Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02028/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02028-7/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SICK A.G., and SICK, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 06-2028 CW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S

PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT

CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO

PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-1

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint meet and confer letter, dated March 12, 2007,

regarding the sufficiency of plaintiff Sick A.G.'s ("Sick") Preliminary Infringement Contentions

("PICs"). Defendant Omron Scientific Technologies, Inc. ("OSTI") argues that Sick's PICs do not

meet the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-1, and that Sick should be required to submit amended

contentions. Specifically, OSTI claims that Sick fails to identify where each of the elements in its

asserted claims can be found in OSTI's accused device, and Sick fails to provide any notice as to

whether it believes each claim is literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents. Sick

asserts that its PICs meet the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-1, and that the PICs are based on

information that was reasonably available to Sick when it drafted the PICs in October 2006. 

A. Sick's Failure to Specifically Identify The Location of Each Element of Each Claim

within the Accused Scanner

First, OSTI asserts that Sick's PICs fail to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1 because the

PICs do not specifically identify where each of the elements in Sick's asserted claims can be found

in OSTI's accused device. Specifically, OSTI argues that Sick's PICs fail to identify the "counter,"

"means for triggering and stopping the counter," "peak value detector," and the "mat design" on

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 67 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

OSTI's device. In response, Sick argues that their PICs specifically identify where each element of

each asserted claim is found within the accused products as required by Patent Local Rule 3-1. Sick

asserts that its PICs--which were served early in the case--are based on the information that was

reasonably available to it at the time. Further, Sick states that it intends to supplement its

infringement contentions based on information from confidential documents produced by OSTI and

deposition testimony of OSTI witnesses, no later than 30 days after service of the Court's Claim

Construction Ruling. 

Under Patent Local Rule 3-1, a party's PICs must specifically identify where each element of

each asserted claim is found within each accused instrumentality. Patent L.R. 3-1 (c). The

overriding principle of the Patent Local Rules is to streamline the discovery process and make it

more efficient by requiring a plaintiff to articulate its claims with specificity. Intertrust

Technologies Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22736, 6 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

Here, the Court finds that Sick's PICs do not meet the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-

1. Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires that Sick's PICs provide notice to OSTI as to where Sick alleges

the "counter," "means for triggering and stopping the counter," "peak value detector," and "mat

design" are located within OSTI's accused device. Sick's notice of the alleged location of these

elements must be as specific as possible. Further, it would not be proper for Sick to wait until after

the Court's Claim Construction Ruling to disclose specifics about the location of these elements, if

such information is available, because claim construction has been deferred until after the close of

discovery. To the extent that Sick is now able to provide greater specificity regarding the alleged

location of these elements than it was able to provide in October, it must do so. 

B. Sick's Failure to Specify Whether Each Element of Each Asserted Claim is Literally

Present or Present under the Doctrine of Equivalents 

Next, OSTI argues that Sick's PICs fail to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(d) because

Sick does not provide any notice whether or to what extent it contends each element of each claim is

literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in OSTI's accused device. Sick argues

that its PICs unequivocally satisfy Patent Local Rule 3-1(d) by stating: "Sick contends the elements

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 67 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

of the asserted claims are literally present in the accused products. To the extent any element is not

literally present, it is present under the doctrine of equivalents." 

Under Patent Local Rule 3-1(d), a party's PICs must state whether each element of each

asserted claim is believed to be literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents. Patent

L.R. 3-1 (d). Here, it is clear to the Court that Sick's blanket statement fails to meet the requirements

of Patent Local Rule 3-1(d). The purpose of Rule 3-1 is to provide notice to the parties and to

streamline discovery, but Sick's ambiguous response to Patent Local Rule 3-1(d) provides no notice

whatsoever. Sick must specify whether each element of each asserted claim is literally present or

present under the doctrine of equivalents. One general statement that argues in the alternative will

not suffice. Sick must specify, separately for each element of each claim, whether it alleges the

element is literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents, to the extent that it can do

so. 

Sick shall supplement its PICs within 30 days of this order, and throughout the discovery

period as it is able to. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02028-CW Document 67 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3