Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI AMERICA, INC. et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03171 CRB

ORDER

and related counterclaims

__________________________________/

Now pending before the Court are (1) Oki’s motion to amend its invalidity

contentions, and (2) AMD’s motion to supplement its opposition to Oki’s motion to amend

its invalidity contentions. After carefully considering the papers filed by the parties, the

Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS

AMD’s motion to supplement its opposition.

The Court also GRANTS Oki’s motion to amend its final invalidity contentions to add

two additional prior art references. The Patent Local Rules provide that 50 days after service

of the Court’s Claim Construction ruling, a party may amend its preliminary invalidity

contentions without leave of court, provided the party claiming infringement has served Final

Infringement Contentions and “the party opposing a claim of patent infringement 

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 280 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\3171\orderreamendment.wpd 2

believes in good faith that the Court’s Claim Construction ruling so requires.” N.D. Cal.

Patent Local Rule 3-6(b)(1) & (2). Pursuant to this Rule, on May 30, 2006 Oki served Final

Invalidity Contentions that added an additional prior art reference. Two days later, on June

2, 2006, Oki notified AMD that it had just discovered two additional references to include in

its Final Invalidity Contentions. AMD refused to consent to the amendment. Accordingly,

Oki has moved pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-7 to amend their contentions.

Patent Local 3-7 provides that “other then as expressly permitted” in Local Rule 3-6, a

party may amend its contentions “only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only

upon a showing of good cause.” The Court will assume that if Oki had conducted a

reasonable and diligent prior art search it would have located the additional references and

therefore have been able to include them in its Final Invalidity Contentions. Nonetheless, as

Oki notified AMD as soon as it learned of the references, and did so only two days after it

timely served its Final Invalidity Contentions, Oki has shown good cause for its amendment. 

AMD does not contend that Oki could not have included the references in its May 30

disclosure and it therefore does not, as it cannot, argue that it is prejudiced by the additional

disclosure made two days later. Nor does AMD contend that Oki intentionally withheld

disclosure of the references for those two days. Accordingly, Oki’s motion to amend is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 280 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2