Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01507/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01507-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

SILICONIX INCORPORATED, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DENSO CORPORATION, a Japanese

corporation, and TD SCAN (U.S.A.), INC.,

a Michigan corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01507 WHA

ORDER RE DISPUTE OVER

DISCLOSURE UNDER 

LOCAL PATENT RULES

At issue is our local patent disclosure rule. Local Patent Rule 3-1 requires the patent

holder to serve a chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is

found within each accused instrumentality. Rule 3-1 further requires disclosure whether each

element is contended to be literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents. These

are part of the preliminary infringement contentions required early in the litigation. 

The immediate issue is the extent to which the chart must lay out the case under the

doctrine of equivalents where the patent holder’s main line of attack is literal infringement and

the doctrine of equivalents is only a potential back-up argument. Here, for example, the

patent holder asserts literal infringement. It will resort to the doctrine of equivalents only if it

eventually receives an unfavorable claim construction or for other substantial justification. 

There are cases in which from the outset the patent holder relies, as to one or more

elements, only on the doctrine of equivalents. In such cases, of course, the chart should lay out

Case 3:05-cv-01507-WHA Document 70 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

the specific function-way-result analysis as to each element for which it is invoked. 

(In addition, the chart should also lay out the literal infringement details as to the other

elements.) 

In cases where the main line of attack is literal infringement but the doctrine of

equivalents is also asserted, the patent holder presumably has in mind one or more reasons how

the doctrine might apply. Those reasons should be disclosed. If there are no reasons, then the

doctrine should not be asserted in the first place. A patent holder should not blindly assert the

doctrine of equivalents without having an articulable explanation for why it might apply. 

If substantial justification arises afterward for a later supplemental disclosure, then an

alternative theory under the doctrine of equivalents can then be added. A twist in claim

construction, for example, could be such an occasion. Local Rule 3-6 expressly contemplates

that a party who has acted in good faith may serve revised contentions without leave of court if

warranted by an intervening claim-construction ruling or discovery showing the operation of the

accused device. Beyond this, Local Rule 3-7 allows a party to seek leave to amend the

contentions upon a showing of good cause. 

On the other hand, a patent holder should not be allowed to disclose initially based on an

aggressive claim construction only to surface its real argument later via amendment. A party

who engages in such hide-the-ball tactics should be denied the opportunity to amend later on. 

The touchstone for later amendments must include good faith. Whether good faith can

be shown will depend on the facts and circumstances. The purpose of the rule is to give fair

and reasonable, if imperfect, disclosure of the issues to be tried and to which discovery and

investigation should be directed. A patent holder on clear notice of a cogent and reasonable

alternative meaning for a claim — such as one covered in a pre-litigation letter by an accused

infringer or set forth in a relevant claim construction in the past — is well-advised to lay out its

case under that alternative (as well as lay out its main case under its own construction). On the

other hand, no one can be expected to lard their disclosures with multiple contingencies

addressing weak and/or convoluted possibilities. Counsel must exercise professional judgment

Case 3:05-cv-01507-WHA Document 70 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

to frame the issues which ought to be in play. If they do so in good faith but undisclosed issues

later loom large, they should be granted leave to amend. 

After the decision enforcing our local rule in Genentech Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d

761 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the local rules were amended to allow a party acting in good faith to

amend the contentions — without leave of court — if intervening claim construction or

infringement evidence so require. (It has always been the rule that amendments could be

allowed for good cause.) Arguably, this change is supportive of a notion that the preliminary

infringement contentions can be thin up front and meaty later on. This change, however, was

meant as a safety valve for those acting in good faith. It did not change the fundamental

purpose of the disclosures. They should reveal all infringement contentions required by good

faith. 

Here, the mere mention of the doctrine of equivalents without any supporting reason is

meaningless. The motion is GRANTED. The reference to the doctrine of equivalents is,

therefore, stricken. With the benefit of this ruling, plaintiff is given SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS

from the date hereof to update its Rule 3-1 disclosure as to the doctrine of equivalents if it can

do so in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01507-WHA Document 70 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 3