Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05659/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05659-70/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

uPI SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION, AMANDA DAI, and

JACKY LEE,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05659 WHA

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE

TO AMEND INVALIDITY

CONTENTIONS

INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action, one defendant seeks leave to amend their

infringement contentions to include prior art that it discovered soon after the stay was lifted. 

For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Richtek Technology Corporation commenced this action contemporaneously

with an action before the International Trade Commission. The case was quickly stayed

pending the ITC investigation (Dkt. No. 22). The ITC investigation concluded with the entry of

several consent orders in September 2010, and the stay was lifted accordingly (Dkt. No. 89). 

Defendant uPI Semiconductor Corporation moved to substitute counsel quickly after the

stay was lifted, which motion was granted (Dkt. No. 97). Plaintiff served infringement

contentions in November 2010, and defendants served their invalidity contentions in December

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 504 Filed 06/06/16 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

2010. Less than two month later, the case was stayed again pending reexamination of the

patents-in-suit, and then pending a second ITC investigation (Dkt. No. 267). The stay was

lifted in January 2016 (Dkt. No. 443).

uPI now moves to amend its invalidity contentions. Specifically, uPI seeks to add two

references that address the ’190 patent and to clarify (but not change) its contentions regarding

that patent. uPI also seeks to add four references each supporting four new grounds of

invalidity of the ’470 patent.

ANALYSIS

Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides:

Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the Invalidity

Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely

showing of good cause. Non-exhaustive examples of

circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non-moving

party, support a finding of good cause include:

(a) A claim construction by the Court different from that proposed

by the party seeking amendment;

(b) Recent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier diligent

search; and

(c) Recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused

Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts,

before the service of the Infringement Contentions.

Good cause generally exists when the party seeking leave has been diligent and the

opposing party would not suffer undue prejudice if leave is granted. Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Props.

Ltd., No. 08–00877, 2011 WL 1838768, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011) (Judge Jeremy Fogel).

1. DILIGENCE.

The second amended case management order in this action, which issued after the stay

was lifted, provided, “Plaintiff must timely refile its infringement contentions to conform to our

Local Rule 3-1, which filing shall trigger the due date for the invalidity contentions” (Dkt. No.

448 at 6). uPI understood that language to imply that its invalidity contentions, including any

updates following the stay, were due 45 days after Richtek’s infringement contentions came

due, resulting in a deadline for the invalidity contentions of April 25 (Dkt. No. 448 at 6). uPI

filed the instant motion on April 25.

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 504 Filed 06/06/16 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

Richtek contends that uPI should have discovered the references and sought leave to

amend during the limited periods in 2011 or 2013 while the case was not stayed. Indeed, uPI

was aware of two of the references in 2010. uPI, however, could not have appreciated the

importance of these new references (or the search terms that uncovered the further new

references), until Richtek disclosed its interpretations of various claim limitations during the

reexamination proceedings while this case was stayed. Patent Local Rule 3-6 expressly

acknowledges that an unexpected claim construction ruling may, absent undue prejudice,

support a finding of good cause. Here, uPI seeks to amend their invalidity contentions in

advance of an unexpected claim construction ruling, in light of unexpected claim constructed

arguments. (The undersigned does claim construction at the summary judgment phase.)

Richtek also argues that nothing prevented uPI from conducting prior art searches while

the case was stayed, so this motion could have been brought immediately once the stay was

lifted. True, but Richtek ignores the fact that the stays were in place specifically to avoid

expenses that might ultimately prove moot. This order will not hold uPI’s decision not to

undertake such wasteful endeavors against them. True, uPI could possibly have sought leave

much sooner after the stay was lifted, but it reasonably relied on the deadline to refile invalidity

contentions set forth in the scheduling order as the deadline to pursue these amendments.

Thus, this order holds uPI has acted diligently enough in seeking this amendment. 

2. PREJUDICE.

uPI argues that Richtek will not be prejudiced because the parties have not yet taken

claim construction positions, so Richtek will have ample time to address the new prior art

references. Richtek responds that it will be prejudiced because the undersigned does not hold a

separate Markman hearing, but instead construes claims in the context of summary judgment. 

Richtek’s argument is unclear. The later claim construction procedure gives it more time to

address the new prior art references.

* * *

uPI’s motion is distinct from Richtek’s recent motion to amend its infringement

contentions to include new products. Here, uPI seeks to shore up its defense to meet new

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 504 Filed 06/06/16 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

arguments that arose during reexamination proceedings, albeit based on prior art that occurred

prior to the pleading sought to be amend. By contrast, Richtek sought to expand the scope of

the case to include new products released after the complaint was filed, yet Richtek failed to

recognize that such expansion would require a supplemental pleading. Moreover, denial of

Richtek’s motion to amend its infringement contentions had minimal effect on Richtek, which

remains free to pursue claims regarding those products in a subsequent suit. uPI, however, has

only one opportunity to raise their strongest invalidity defense, so it is appropriate, in light of

uPI’s diligence and the lack of prejudice to Richtek, to permit these proposed amendments.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, uPI’s motion for leave to amend their invalidity

contentions is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 504 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 4