such party in the direct infringement must be described.

(e) Whether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be literally present 

or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality.

“The overriding principle of the Patent Local Rules is that they are designed [to] make the 

parties more efficient, to streamline the litigation process, and to articulate with specificity the 

claims and theory of a plaintiff’s infringement claims.” Bender v. Maxim Integrated Prods., No. 

09-c-01152-SI, 2010 WL 1135762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010) (alteration in original) 

(internal citation omitted). Patent Local Rule 3-1 is intended to require the plaintiff “to crystallize 

its theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once disclosed.” 

Bender v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 09-c-1149-EMC, 2010 WL 363341, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 1, 2010). It “takes the place of a series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have 

propounded had the patent local rules not provided for streamlined discovery.” Network Caching 

Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. 01-c-2079-VRW, 2002 WL 32126128, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 14
5

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

2002).

“[A]ll courts agree that the degree of specificity under Local Rule 3-1 must be sufficient to 

provide reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a ‘reasonable chance of 

proving infringement.’” Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 

1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 

(Fed. Cir. 2000)). The local rules do not “require the disclosure of specific evidence nor do they 

require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case . . . a patentee must nevertheless disclose what in 

each accused instrumentality it contends practices each and every limitation of each asserted claim 

to the extent appropriate information is reasonably available to it.” DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint 

Techs., LLC, No. 11-c-03792-PSG, 20112 WL 1309161, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012).

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the infringement contentions and the parties’ briefs, I conclude that 

GeoVector’s infringement contentions do not comply with a number of the Local Rules’ 

requirements.

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

A. GeoVector’s Contentions Fail to Provide Sufficient Specificity as Required by Patent 

Local Rule 3-1(b)

Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) requires a party asserting infringement to identify “[s]eparately 

for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other 

instrumentality . . . of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific as possible. 

Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model number, if known. Each 

method or process shall be identified by name, if known, or by any product, device, or apparatus 

which, when used, allegedly results in the practice of the claimed method or process.” Patent L. 

R. 3-1(b).

Here, although GeoVector identifies some accused products by name or model number, it 

also states that these are “examples” of infringing products and also accuses (1) Samsung “smart 

phones” with a screen, camera, processor, compass, and accelerometer; (2) all “tablets” shipped 

between 2010 and 2013; the Samsung Galaxy, Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab “product 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 5 of 14
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

lines”; (3) all “phablets”; and (4) all Augmented Reality applications that are like those expressly 

listed in Exhibit B to the infringement contentions. 

Rule 3-1(b) does not permit parties to identify accused products by using categorical or 

functional identifications, or limited, representative examples. See e.g., Vigilos LLC v. Sling 

Media Inc., No. 11-c-04117-SBA (EDL), 2012 WL 9973147, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2012) 

(“Plaintiff’s general list of products by category or functionality is insufficient, and Plaintiff must 

provide a list of accused products.”); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 10-c-03561-WHA, 2011 

WL 4479305, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011) (The Patent Local Rules [do] not tolerate broad 

categorical identification like ‘mobile devices running Android,’ nor [do] they permit the use of 

mere representative examples. Representative examples may be a useful tool for proving an 

infringement case at trial, but a full list of accused products must be disclosed as part of a party’s 

infringement contentions.”).

GeoVector’s attempt to identify products by broad category or functionality does not meet 

the specificity requirements of Local Rule 3-1(b).

B. GeoVector Has Failed to Adequately Chart its Contentions Against the Accused 

Products

Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) requires an accusing party to provide “[a] chart identifying 

specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused 

Instrumentality.” Patent L. R. 3-1(c). Under this rule, the accusing party “must compare an 

accused product to its patents on a claim by claim, element by element basis for at least one of 

each defendant’s products.” Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-c-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 

9023166, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015). While under certain circumstances a plaintiff may use a 

single chart to chart a number of representative products, plaintiff must still, at a minimum, “chart 

a single product against all elements.” Cap Co. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-c-05068-JD, 2015 WL 

4734951, at 2* (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015). A plaintiff does not satisfy this requirement by 

“mixing and matching between different accused products” in its claim charts, as “[i]nfringement 

cannot be shown by a muddled hash of elements from different products.” Id.

