Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01394/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01394-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0001 Establishment of PTO

---

1

17-cv-01394-H-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

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA; and BECTON, 

DICKINSON and COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AFFYMETRIX, INC.; and LIFE 

TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-01394-H-NLS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

THEIR INVALIDITY 

CONTENTIONS

[Doc. No. 216.]

On July 18, 2018, Defendants Affymetrix, Inc. and Life Technologies Corp. filed a 

motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions. (Doc. No. 216.) On August 13, 

2018, Plaintiffs the Regents of the University of California, Becton, Dickinson and 

Company, Sirigen, Inc., and Sirigen II Limited filed a response in opposition to 

Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 262.) On August 17, 2018, the Court took the matter under 

submission. (Doc. No. 263.) On August 20, 2018, Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. No. 

265.) For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their 

invalidity contentions.

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

17-cv-01394-H-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

Background

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Regents and Becton, Dickinson filed a complaint for 

patent infringement against Defendants Affymetrix and Life Technologies, alleging 

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,085,799, U.S. Patent No. 8,110,673, and U.S. Patent No. 

8,835,113. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.) On September 8, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to 

Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Doc. No. 37.) 

On October 6, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order. (Doc. No. 55.) On 

November 20, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff Becton, Dickinson’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction without prejudice. (Doc No. 69.) On November 30, 2017, the Court 

issued an amended scheduling order. (Doc. No. 76.) 

On February 7, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for leave for 

Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint and to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. No. 

100.) On February 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint: (1) adding Sirigen

and Sirigen II as additional Plaintiffs and adding claims that Defendants’ products infringe 

four Sirigen patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,547,008, U.S. Patent No. 9,139,869, U.S. Patent 

No. 8,575,303, and U.S. Patent No. 8,455,613; (2) adding infringement allegations against 

additional accused products; and (3) adding allegations of induced infringement against 

Defendants. (Doc. No. 101, FAC.) 

On February 23, 2018, the Court issued a second amended scheduling order. (Doc. 

No. 105.) On March 26, 2018, the Court issued a claim construction order, construing 

disputed claim terms from the ’799 patent, the ’673 patent, and the ’113 patent. (Doc. No. 

138.) On May 1, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of 

non-infringement of the ’799 patent. (Doc. No. 170.) On May 14, 2018, the Court denied 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’673 patent and the 

’113 patent. (Doc. No. 183.) 

By the present motion, Defendants move pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)(3) to 

amend their invalidity contentions. (Doc. No. 216-1.) Specifically, Defendants seek to 

amend their invalidity contentions for the ’673 patent and the ’113 patent to add two 

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

17-cv-01394-H-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

additional prior references, the Yang reference and the Hou reference, and to clarify their

contentions as to the “AF750APC” reference. (Id. at 1; see Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. 

Ex. A.) 

Discussion

I. Legal Standards 

Patent Local Rule 3.3 require a party opposing a claim of patent infringement to 

serve on all parties its “Invalidity Contentions” within 60 days after being served with the 

“Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.” Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)

provides: 

As a matter of right, a party opposing a claim of patent infringement may

serve “Amended Invalidity Contentions” no later than the completion of claim 

construction discovery. Thereafter, absent undue prejudice to the opposing 

party, a party opposing infringement may only amend its validity contentions:

. . .

3. upon a timely motion showing good cause.

The Federal Circuit has explained that patent local rules such as these “requir[e] both 

the plaintiff and the defendant in patent cases to provide early notice of their infringement 

and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with diligence in amending those contentions 

when new information comes to light in the course of discovery. The rules thus 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, 

1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “In contrast to the more liberal policy for amending pleadings, 

‘the philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly conservative, and designed to 

prevent the “shifting sands” approach to claim construction.’” Verinata Health, Inc. v. 

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

To establish “good cause” under Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)(3), the moving party must 

demonstrate that it “has acted diligently and the opposing party will not be prejudiced.” Id.

(“‘[T]he moving party bears the burden of demonstrating good cause.’”); see O2 Micro, 

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

17-cv-01394-H-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

467 F.3d at 1355. “‘[T]he diligence required for a showing of good cause has two subparts: 

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

amendment once the basis for amendment has been discovered.’” Karl Storz EndoscopyAm., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-CV-00876-RS (JSC), 2016 WL 2855260, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. May 13, 2016). Further, in the context of a motion for leave to amend contentions, 

“[p]rejudice is typically found when amending contentions stand to disrupt the case 

schedule or other court orders.” Id.; see WhatsApp Inc. v. Intercarrier Commc’ns, LLC, 

No. 13-CV-04272-JST, 2014 WL 12703766, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2014).

II. Analysis 

A. Diligence

Defendants have demonstrated that despite their current need to amend their 

contentions to add two recently discovered prior art references, they were diligent in their 

previous prior art searches. On May 15, 2018, Defendants served Plaintiffs with their 

second amended invalidity contentions regarding the ’673 patent, the ’113 patent, and the 

’799 patent. (Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. H.) Less than two weeks prior, 

Defendants also served Plaintiffs with their initial invalidity contentions regarding the ’008 

patent, the ’869 patent, the ’303 patent, and the ’613 patent. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. G.) These 

invalidity contentions spanned 247 pages and included 107 prior art references and 

numerous claim charts. (Id. Exs. G, H.) The thoroughness of Defendants’ prior invalidity 

contentions demonstrates their diligence. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 WL 

2855260, at *4 (“[Defendant’s] initial invalidity contentions themselves belie a finding that 

its search was not diligent: they included over 500 prior art references among the 31 claim 

charts and 400 additional pages of analysis addressing [plaintiff]’s claims. It strains 

credulity to imagine that [defendant] was not diligent in uncovering and evaluating this 

many references.”).

