Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05353/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05353-3/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

HARVATEK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CREE, INC., CREE HONG KONG

LIMITED, and CREE SHANGHAI OPTO

DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-05353 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO STRIKE

INTRODUCTION

In this patent-infringement action involving light-emitting diodes, accused infringers

move to strike patent holder’s supplemental production of evidence of the conception date of its

invention and to preclude patent holder from asserting a conception date prior to filing the

application for the patent-in-suit. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Harvatek Corporation filed its application for United States Patent No.

8,079,737 (“the ’737 patent”) on April 20, 2009. Harvatek commenced this action against

defendants Cree, Inc., Cree Hong Kong Limited, and Cree Shanghai Opto Development Limited

in December 2014 asserting infringement of the ’737 patent. 

The initial case management conference in this action took place on March 16, 2015. 

Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2 require a party claiming patent infringement to serve “infringement

contentions,” on all opposing parties “not later than 14 days after the initial case management

Case 3:14-cv-05353-WHA Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 5
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

conference.” In particular, Patent L.R. 3-1(f) requires a patent holder to disclose “the priority

date to which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled,” and Patent L.R. 3-2(b) requires the party

claiming patent infringement to produce:

All documents evidencing the conception, reduction to practice,

design, and development of each claimed invention, which were

created on or before the date of application for the patent in suit or

the priority date identified pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1(f),

whichever is earlier . . . .

In its disclosures and production required by Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2, which occurred in

March 2015, Harvatek did not produce any documents evidencing a conception date prior to the

date on which it filed the application for the ’737 patent. Cree reminded counsel for Harvatek of

the requirement to produce documents under Patent L.R. 3-2 (Hanewicz Decl., Exh. 7). Counsel

for Harvatek indicated they would produce some conception documents on April 1 (id., Exh. 8). 

That production consisted only of publicly-available prosecution history and assignment

documents (id., Exh. 9). 

In Cree’s first set of interrogatories, it asked Harvatek to identify “the earliest date by

which the inventor conceived of the claimed invention” (Hanewicz Decl., Exh. 12). On April 3,

Harvatek responded, “[t]he inventions of the patents [sic] in suit were conceived and reduced to

practice as [sic] least as early as April 20, 2009.” Harvatek also noted its “investigation [was]

continuing and Harvatek reserve[d] the right to supplement or amend [its] responses based on

additional discovery and investigation” (id. at 10). 

On May 11, Cree served Harvatek with invalidity contentions that relied on a conception

date of April 20, 2009, specifically arguing that the accused product pre-dated the ’737 patent,

and so could not infringe any claims without also anticipating those claims. Cree informed

Harvatek that it intended to file an early motion for summary judgment of invalidity on that

basis.

On May 21, two months after the deadline for the required disclosures under Patent L.R.

3-1 and 3-2, Harvatek produced two undated Chinese language documents that it claimed “may

provide evidence of invention in advance of the ’737 patent filing date” (id., Exh. 13). Those

documents contained no metadata or indication as to the dates on which they were created. 

Case 3:14-cv-05353-WHA Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Additionally, Harvatek stated that there “may be information available in third party discovery”

evidencing an earlier conception date (ibid.). While this motion was pending, Harvatek

produced three Chinese language e-mails each of which indicate that it attached a draft patent

application, but no attachment was produced. Harvatek now “believes it has produced all

documents relevant to conception and reduction to practice of the ’737 patent” (Pl.’s Opp. at 6). 

To date, Harvatek has not identified a conception date prior to April 20, 2009. Harvatek did not

seek leave to supplement its disclosures or production, as required by Patent L.R. 3-6.

Cree now moves to strike Harvatek’s late-produced documents and to preclude Harvatek

from asserting a conception date prior to the ’737 patent filing date. This order follows full

briefing and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

The Patent Local Rules 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., Inc., No. 09-01152, 2010 WL

1135762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010) (Judge Susan Illston). In furtherance of that goal,

Patent L.R. 3-1(f) particularly requires a patent holder to assert a specific date of conception, not

a date range, and Patent L.R. 3-2(b) requires the proactive and expedient production of evidence

of that conception date. 