GeoVector’s infringement contentions fail to meet the requirements of Local Rule 3-1(c) 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 6 of 14
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

as they fail to chart a single Samsung product against all elements of GeoVector’s patents. For 

example, in Claim 1 of the ’938 Patent GeoVector identifies a long list of accused Samsung 

products and product categories, including many smart phones, tablets, and phablets. GeoVector 

explains that the first limitation for Claim 1 is located “in the video capability of the devices, 

together with the software and apps that operate that capability.” Infringement Contentions, 

Exhibit A at 1 (Dkt. No 46-1). It then explains that each infringing product has a computer and 

lists the computer processors for some, but not all, of the accused products. Id. For Claim 1’s 

“field region” and “periphery” limitations, GeoVector does not list any Samsung product, but 

instead explains that those limitations are found “in the Layar and other applications, such as those 

listed in Exhibit B, which come pre-loaded on the infringing devices.” Id. at 9. For the limitation 

that the field region be “an area fractional portion of the display field” GeoVector does not offer 

the location of this limitation in any product, only stating “The infringing devices contain displays 

and software that can show each field region as a fraction of the display field, which is enclosed 

by a periphery.” Id. In this way, to map the limitations for Claim 1, GeoVector mixes and 

matches elements of Samsung products, third-party applications, and sometimes fails to identify 

any particular product at all. This hodgepodge of different attributes from various different 

accused products and third-party sources is insufficient to chart a single product against all 

elements of Claim 1. 

Further, while representative charts are sometimes permissible, “representative products 

may only be charted ‘when supported by adequate analysis showing that the accused products 

share the same critical characteristics.’ ” Cap co., 2015 WL 4734951, at 2* (quoting Network 

Protection Sciences, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 12-c-01106-WHA, 2013 WL 5402089, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 26, 2013). “That analysis cannot just be based on the patentee’s say-so.” Cap Co.,

2015 WL 4734951, at 2*. “[I]n order to rely on a claim that one accused product represents 

another for purposes of Rule 3-1(c), a patentee must do more than state as much. A patentee must 

state how.” Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., No. 14-c-03227-PSG, 2015 WL 846679, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015).

GeoVector has attempted to use a single chart for each patent to chart claims against 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 7 of 14
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

hundreds of products. Infringement Contentions, Exhibit A. These products include various kinds 

of cell phones, tablets, and phablets. Id. GeoVector does not offer any analysis why these 

products, many of which are not even the same general type of product, can be charted 

representatively except to conclusorily state that “the infringing devices contain” the various claim 

limitations. See e.g., id. at 9. (“The infringing devices contain a combination of a computer vision 

system and a graphical user interface.”). And, in some circumstances GeoVector admits that 

certain products are not representative or do not meet certain claim limitations. See e.g., id. at 11 

(noting that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus does not meet the planar image field limitation for Claim 

20 of the ’936 Patent). GeoVector has failed to provide sufficient analysis to justify the use of 

representative charts.

GeoVector does not chart a single Samsung product against every element of GeoVector’s 

asserted claims. It therefore fails to meet the requirements of Local Rule 3-1(c). Further, although 

representative charts could be appropriate in this case, GeoVector must first chart at least one 

product against every element of a claim and must offer analysis justifying why representative 

charts are appropriate. Because GeoVector has failed to do either of these things, its 

representative charts do not meet Rule 3-1(c)’s requirements.

GeoVector’s primary defense of its infringement contentions is that, based on 

communications prior to the filing of this case, informal correspondence, and discussions among

counsel, Samsung already understands what its contentions are. Whether Samsung’s counsel 

actually understands GeoVector’s infringement contentions, based on outside information not 

contained in the contentions themselves, is not relevant. The Patent Local Rules require plaintiffs 

to formulate their infringement contentions in particular ways to ensure they “crystalize their 

theories of the case early in litigation and adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.” 

Finjan v. Proofpoint, 2015 WL 1517920 at *1. This is not only so that defendants can properly 

respond to the claims against them, but “so that the Court can make a principled decision on 

whether discovery will proceed.” Bender v. Maxim Integrated Prods., 2010 WL 1135762 at *2. 

Even if GeoVector is correct that Samsung understands its contentions, it must still formally 

articulate these contentions in the proper format. GeoVector’s bare assertion that Samsung 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 8 of 14
9

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

understands its infringement contentions and so is “on notice” is not sufficient to meet Patent 

Local Rule 3-1’s substantial requirements.

GeoVector’s direct infringement contentions do not meet the requirements of Patent Local 

Rule 3-1(c).

C. GeoVector’s Indirect Infringement Contentions are Insufficient

Patent Local Rule 3-1(d) requires a plaintiff to indicate “[f]or each claim which is alleged 

to have been indirectly infringed, an identification of any direct infringement and a description of 

the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement.” 

Patent L.R. 3-1(d). GeoVector’s infringement contentions assert that Samsung indirectly infringes 

by “making, using and selling products that infringe the Patents-in-Suit, causing those products to 

be manufactured and distributed, and providing instruction manuals for those products.” 

Infringement Contentions at 7. It also asserts that Samsung “deliberately incorporated 

technologies claimed in the GeoVector patents into their products, and provided these 

technologies to a number of customers and third-party application developers through the 

Samsung App Store.” Id. at 8.