In addition, Defendants’ diligence in preparing their prior invalidity contentions is 

underscored by the number of patents and claims at issue in this case. In the present action, 

Plaintiffs allege infringement of over a hundred patent claims. (Doc. No. 101, FAC ¶¶ 54, 

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

17-cv-01394-H-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

61, 72, 84, 93, 104, 111.) Courts “have found good cause to amend invalidity contentions 

due to the large scope of the initial prior art search” based on the number of claims being 

asserted in the action. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 WL 2855260, at *5; see, e.g., 

Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., No. C 12-01106 WHA, 2013 WL 1949051, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2013).

Further, Defendants were diligent in moving to amend their contentions. Defendants 

became aware of the Hou and Yang references sometime after May 15, 2018, during the 

time when they were preparing their IPR petitions. (Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. ¶ 11.) 

Defendants gave Plaintiffs notice of their intent to move for leave to amend their 

contentions to include these two references on July 11, 2018, and Defendants filed the 

present motion on July 18, 2018, about two months later. (Doc. No. 217, Watson Decl. ¶ 

12; Doc. No. 216.) The less than two months period between the time Defendants 

discovered the references at issue and the time Defendants gave Plaintiffs notice of their 

intent to amend their invalidity contentions is reasonable and establishes Defendants’ 

diligence in seeking leave to amend.1

 See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 WL 2855260, 

at *7 (finding diligence where the defendant moved for leave to amend within two months 

of discovering the references at issue and within one month of filing its IPR petition); 

Radware Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C-13-02021-RMW, 2014 WL 3728482, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. 2014) (“[U]nder these particular facts, three months’ delay in moving for leave 

to amend does not undermine [defendant’s] diligence.”). 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants could not have been diligent in their previous prior 

art searches because the Hou and Yang references were both published in major journals 

in the relevant field and both references are cited in “Huang (2004),” a reference that was 

included in Defendants’ initial December 15, 2017 invalidity contentions. (Doc. No. 262 

 

1 Plaintiffs criticize Defendants for failing to state the precise date on which they discovered the 

Yang and Hou references. (Doc. No. 262 at 6-7, 11.) But regardless what that specific date was, it is 

undisputed that it was less than two months between the date of discovery and the date Defendants notified 

Plaintiffs of their intent to amend their contentions, a reasonable period of time. 

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

17-cv-01394-H-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

at 7-8.) But other courts have rejected similar arguments, particularly in a case such as 

this, where the defendant is facing an enormous number of a claims and a correspondingly 

enormous number of relevant prior art references. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 

WL 2855260, at *5 (“[T]he mere possibility that [defendant] might have discovered the 

references earlier does not defeat its diligence.”). “Unsuccessful prior art searches, 

standing alone, do not demonstrate an absence of diligence.” Network Prot. Scis., 2013 

WL 1949051, at *2. In sum, Defendants have demonstrated that they were diligent in 

discovering the prior art references at issue and moving to amend to include them in their 

contentions. 

B. Prejudice

Turning to the prejudice, here, Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiffs would 

not be prejudiced by amendment of the invalidity contentions. This action is currently in 

the middle of the discovery and claim construction stages of the case. A claim construction 

hearing on the ’008 patent, the ’869 patent, the ’303 patent, and the ’613 patent is scheduled 

for August 31, 2018. (Doc. No. 105 at 14.) Initial expert reports are not due until 

November 9, 2018, and the close of fact and expert discovery is not until January 24, 2019. 

(Id. at 14-15.) The pretrial motion cutoff is not until February 14, 2019, and the trial date 

is scheduled for May 14, 2019. (Id. at 15-16.) “Therefore, [Plaintiffs] will not be 

prejudiced by amendment of the invalidity contentions because ‘there is still ample time 

left in the discovery period.’” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. C 12-

05501 SI, 2014 WL 1648175, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (finding no prejudice where 

the fact discovery deadline was four months away, the expert discovery deadline was seven 

months away, and the trial date was ten months away).

Further, Defendants’ proposed amended invalidity contentions would not pose a risk 

to any of the above discovery and motion deadlines or the Court’s trial schedule. “Courts 

have found no prejudice where, as here, the proposed amendments did not pose a risk to 

discovery and motion deadlines or the trial schedule.” Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 

WL 2855260, at *7.

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

17-cv-01394-H-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

In addition, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that they will suffer prejudice if 

the Court grants Defendants’ motion because they will be forced to spend additional time 

analyzing and responding to the amended contentions. (See Doc. No. 262 at 13.) Plaintiffs 

will have to spend additional time analyzing and responding to the prior art references at 

issue regardless of whether Defendants amend their invalidity contentions because those 

references are already at issue in the co-pending IPR proceedings. Moreover, a complaint 

that amendment of the contentions would cause Plaintiffs “to perform more work than it 

would have to perform otherwise . . . is not prejudice.” Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 2016 

WL 2855260, at *9; see Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 505, 510 

n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Generally, the issue is not whether the defendant would be required 

to engage in additional work in response to newly amended claims.”). In sum, Defendants 

have demonstrated that the proposed amendments to their invalidity contentions would not 

prejudice Plaintiffs.2

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to amend their invalidity 

contentions. The Court orders Defendants to serve their amended invalidity contentions 

on Plaintiffs within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2018

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

2 The Court notes that even if it assumed that Defendants were not diligent, the lack of any prejudice 

at all to Plaintiffs from the proposed amendments would lead to Court to exercise its discretion and still 

grant Defendants’ motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., 

2016 WL 2855260, at *3 (“[T]he court retains discretion to grant leave to amend even in the absence of 

diligence so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party.”); see Twilio, Inc. v. TeleSign Corp., No. 

16CV06925LHKSVK, 2017 WL 3581186, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-01394-CAB-NLS Document 267 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7