Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00044/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00044-29/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

1 The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,650,770 (the “‘770 Patent”),

5,963,130 (the “‘130 Patent”), 6,198,390 (the “‘390 Patent”) and 6,518,889 (the “‘889

Patent”).

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ZOLTAR SATELLITE ALARM SYSTEMS,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MOTOROLA, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C06-00044 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY

CONTENTIONS

[Re: Docket No. 226]

The parties presently are before the court on the “Motion for Leave to Amend

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions” filed by defendants Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) and Sprint

Corporation (“Sprint”). Plaintiff Zoltar Satellite Alarm Systems, Inc. (“Zoltar”) opposed the

motion. The matter was referred to the undersigned for disposition. This court finds it

appropriate to rule without oral argument, and the April 8, 2008 motion hearing is vacated. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court grants

the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for alleged patent infringement. Zoltar says that it is the owner of the

four patents-in-suit1

 which concern wireless personal alarm units and systems that can

determine whether to sound an alarm based on environmental indicators. Zoltar filed its

*E-FILED 4/2/2008*

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 1 of 7
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

complaint in the Eastern District of Texas in June 2005. The case subsequently was transferred

to this district on January 1, 2006. Although a number of defendants originally were named in

this lawsuit, Motorola and Sprint are the only ones that remain.

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and subsequent order of court, defendants’

preliminary invalidity contentions (“PICs”) were due by March 5, 2007. The court later

approved the parties’ stipulation extending that deadline to April 5, 2007. Defendants timely

served their PICs. Then, the following month, defendants advised Zoltar that they wished to

amend their PICs to include additional prior art references. They filed their first motion for

leave to do so on June 4, 2007. At around this time, the court extended the deadline for the

service of defendants’ PICs to July 2, 2007, evidently to accommodate the addition of the

Samsung defendants (who have since been dismissed). Samsung’s PICs reportedly included the

same references which were the subject of defendants’ then-pending motion for leave to amend. 

Because Zoltar did not oppose defendants’ joinder and adoption of Samsung’s PICs, that

motion was withdrawn.

After the parties filed their respective claim construction statements, the court held a

claim construction hearing on September 28, 2007. On December 21, 2007, the court issued its

First Claim Construction Order as to the ‘770 Patent. On February 4, 2008, at the court’s

direction, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement with revised claim construction

charts as to their positions on the remaining claims to be construed. On February 7, 2008, the

court vacated the February 11, 2008 case management conference, indicating that it has all the

information it needs to proceed to the second round of claim construction.

Defendants say that they have, in the meantime, continued their investigation and

analysis of relevant prior art and discovered fifteen U.S. patents that they wish to add to their

PICs. Specifically, Motorola says that, on October 2, 2007, it became aware of two of the

references at issue; and, between October 30, 2007 and November 15, 2007, it became aware of

six more. Defendants disclosed them (along with their proposed amended PICs) to Zoltar on

November 21, 2007. On December 6, 2007, Zoltar advised that it would not agree to

defendants’ proposed amendment, and the instant motion followed two days later. In their reply

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 2 of 7
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 court’s revised Patent Local Rules took effect on March 1, 2008 and

govern patent cases filed on or after that date. The provisions of the Patent Local Rules

which were in effect on February 29, 2008 continue to apply to the instant action. See Pat.

L.R. 1-4.

3

brief, defendants advise that, on January 15, 2008, they discovered seven more patents. On

January 24, 2008, they informed Zoltar of them and then, on February 4, 2008, disclosed their

invalidity contentions based on those references.

II. DISCUSSION

Under the court’s Patent Local Rules,2 a party opposing a claim of patent infringement

serves its PICs before claim construction and then may amend them without leave of court

under certain circumstances as “Final Invalidity Contentions” after claim construction. See Pat.

L.R. 3-6(b). Otherwise, “[a]mendment or modification of the [PICs] . . . may be made only by

order of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” See Pat. L.R. 3-

7.

These rules were designed to require parties to specify their contentions early in the

litigation, to prevent the parties from pursuing a “‘shifting sands’ approach to claim

construction” (see LG Elecs. Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 367 (N.D. Cal.

2002) and “to balance the right to develop new information in discovery with the need for

certainty as to the legal theories” (O2 Micro Int’l Limited v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467

F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The parties’ ability to amend their contentions therefore is

restricted. See O2 Micro Int’l Limited, 467 F.3d at 1359-60. “Apart from amendments

designed to take account of the district court’s claim construction, amendments are permitted

only for ‘good cause’ even though the period allowed for discovery typically will not have

expired.” Id. at 1360. “Good cause” requires a showing of diligence. Id. at 1366. “The burden

is on the movant to establish diligence rather than on the opposing party to establish a lack of

diligence.” Id.

Nevertheless, judges in this district have recognized that the Patent Local Rules are “not

a straitjacket into which litigants are locked from the moment their contentions are served. 

There is a modest degree of flexibility, at least near the outset.” Comcast Cable

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 7
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

Communications Corp., LLC v. Finisar Corp., No. C06-04206, 2007 WL 716131 at *2 (N.D.

