Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00968/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00968-14/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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIGHTHOUSE WORLDWIDE SOLUTION,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-00968 MEJ

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; SETTING CASE

MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

On October 10, 2013, Defendant Lighthouse Worldwide Solution filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment, arguing that its products do not infring on Plaintiff Aleksandr Yufa’s ‘983 Patent and that

the ‘983 Patent in invalid for lack of enablement. Dkt. No. 94. In its Motion, Defendant argues that

Plaintiff’s July 24, 2013 Infringement Contentions failed to conform to the requirements of Patent

Local Rule 3-1. Id. at 13. Defendant did not previously object to Plaintiff’s filing as inadequate. 

Reviewing Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, the Court agrees with Defendant that they fail to

meet the requirements of Rule 3-1. Significantly, as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to specifically

identify which of Defendant’s products purportedly infringe on the ‘983 Patent and how those

products infringe, Defendant’s Motion seeks judgement of noninfringement as to all of its products

on the ground that each of its particle detectors uses a reference voltage to eliminate noise and thus

do not literally infringe claims 6-8 of the ‘983 Patent. Mot. at 21. Plaintiff argues in his Opposition

that Defendant’s products do infringe, but does not identify which product(s) and precisely how the

product(s) infringe. Thus, the parties expect this Court to make a general ruling about whether

Defendant’s products infringe. This then leads back to the fact that Plaintiff failed in the first

instance to identify which products are at issue in this case, forcing Defendant to mount a broad

defense encompassing all of its products. See Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 2013 WL

Case 3:09-cv-00968-TSH Document 104 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 2
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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

3361241, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (“[Courts in this district generally do not order defendants to

proceed with discovery in patent cases until the plaintiff provides infringement contentions that

comply with Patent L.R. 3-1.”); InterTrust Tech. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 WL 23120174, at *

1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1,2003) (noting that infringement contentions “require parties to crystallize their

theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been

disclosed.”) After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and based on the oral argument presented,

the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is premature at this stage. Rather, before the Court may

make any determination regarding infringement, Plaintiff must specifically identify which of

Defendants products literally infringe on the ‘983 Patent. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 

1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

2. Plaintiff shall serve infringement contentions that fully comply with Patent Local Rule

3-1 by January 13, 2014. Plaintiff has filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits in this District and

should be familiar with such requirements. Failure to file infringement contentions that conform to

Rule 3-1 may result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff must also produce any documents required

under Patent Local Rule 3-2 that were not previously produced by January 13, 2014. 

3. Defendant’s invalidity contentions shall be served by February 27, 2014, in

compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-4. 

4. The Court sets this matter for a case management conference on March 13, 2014 at

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B. At the case management conference the Court will address what

additional discovery needs to be taken and deadlines for discovery, any claim construction hearing,

and dispositive motions. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by March 6, 2014,

advising the Court of the status of this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2014 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00968-TSH Document 104 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 2