These vague allegations are insufficient to meet the requirements of Local Rule 3-1(d).

GeoVector must disclose how exactly Samsung indirectly infringed on GeoVector’s patents. Cap 

Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2-3 (“The fact that McAfee designs infringing software and that 

others run it does not make McAfee an indirect infringer. For example, induced infringement 

requires evidence of ‘intent to encourage infringement.” ); France Telecom, S.A. v. Marvell 

Semiconductor, Inc., No. 12-c-04967-WHA (NC), 2013 WL 1878912, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 

2013) (Contentions that defendant induced infringement by “designing the accused products . . . 

and advertising or representing to third parties that the infringing products are compatible or 

adapted for use within the United States” were insufficient and only a “bare-boned recitation of 

the essential elements of a claim for indirect infringement.”); Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc., 

LLC, No. 11-c-06635-LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 5389775, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (indirect 

infringement contentions that asserted defendant used advertisements to promote the use of their 

product in an infringing manner, but “fail[ed] to identify what advertisements and instructions lead 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 9 of 14
10

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

to what infringing behavior” did not meet the standard of Local Rule 3-1(d)). GeoVector’s mere 

assertion that Samsung produced infringing products and sold or promoted these products is 

insufficient to meet Local Rule 3-1(d)’s requirements.

GeoVector argues that its indirect infringement contentions are sufficient because 

“Samsung is on notice of the fact that its devices provide an augmented reality platform for app 

developers and users of those apps” and “in this interconnected world with smartphones that help 

people connect, it only stands to reason that apps on such devices enable indirect infringement.” 

Oppo. at 17. It also states that it has offered to add cross references to Patent Rule 3-1(d) in its 

infringement charts so this issue should already be resolved. Id. Neither of these arguments 

impacts whether GeoVector’s infringement contentions meet Rule 3-1(d)’s requirements.

GeoVector cannot rely on what it believes Samsung understands to support the sufficiency 

of its infringement contentions: the infringement contentions must meet the Local Rules’ objective 

requirements. GeoVector’s assumption that “it only stands to reason that apps on [Samsung’s] 

devices enable indirect infringement” is wholly speculative and conclusory and does not disclose 

how Samsung indirectly infringes. Finally, GeoVector’s offer to supplement the infringement 

contentions is helpful, but supplements exchanged through informal correspondence or pleadings 

cannot remedy insufficient infringement contentions. GeoVector must supplement its actual 

infringement contentions so that they comply with the Patent Local Rules.

GeoVector’s indirect infringement contentions do not comply with Patent Local Rule 3-

1(d).

D. GeoVector’s Doctrine of Equivalents Contentions Are Improper

Patent Local Rule 3-1(e) requires plaintiffs to identify “[w]hether each limitation of each 

asserted claim is alleged to be literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the 

Accused Instrumentality.” Patent L.R. 3-1(e). Here GeoVector asserts that each claim limitation 

is literally present or “[a]lternatively . . . present under the doctrine of equivalents.” Infringement 

Contentions at 8. This bare assertion is insufficient to satisfy Local Rule 3-1(e). The doctrine of 

equivalents does not exist “to give a patentee a second shot at proving infringement if it is not 

literally present. [Plaintiff] cannot merely add boilerplate language asserting that the doctrine of 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 10 of 14
11

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

equivalents has been met as an alternative theory.” Creagri, 2012 WL 5389775, at *6 (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

GeoVector seems to concede that its doctrine of equivalents contentions are minimal, but 

asserts it will supplement these contentions, if necessary, if “Samsung provides GeoVector with 

added information about each Samsung smart device with any GPS system embedded in it, 

including all the product information relating to those devices.” Oppo. at 17. However, 

GeoVector cannot assert a doctrine of equivalents contention based solely on information that may 

be produced during discovery. InteraXon Inc. v. NeuroTek, LLC, No. 15-c-05290-KAW, 2016 

WL 5118267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (“It is improper to assert the doctrine of equivalents 

with generic ‘placeholder’ language on the hope that future discovery might support such an 

assertion.”). GeoVector’s doctrine of equivalents contentions are improper.

GeoVector’s doctrine of equivalents claims are stricken without leave to amend. This 

ruling does not impact GeoVector’s right to seek leave to amend, after a showing of good cause, 

under Patent Local Rule 3-6.

