Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THX, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-01161-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY 

CONTENTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 133, 177

Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple’s motion for leave to amend its invalidity 

contentions. Dkt. No. 177 (“Motion to Amend”). Having considered Defendant’s Motion to 

Amend, Plaintiff’s opposition, and all related papers, the Court finds the matter appropriate for 

decision without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons articulated below, the 

motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 11, 2013, Plaintiff THX, Ltd. filed the currently operative first amended complaint 

against Apple, Inc., alleging infringement of two patents entitled “Narrow Profile Speaker 

Configurations and Systems:” (1) United States Patent No. 7,433,483 and (2) United States Patent 

No. 8,457,340 (together, “patents-in-suit”). Dkt. No. 12. After Apple filed for inter partes review

of the patents-in-suit, the Court stayed this action from October 24, 2013, until June 22, 2015. 

Dkt. Nos. 35, 42. 

Apple has been seeking information from THX regarding the conception and reduction to 

practice of the inventions disclosed in the patents-in-suit since at least August 11, 2015. Dkt. No. 

134-2. On March 2, 2016, Apple served THX with a notice of deposition pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), requesting testimony regarding, among other things, the contributions 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 183 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

of current or former THX employees to the patents-in-suit. Dkt. No. 134-12. In response, THX 

designated Peter Vasay, Vice President of Technology Operations at THX, as its 30(b)(6) 

deponent. See Dkt. No. 134-16. However, at his June 17, 2016, deposition, Mr. Vasay was not 

able to testify regarding persons who contributed to the inventions disclosed in the patents-in-suit. 

Id. It was not until the June 22, 2016, deposition of Mr. Laurence Fincham, the sole named 

inventor of the patents-in-suit, when Apple finally discovered the information that it had begun 

requesting in August 2015 regarding contributions to the patents-in-suit. Mot. to Amend at 4.

II. DISCUSSION

In light of the information received during Mr. Fincham’s deposition, Apple seeks to 

amend its invalidity contentions to include additional information regarding persons who 

contributed to the conception and reduction to practice of the inventions disclosed in the patentsin-suit. THX does not oppose Apple’s Motion to Amend. Dkt. No. 139.

A. Legal Standard

The Patent Local Rules seek to “balance the right to develop new information in discovery 

with the need for certainty as to the legal theories.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., 

Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, under Patent Local Rule 3-6, 

amendment to invalidity contentions “may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely 

showing of good cause.” In determining whether good cause exists, the Court considers (1) 

whether the moving party was diligent in moving to amend its contentions and (2) whether the 

non-moving party would suffer prejudice if leave to amend were granted. Vasudevan Software, 

Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. C09-05897 RS HRL, 2011 WL 940263, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 18, 2011). “The party seeking to amend its contentions bears the burden of establishing 

diligence.” Id. The moving party must establish diligence in two distinct phases: “(1) diligence 

in discovering the basis for amendment; and (2) diligence in seeking amendment once the basis for 

amendment has been discovered.” Positive Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No. C 11-2226 SI, 

2013 WL 322556, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013). Absent undue prejudice to the non-moving 

party, good cause may be supported by “[r]ecent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier 

diligent search.” Patent L.R. 3-6(b).

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 183 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

B. Analysis

i. Diligence

First, the Court must determine whether Apple has established diligence in (1) discovering 

the basis for amendment and (2) seeking leave from this Court to amend its invalidity contentions 

once the basis for amendment was discovered. See Positive Techs., Inc., 2013 WL 322556, at *2.

The Court finds that Apple has established both types of diligence. Apple began seeking

information from THX regarding the conception and reduction to practice of the inventions

disclosed in the patents-in-suit no later than August 11, 2015, less than a month after the Court 

lifted the stay on this matter. Dkt. No. 134-2. Despite Apple’s efforts, it was not until Mr. 

Fincham’s June 22, 2016, deposition when Apple discovered the information that forms the basis 

of its Motion to Amend. See Mot. to Amend at 4; Dkt. No. 134-16. Apple informed THX of its 

intent to file this Motion to Amend within two weeks of the Fincham deposition, and filed its 

motion within three weeks of the Fincham deposition. Mot. to Amend at 9. Accordingly, the 

Court holds that Apple was diligent both in discovering the basis of its amendment and seeking 

leave to amend its invalidity contentions.

ii. Undue Prejudice

Next, the Court must consider whether THX would be unduly prejudiced by Apple’s 

proposed amended invalidity contentions. See Patent L.R. 3-6(b); Vasudevan Software, Inc., 2011 

WL 940263, at *1. 

The Court finds that THX would not experience undue prejudice as a result of Apple’s 

amendment. As an initial matter, THX does not oppose Apple’s Motion to Amend. Dkt. No. 139. 

Furthermore, THX has been on notice of Apple’s interest in the individuals who contributed to the 

patents-in-suit since at least August 11, 2015, see Dkt. No. 134-2, and THX has had sole 

possession of the relevant information. Accordingly, THX would not be unduly prejudiced by the 

filing of Apple’s proposed amended invalidity contentions.

Because Apple has established both diligence and a lack of undue prejudice to THX, the 

Court holds that Apple has demonstrated good cause to amend its invalidity contentions.

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 183 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that Apple has demonstrated good cause to 

amend its invalidity contentions and hereby GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Amend. Apple shall 

serve its amended invalidity contentions within 7 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 183 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 4