Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06880/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06880-2/pdf.json

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HITACHI KOKUSAI ELECTRIC INC., et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ASM INTERNATIONAL, N.V., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06880-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL 

RULE 6-3

[Re: ECF 120]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Time (“Motion”) pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 6-3. Motion, ECF 120. Plaintiffs state that under the current Scheduling Order, 

Plaintiffs’ Damages Contentions are due on June 28, 2019, over a month before Defendants’ 

Invalidity Contentions which are due on August 2, 2019. See Motion at 1; Scheduling Order at 1, 

ECF 117. Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their 

Damages Contentions to September 23, 2019, because “Damages Contentions are usually due ‘50 

days after service of the Invalidity Contentions.’” See Motion at 1 (citing Patent L.R. 3-8). 

Defendants oppose, on the basis that Plaintiffs’ request “is unnecessary” and that Plaintiffs would 

not be prejudiced under the current Scheduling Order because “[t]here is no additional relevant 

damages discovery Plaintiffs are actually waiting for or need.” See Opp’n at 2, ECF 122. For the 

reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. 

A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.” 

Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may take into account any resulting 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 126 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 2
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

prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] inquiry is upon the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff’d 

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated diligence in seeking the requested modification. On 

March 14, 2019, the parties stipulated to modify Defendants’ deadline to disclose Invalidity 

Contentions to August 2, 2019 (the same day as Plaintiffs’ deadline to disclose Invalidity 

Contentions regarding counterclaim patents), while leaving the June 28, 2019 deadline for 

Damages Contentions for all patents in place. See Ex. A to Joint Stipulation, ECF 101-1. On 

March 15, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation incorporating those same 

deadlines. See ECF 102. On April 25, 2019, the parties again stipulated to the same deadlines in 

seeking a separate change to the Scheduling Order, see ECF 116-1, which the Court granted on 

April 26, 2019, see ECF 117. Thus, Plaintiffs have had the current schedule at their disposal for 

months prior to bringing the instant Motion. 

While Plaintiff argues that Patent Local Rule 3-8 was intended to give a plaintiff 50 days 

after service of the Invalidity Contentions to serve Damages Contentions, see Motion at 2, this rule 

merely provides that Damages Contentions are due “[n]ot later than 50 days after service of the 

Invalidity Contentions,” see Patent L.R. 3-8. In other words, Patent Local Rule 3-8 provides an 

ultimate deadline for service of Damages Contentions but does not prevent parties from stipulating 

to a different schedule with an earlier deadline, as is the case here. Plaintiffs contend that in 

stipulating to the current schedule, “Plaintiffs inadvertently omitted including a corresponding 

change to the due date for the Damages Contentions.” See Motion at 3. However, the current 

Damages Contentions deadline applies to both Plaintiffs and Defendants, and Plaintiffs do not 

argue that both sides inadvertently failed to adjust the deadline in the parties’ prior stipulations. 

In sum, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2019 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 126 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 2