II. RELIEF

A. Motion to Strike

In this district, motions to strike initial infringement contents are frequently treated as 

motions to compel amendment of the infringement contentions. FusionArc, Inc. v. Solidus 

Networks, Inc., No. 06-c-06760 RMW (RS), 2007 WL 1052900, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2007) 

(“Case precedent recognizes such ‘motions to strike’ as requests that plaintiffs be compelled to 

amend their preliminary contentions to provide additional information.”); Blue Spike v. Adobe 

Sys., 14-c-01647-YGR (JSC), 2015 WL 335842, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (“Where 

appropriate, courts treat a motion to strike as a motion to compel amendment to include additional 

information infringement contentions.”). Here, Samsung seeks to strike GeoVector’s infringement 

contentions and allow GeoVector leave to amend only after successfully seeking leave from the 

court and demonstrating good cause under local rule 3-6. Mot. at 16. However, “[s]triking a 

patentee’s infringement contentions is a severe sanction that should be used sparingly and only for 

good cause.” Finjan v. Proofpoint, 2015 WL 9023166, at *12. While some courts have required a 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 11 of 14
12

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

party asserting infringement to show good cause before being granted leave to amend initial 

contentions, many have simply compelled the asserting party to file compliant infringement 

contentions. Compare Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharma LLC, No. 11-c-05236-YGR, 2012 WL 

6000798, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2012) (striking infringement contentions without leave where 

asserting party made only vague allegations “on information and belief” and implicitly conceded 

that it did not have any additional factual support for its claims), with Bender v. Maxim Integrated 

Prods., 2010 WL 1135762, at *1 (Denying motion to strike and granting motion to compel 

infringement contentions that comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1). This is the first time Samsung 

has moved to strike GeoVector’s infringement contentions, and although the contentions are 

clearly deficient, it appears that GeoVector may be able to remedy many of the identified issues 

with amendment. Striking GeoVector’s infringement contentions with prejudice is not warranted 

at this time.

However, there are some exceptions to this general ruling. GeoVector will not be granted 

leave to amend its doctrine of equivalents claims or to accuse products not explicitly listed in its 

initial contentions. If GeoVector wishes to accuse products not explicitly listed in its initial 

infringement contentions or to reassert its doctrine of equivalents claims, it may only do so after 

seeking leave and showing good cause under Patent Local Rule 3-6. 

GeoVector is ordered to serve Amended Infringement Contentions, subject to the 

limitations outlined above that comply with the Patent Local Rules by January 30, 2017.

B. Motion to Stay

When a plaintiff’s infringement contentions are insufficient to meet the requirements of the 

Patent Local Rules, courts in this district often stay discovery, including a defendant’s obligation 

to serve invalidity contentions “[u]ntil plaintiff meets the burden of providing infringement 

contentions compliant with Patent L.R. 3-1.” Infeneon Techs. v. Volterra Semiconductor, No. 11-

c-06239-DMR, 2013 WL 322570, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013) (citations omitted). Samsung’s 

discovery obligations are temporarily stayed pending GeoVector serving amended and compliant 

infringement contentions. Samsung must file its invalidity contentions by February 20, 2017. The 

discovery dates and deadlines in this case are adjusted as outlined in the following chart. 

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 12 of 14
13

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

Event Prior Deadline New Deadline

Date to Serve Amended 

Infringement Contentions N/A January 30, 2017 

Invalidity Contentions / 

Document

Production Accompanying 

Invalidity

Contentions

January 13, 2017 February 20, 2017 

Exchange of Claim Construction 

Terms

January 27, 2017 March 6, 2017

Exchange Preliminary 

Constructions and

Extrinsic Evidence

February 17, 2017 March 27, 2017 

Joint Claim Construction and 

Prehearing

Statement

March 3, 2017 April 10, 2017

Claim Construction Discovery 

Cut-Off

March 10, 2017 April 17, 2017

Plaintiff’s Opening Claim 

Construction

Brief

April 3, 2017 May 11, 2017

Defendants’ Responsive Claim

Construction Brief

April 17, 2017 May 25, 2017

Plaintiff’s Reply Claim 

Construction Brief

April 24, 2017 June 1, 2017

Tutorial May 5, 2017 June 16, 2017

Claim Construction Hearing May 12, 2017 June 23, 2017

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, GeoVector’s Infringement Contentions do not meet the 

requirements of the Patent Local Rules and are stricken. GeoVector is ordered to file compliant 

Amended Infringement Contentions by January 30, 2017. As outlined above, GeoVector is not 

permitted leave to amend its doctrine of equivalents contentions or to accuse new products not 

identified in its initial contentions. Should GeoVector wish to reassert its doctrine of equivalents 

claims or accuse additional products it may do so only in accordance with Patent Local Rule 3-6. 

Discovery, including Samsung’s obligation to serve invalidity contentions, is stayed. Samsung

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 13 of 14
14

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

must serve its invalidity contentions by February 20, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2017

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02463-WHO Document 54 Filed 01/09/17 Page 14 of 14