Cal. Mar. 2, 2007); see also Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. C05-4063, 2007

WL 1288199 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2007) (considering the timing and impact of amendment

on other case deadlines).

In this case, there is no suggestion that defendants have “sat on their hands” with respect

to their prior art research. Indeed, Zoltar says that, if anything, defendants have pursued a

“scorched earth policy” in which they have endeavored to leave no prior art stone unturned. 

For their part, defendants argue that they have shown good cause because they have diligently

investigated the prior art and promptly brought the references in question to Zoltar’s and the

court’s attention after they were discovered.

Nonetheless, Zoltar argues that defendants have already had an inordinately long period

of time (i.e., over two years) in which to research the relevant prior art and formalize their

invalidity contentions. It contends that there is no reason why they could not have found the

additional fifteen publicly available references in time to include them in their PICs served on

April 5, 2007 or the PICs served in July 2007. It believes that defendants’ invalidity

contentions are already too voluminous and says that enough is enough. Defendants protest that

the research and analysis of prior art is an art, not a science. They say that the additional

references in question are material and implicate the important public interest in having patent

invalidity issues decided on the merits.

On the one hand, this case is not at its outset. The first round of claim construction is

done. The second round of claim construction apparently is underway. On the other hand,

patent invalidity issues do have important public interest implications. See Fresenius Med.

Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. C03-01431, 2006 WL 1329997 at *6 (N.D. Cal.,

May 15, 2006) (citing Nestier Corp. v. Menasha Corporation-Lewisystems Div., 739 F.2d 1576,

1581 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Moreover, Zoltar has not identified or even articulated how, if at all, it

will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. The parties report that they have not yet begun

discovery, and the court has not set discovery deadlines or a trial date. Under different

circumstances, defendants’ mantra as to the ongoing nature of their prior art investigation might

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 4 of 7
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

not carry the day. Although they seem to suggest that their research is potentially endless, it

must come to an end at some point. However, in view of the facts presented here, the court

concludes that amendment will advance fair resolution of the issues on the merits without

prejudice to Zoltar. Accordingly, amendment will be allowed.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendants’ motion for leave to amend

their PICs is GRANTED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 2, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

5:06-cv-44 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Lina M. Brenner lmbrenner@duanemorris.com, bmcoffey@duanemorris.com 

Nathaniel Bruno nbruno@sheppardmullin.com, jgorsi@sheppardmullin.com 

Jingming James Cai jcai@flglawyer.com 

Eric Cha echa@jonesday.com, lkeith@jonesday.com 

Chris N. Cravey ccravey@wmalaw.com, mdunglinson@wmalaw.com, nnolan@wmalaw.com 

Keith B. Davis kbdavs@jonesday.com, jcook@jonesday.com 

John J. Feldhaus jfeldhaus@foley.com 

Hilda C. Galvan hcgalvan@jonesday.com, jcook@jonesday.com 

Robert T. Haslam , III Robert.Haslam@hellerehrman.com, christine.chen@hellerehrman.com,

robin.ramirez@hellerehrman.com 

Wayne Michael Helge whelge@park-law.com, patent@park-law.com 

Steven R. Katz katz@fr.com, kps@fr.com 

Tharan Gregory Lanier tglanier@jonesday.com, snakanomcswain@jonesday.com 

Iman Lordgooei ilordgooei@jonesday.com 

Shelley Kay Mack mack@fr.com, pearson@fr.com 

Michael Myles Markman mmarkman@hewm.com 

Mark William McGrory markm@rhgm.com 

Michael J. McKeon mckeon@fr.com, west@fr.com 

Howard B. Miller hmiller@girardikeese.com 

Andrew Ellis Monach amonach@mofo.com, jgrady@mofo.com 

David Baxter Moyer davidbmoyer@yahoo.com 

Choongsoo Park park@fr.com, haynes@fr.com 

Hae-Chan Park hpark@park-law.com, patent@park-law.com 

Michael Kenneth Plimack mplimack@hewm.com 

Joshua Burrill Pond pond@fr.com, pettipas@fr.com 

Mark N. Reiter mnreiter@jonesday.com, jlgraham@jonesday.com 

Lawrence A Rouse larryr@rhgm.com, leea@rhgm.com, timr@rhgm.com 

Ron Schlager LeglBeagl1@AOL.com 

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Anthony Hyeok Son , Esq Ason@foleylaw.com 

Michael Junwhan Song msong@foley.com, cphilips@foley.com, jpung@foley.com,

smurthy@foley.com 

Aaron Benjamin Thacker aaron.thacker@hellererhman.com 

Amy Kathleen VanZant avanzant@hewm.com 

Jaideep Venkatesan jay.venkatesan@hellerehrman.com, jocelyn.koch@hellerehrman.com 

Danny L. Williams danny@wmalaw.com, mdunglinson@wmalaw.com, mpaul@wmalaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:06-cv-00044-JW Document 247 Filed 04/02/08 Page 7 of 7