An open-ended conception date was stricken in Blue Spike, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc.,

No. 14-01647, 2015 WL 335842, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (Judge Jacqueline Corley), as it

violated Patent L.R. 3-1(f). There, the patent holder contended, “each asserted claim of the

patents-in-suit [is] entitled to a priority date no later than September 7, 2000.” The patent holder

did not address the accused infringer’s concern about an open-ended conception date in its brief,

and did not respond meaningfully to that concern at oral argument. Accordingly, the language

“no later than” was stricken from the patent holder’s infringement contentions, and the priority

date for patent was limited to September 7, 2000. So too here.

Case 3:14-cv-05353-WHA Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Harvatek’s reply is that Cree’s motion should be denied because Cree has not been

prejudiced by Harvatek’s conduct, given the early stage of the litigation and because it had good

cause for its belated disclosures.

Harvatek’s argument that Cree was not prejudiced because the litigation is at such an

early stage is unpersuasive. While Harvatek’s conception date has remained uncertain, Cree’s

early motion for summary judgment has been held in abeyance, which has prevented a possible

route to “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of the case within the meaning of FRCP 1. 

Cree has also been unable to focus its discovery efforts on a specific conception date. Further, if

Harvatek were to be allowed to assert a specific conception date later in litigation, considerable

time and money could be needlessly expended in discovery that could be obviated or narrowed

following Cree’s early motion for summary judgment. Harvatek’s failure to identify a specific

conception date has allowed it to reverse the order of the procedure contemplated by our Patent

Local Rules, giving it a preview of Cree’s invalidity contentions before offering a concrete

conception date. 

Harvatek’s argument that it had good cause for its delays, even if it were properly raised

in a motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions or supplement its productions, is also

unpersuasive. Harvatek attributes its delays to language and geographic barriers, noting in

particular that the relevant documents are written in Chinese, however, it does not account for

the fact that it had the opportunity to conduct a diligent search for evidence of an earlier

conception date before filing its complaint herein. Nor does the fact that some evidence is in the

possession of third parties excuse Harvatek’s failure to timely and diligently acquire and disclose

the documents or to identify a specific conception date. In its briefs and at oral argument,

Harvatek referenced a “miscommunication” that delayed the production of the first two relevant

documents that it produced, but offers no explanation of that miscommunication. 

The only decision that Harvatek cites on point is Renesas Technology Corp. v. Nanya

Technology Corp., No. 03-5709, 2005 WL 2072121 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2005) (Judge Howard

Lloyd), in which a motion to strike supplemental production was denied because the moving

party was not prejudiced by the belated disclosures, but that decision is easily distinguished. 

Case 3:14-cv-05353-WHA Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

There the patent holder had delayed in disclosing “official” patent file histories because the

United States Patent and Trademark Office had lost several of those file histories. Because the

patent holder had produced “unofficial” copies of those file histories in place of the missing

ones, the accused infringer could not claim prejudice.

Harvatek has had ample opportunity to amend its infringement contentions to state a

specific date of conception and has failed to do so. Such failure has prejudiced Cree and brought

about the “shifting sands” that our Patent Local Rules were designed to prevent. See Atmel

Corp. v. Information Storage Devices Inc., No. 95-1987, 1998 WL 775115, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

Nov. 5, 1998) (Judge Fern Smith). Those rules are in place to require patent holders to

“crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation,” which heads off the possibility of

abuse in the form of theories contrived to get behind later-disclosed prior art. Ibid. This poses a

minimal burden for a patent holder, who should already know the conception date of a patented

invention prior to commencing litigation.

Whether or not Harvatek intended such abuse here, the rules must have teeth if they are

to have any effect. Accordingly, the language “at least as early as” shall be stricken from

Harvatek’s interrogatory responses, and the priority date for the ’737 patent shall be fixed at

April 20, 2009. Any belatedly-produced evidence of an earlier conception date shall also be

stricken. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Cree’s motion to strike Harvatek’s belated disclosures and

to preclude it from asserting a conception date prior to the filing date of the application for the

’737 patent is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05353-WHA Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 5