Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04074/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04074-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

GENERAL ATOMICS, DIAZYME

LABORATORIES DIVISION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AXIS-SHIELD ASA,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04074 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO AMEND PRELIMINARY

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Now before the Court is defendant’s motion to amend its preliminary infringement contentions.

Having carefully considered the papers submitted, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby

GRANTS defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff General Atomics filed this action on October 11, 2005, seeking a declaratory judgment

that its products did not infringe four patents owned by defendant Axis-Shield. On March 3, 2006, Axis

Shield served its preliminary infringement contentions in accordance with the local rules. Six weeks

later, General Atomics filed a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to one of its

products. The Court held a hearing on General Atomics’ motion on June 2, 2006. After the hearing but

before the Court had ruled on General Atomics’ motion, Axis Shield moved to amend its preliminary

infringement contentions. It sought to raise a new basis for its argument that the product that was the

subject of General Atomics’ summary judgment motion infringed its patents. General Atomics opposes

Axis Shield’s motion, claiming that Axis Shield has not shown the requisite “good cause” to amend its

Case 3:05-cv-04074-SI Document 100 Filed 08/09/06 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

preliminary infringement contentions. The Court finds that Axis Shield has adequately demonstrated

good cause to amend its preliminary infringement contentions, and therefore GRANTS defendant’s

motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Patent Local Rules provide that a party’s preliminary infringement contentions “shall be

deemed that party’s final contentions.” Patent Local Rule 3-6. Where the party asserting patent

infringement seeks to change its preliminary infringement contentions, the local rules provide only two

mechanisms for doing so. First, that party may amend its preliminary infringement contentions without

leave of court when “the Court’s Claim Construction Ruling . . . so requires.” Patent Local Rule 3-6(a).

Second, the party can seek leave of court to amend where it can show “good cause.” Patent Local Rule

3-7.

“Unlike the liberal policy for amending pleadings, the philosophy behind amending claim charts

is decidedly conservative, and designed to prevent the ‘shifting sands’ approach to claim construction.”

LG Electronics Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Thus, the rules

were “designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation and to

adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Axis Shield seeks to amend its preliminary infringement contentions under both Patent Local

Rule 3-6(a) and Patent Local Rule 3-7. Because the Court finds that Axis Shield is entitled to amend

under Rule 3-7, it does not address whether Rule 3-6(a) applies.

As discussed above, Patent Local Rule 3-7 allows a party to amend its preliminary infringement

contentions upon a showing of “good cause.” Axis Shield argues that it has met this requirement

because it did not conceive of the infringement theory it seeks to add until the parties exchanged

preliminary claim construction statements. Because this case is still relatively young, the Court finds

that Axis Shield has demonstrated good cause. Indeed, Axis Shield first notified the Court of its intent

to amend its preliminary infringement contentions on June 17, 2006, before claim construction and only

Case 3:05-cv-04074-SI Document 100 Filed 08/09/06 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

three months after it first served its preliminary infringement contentions. Because of the relatively

short amount of time that has passed since Axis Shield served its preliminary infringement contentions,

the Court believes that Axis Shield should be allowed to amend.

Defendant points the Court to a number of cases from this district that rejected similar claims

of good cause. See Berger v. Rossignol Ski Co., 2006 WL 1095914 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2006); Atmel

Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices Inc., 1998 WL 775115 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 1998). Those cases, however,

either involved far more dilatory conduct on the patent owner’s part, or were much further developed

than this case at the time the patent owner moved to amend. See Berger, 2006 WL 1095914, at *1-2

(plaintiff’s preliminary infringement contentions were five weeks late and were incomplete, and plaintiff

failed to inform the court of the errors in its preliminary infringement contentions in a timely fashion);

Atmel, 1998 WL 775115, at *2 (plaintiff’s motion filed after claim construction had completed and well

over one year after preliminary infringement contentions were served). In contrast to the above cases,

this case had existed for only eight months before Axis Shield filed its motion to amend. While the

Court recognizes that the Patent Local Rules are intended to force patent owners to finalize their

contentions early, preliminary infringement contentions are still preliminary. Some room must therefore

be made for patent owners to perfect their infringement theories.

In addition to arguing that Axis Shield’s motion is untimely, General Atomics raises two

additional reasons why Axis Shield’s motion should be denied. First, General Atomics argues that it

will be prejudiced by any amendment because it has already filed a summary judgment motion. While

it is true that General Atomics has incurred the substantial expense of a summary judgment motion, it

is also true that its motion for summary judgment was brought very early in the case, even before claim

construction had occurred. Thus, any prejudice General Atomics suffers is also partially attributable

to its own choice to bring a motion for summary judgment before Axis Shield’s preliminary

infringement contentions had been finalized. 

General Atomics also argues that Axis Shield’s motion should be denied because the new theory

of infringement set forth in Axis Shield’s proposed amendment is futile. The Court cannot agree that

Axis Shield’s new theory of infringement can be disposed of so easily. Rather, the Court finds that the

theory raises factual issues that are best addressed on summary judgment.

Case 3:05-cv-04074-SI Document 100 Filed 08/09/06 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

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s

motion to amend its preliminary infringement contentions (Docket No. 72).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04074-SI Document 100 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 4