Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-22/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-01830 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike the “final invalidity

contentions” raised by the Defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The local rules of this Court require that parties in patent lawsuits file preliminary

disclosures regarding the contentions that they intend to set forth regarding infringement and

invalidity. Plaintiff set forth its preliminary infringement contentions on January 31, 2005. 

See Patent Local Rule 3-1. Defendant set forth its preliminary invalidity contentions on

March 31, 2005. See Patent Local Rule 3-3.

Subsequently, this Court held a Markman hearing to review eight terms found in six

Funai patents. The Court issued its claim construction order on March 1, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 308 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Defendant then served Plaintiff with a set of “final invalidity contentions,” pursuant to

Local Rule 3-6(b)(2), on April 20, 2006. Under that rule, Defendant had authority to serve

these final invalidity contentions without leave of court, “[n]ot later than 50 days after

service by the Court of its Claim Construction Ruling,” so long as Defendant “believe[d] in

good faith that the Court’s Claim Construction Ruling so require[d].”

Now, more than six months after being served with these final invalidity contentions,

Plaintiff has moved to strike them. Plaintiff contends (1) that the final invalidity contentions

were not served in a timely fashion, and (2) that Defendant lacked a good-faith belief that

these final invalidity contentions were necessary as a result of the Court’s claim construction

ruling. For both of these reasons, Plaintiff claims that Defendant was without authority to

serve its final invalidity contentions and that the contentions must be disregarded.

DISCUSSION

As for the issue of timeliness, Plaintiff’s argument is somewhat difficult to discern. 

Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 3-6(b)(2), which

provides a defendant with fifty days to serve its final invalidity contentions. Such an

argument would be untenable, as Defendant actually complied with the local deadline.

Instead, Plaintiff notes Defendant’s repeated invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 282, a

statutory provision that precludes a defendant in a patent infringement case from relying on

prior art without disclosing that prior art to its adversary more than thirty days before trial. 

Plaintiff then notes that courts may require earlier disclosures from the parties than the

statute requires and observes that the statutory provision therefore “certainly does not afford

Defendant[] a ‘safe harbor’ from which to thumb their noses at the Patent Local Rules.” Pl.

Mot. to Strike at 7-8. From the observation that the local rules were designed to elicit the

position of the parties at an early stage in the litigation, Plaintiff extrapolates that Defendant

has flouted the “spirit and substance of the Patent Local Rules” by withholding submission of

its invalidity contentions until after the claim construction ruling, and that the submissions

should therefore be “struck as untimely.” Id.

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 308 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. As a matter purely of timeliness, Defendant has

complied with both the lenient statutory requirement and this Court’s more rigorous

requirement. It would be the height of irony to throw out Defendant’s final invalidity

contentions as untimely when (1) Defendant actually complied with the applicable deadlines

and (2) Plaintiff delayed for six months before challenging them. Moreover, as a policy

matter, these disclosure requirements are designed not to cement parties to certain argument,

but rather to prevent sandbagging and any prejudice to an opposing party resulting from the

tardy disclosure of relevant contentions and prior art. Given that the disputed final invalidity

contentions were filed more than fifteen months before the scheduled trial date, it is difficult

to imagine what conceivable prejudice might be suffered by the Defendant at trial as a result

of the timing of these “new” invalidity contentions. Because Defendant complied with all

relevant deadlines and because Plaintiff cannot suffer prejudice as a result of the timing of

the disclosure of the final invalidity contentions, this Court refuses to strike them as

untimely.

As to the issue of good faith, this Court cannot find that Defendant’s shift in its

approach to the case, as reflected in the differences between the preliminary invalidity

contentions to the final invalidity contentions, was so egregious as to warrant striking the

subsequent invalidity contentions. It may be true that some of the final invalidity contentions

could have been anticipated by Defendant and that its disclosure of prior art in the intitial

invalidity contentions left something to be desired. But it is just as true that a thirty-one page

claim construction order, relating to six patents and construing eight relevant terms, would

give any conscientious litigant pause to rethink his or her approach to the case. This Court

cannot conclude that Defendant served its final invalidity contentions without a good faith

belief that the claim construction order required it to do so. Indeed, the Court finds credible

Defendant’s explanation that the claim construction order required a shift in emphasis toward

invalidity. Still less is this Court willing to scrutinize the issue of Defendant’s good faith

when Plaintiff has delayed for half a year to contest the issue.

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 308 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 4
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

G:\CRBALL\2004\1830\order re motion to strike.wpd 4

Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s final invalidity contentions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 308 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 4