Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01544/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01544-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

16-CV-1544 JLS (NLS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DNA GENOTEK INC., a Delaware 

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS L.L.C., a Utah 

Limited Liability Company; and 

SPECTRUM DNA, a Utah Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1544 JLS (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION TO USE 

DISCOVERY FROM PARALLEL 

CASE

(ECF No. 39)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff DNA Genotek Inc.’s Ex Parte Motion to Use 

Discovery from Parallel Case (Ex Parte Mot., ECF No. 39), as well as Defendants 

Spectrum Solutions L.L.C. and Spectrum DNA’s Opposition to (ECF No. 40) Plaintiff’s 

Ex Parte Motion. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion. (ECF No. 39.)

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants in the United States 

District Court for the District of Delaware (the Delaware Action), alleging infringement of 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01544-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1544 JLS (NLS)

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 Patent No. 8,221,381 B2 (the ’381 Patent). (Ex Parte Mot. 2,1 ECF No. 39 

(citing Compl., DNA Genotek, Inc. v. Spectrum DNA, No. 1:15-cv-00661-SLR (D. Del. 

Filed July 30, 2015), ECF No. 1).)

On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants in this Court, alleging 

infringement of United States Patent No. 9,207,164 B2 (the ’164 Patent). (See generally 

Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff explains that the two actions involve related patents, the 

same accused products, and the same parties:

The ’164 patent and ’381 patent are part of the same patent 

family and have substantially identical specifications. The 

accused products in the present action are the same saliva 

collection devices that are accused in the Delaware Action. The 

parties in the Delaware Action and the action before this Court 

are the same.

(Ex Parte Mot. 2–3, ECF No. 39.)

On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (See 

generally ECF No. 12.) Defendants filed a motion to stay pending inter partes review on 

July 21, 2016. (See generally ECF No. 30.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff asks the Court for permission to use discovery from the Delaware Action 

in this case. (See Ex Parte Mot. 2, 4, ECF No. 39.) Specifically, Plaintiff wishes to use 

discovery from the Delaware Action in its reply memorandum in support of its motion for 

a preliminary injunction to bolster its argument that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm 

as a result of Defendants’ ongoing infringement. (See id. at 3.) Plaintiff argues that 

“[u]tilizing discovery already provided in the Delaware Action falls squarely within this 

Court’s authority to manage its docket in order to obtain inexpensive and speedy results.” 

(Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also promises to honor the Outside Counsel Eyes Only designation of 

 

1 Pin citations to docketed materials refer to the CM/ECF page numbers electronically stamped at the top 

of each page.

Case 3:16-cv-01544-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1544 JLS (NLS)

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

the Delaware Action discovery and has no objection to Defendants filing a surreply brief. 

(Id.)

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion on the grounds that “Plaintiff could 

easily have asked to use this additional discovery at any time before it filed its motion here, 

before Defendants conducted extensive discovery, or, indeed, before Defendants filed their 

opposition [to the preliminary injunction motion].” (Opp’n 7, ECF No. 40.)

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s request is untimely. See, e.g., 

Peregrine Semiconductor Corp. v. RF Micro Devices, Inc., No. 12CV911-IEG WMC, 

2012 WL 2068728, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2012) (“[I]t is not proper for a party to submit 

new evidence in a reply brief.”) (citing Docusign, Inc. v. Sertifi, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 

1307 (W.D. Wash. 2006)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion. (ECF No. 

39.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01544-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 3