Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05363/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05363-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

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

San Francisco Division

AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

COOLER MASTER CO., LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Re: ECF No. 82

Plaintiff Aavid Thermalloy LLC brings this patent-infringement suit against defendants Cooler 

Master Co. Ltd. and CMI USA, Inc. (collectively, “Cooler Master”). Aavid holds three patents-atissue that relate to “vapor chamber cooling devices” and alleges that Cooler Master makes vapor 

chambers that infringe on its patents.

Aavid served its initial infringement contentions (“ICs”) on March 9, 2018.1 Aavid now moves 

to amend its ICs to add approximately 100 allegedly infringing products and to make other 

“minor, clarifying revisions” to its original ICs.2 Aavid said that it was able to add these additional 

 

1 Aavid Mot. Ex. 5 – ECF No. 82-6. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 Aavid Mot. – ECF No. 82 at 1–2.

Case 4:17-cv-05363-JSW Document 93 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB) 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

products, which were not in its original ICs, only after receiving discovery from Cooler Master.3

Cooler Master does not oppose Aavid’s motion.4

Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides that a party may amend its ICs only by order of the court on a 

showing of good cause. Where, as here, a defendant does not oppose a motion to amend ICs, “the 

Court need not determine whether [plaintiff] has shown good cause for amending its infringement 

contentions” and may summarily grant the motion to amend. LG Elecs. Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer 

Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 367, 368–69 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (summarily granting unopposed motion to 

amend ICs and add new products). In any event, Local Rule 3-6 provides that “[r]ecent discovery 

of nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite 

diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions” can constitute good cause for 

amending ICs. Aavid has made a showing that it recently discovered nonpublic information about 

accused Cooler Master products that it had not discovered before it served its original ICs that 

support an amendment of its ICs here. Cf. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-

HSG(JSC), 2017 WL 4025219, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017) (granting motion to amend ICs 

where plaintiff was not aware of technical information regarding defendant’s products until it 

received information in discovery). For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that 

the court grant Aavid’s unopposed motion to amend its ICs.

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14

days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D.

 

3

See Albridge Decl. – ECF No. 82-1 at 10 (¶ 50); see also Order – ECF No. 72 at 2 (finding that 

“Aavid did indeed meet its burden to show that it could not discover the unnamed products absent 

discovery”).

4 Def. Non-Opp’n – ECF No. 90. Cooler Master disagrees with Aavid’s narrative regarding the 

procedural history of this case as Aavid describes it in its motion and purports to reserve objections, 

but it does not oppose Aavid’s motion.

Case 4:17-cv-05363-JSW Document 93 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 17-cv-05363-JSW (LB) 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

Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right

to review the issue in the district court.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-05363-JSW Document 93 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 3