Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. & J. Gallo Winery
Counter Claimant
Vineyard Investigations
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINEYARD INVESTIGATIONS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

E. & J. GALLO WINERY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:19-cv-01482-NONE-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 45)

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Vineyard Investigations’ motion to amend the complaint, filed 

July 23, 2021. (Doc. 45.) Defendant E. & J. Gallo Winery filed an opposition brief on August 11, 

2021. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff filed a reply brief on August 18, 2021. (Doc. 47.) After having reviewed 

the parties’ papers and all supporting material, the matter was deemed suitable for decision without 

oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing set for August 25, 2021, was vacated. 

(Doc. 49.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is 

GRANTED.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 1 of 11
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

II. BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that Defendant 

has infringed upon U.S. Patent Nos. 8,528,834 (“’834 Patent”) and 6,947,810 (“’810 Patent”) 

(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), relating to an automated vineyard irrigation system using infield sensors, external data, and controls to manage soil variability. (Doc. 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 25, 

31.) On December 27, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that 

the Asserted Patents are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Doc. 13.) On January 4, 2021, 

the Court denied the motion to dismiss (Doc. 31), and Defendant subsequently denied infringement 

of the Asserted Patents in its answer and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment that the Asserted 

Patents are invalid and that Defendant has not infringed on any valid claims of the Asserted Patents 

(Doc. 32). On May 20, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, setting, inter alia, a claim 

construction hearing for January 6, 2022. (Doc. 41.) On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant 

motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 45.) 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to assert infringement of an 

additional patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,645,881 (“’881 Patent”), which was issued on May 12, 2020—

after the initial complaint was filed. (Doc. 45 at 5; Doc. 45-2 at ¶ 34). According to Plaintiff, the 

’881 Patent “discloses and claims additional inventions related to various ways that external data 

(such as from satellites or other remote sources) and potential-based modeling (such as 

evapotranspiration models) can be integrated with irrigation control systems to deliver water (or 

other materials) to ‘plant areas.’” (Doc. 45 at 5 (quoting Doc. 45-2 at ¶ 35).) Plaintiff contends 

that the ’881 Patent is “indisputably related” to the Asserted Patents because all three patents 

involve inventions relating to smart irrigation systems. (Id. at 4–5.)

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion to amend, claiming that Plaintiff unduly delayed and 

acted in bad faith in seeking amendment, which would be prejudicial to Defendant. (Doc. 46 at 7–

13.) Defendant also contends that Plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that amendment is not futile.” 

(Id. at 7, 13–14.)

///

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 11
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

A. Legal Standard

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 15”) provides that a party may amend 

its pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party and that leave shall 

be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)–(2). The Ninth Circuit has 

instructed that the policy favoring amendments “is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Although the decision 

whether to allow amendment is in the court’s discretion, “[i]n exercising its discretion, a court must 

be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on 

the pleadings or technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 

1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The factors commonly considered to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend 

are: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, and (4) futility of 

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Loehr v. Ventura Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 

743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984). “These factors, however, are not of equal weight in that 

delay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend.” DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d 

at 186. “The other factors used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend could 

each, independently, support a denial of leave to amend a pleading.” Beecham v. City of W. 

Sacramento, No. 2:07–cv–01115–JAM–EFB, 2008 WL 3928231, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2008)

(citing Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)). Of 

these factors, “[p]rejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of 

Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).

Because the proposed amendments are based on the ’881 Patent, which was issued after the 

filing of the original complaint (see Doc. 45-2 at ¶ 34), the Court must also consider the standard 

under Rule 15(d). See Aten Int’l Co., Ltd v. Emine Tech. Co., No. SACV09–0843AGMLGX, 2010 

WL 1462110, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2010) (considering Rule 15(d) where two of the three 

patents the plaintiff sought to add to the operative complaint were issued after the filing of the 

initial complaint). Under Rule 15(d), “the court may . . . permit a party to serve a supplemental 

pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 11
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

4

pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). “The standards for granting or denying a 

motion to supplement pleadings under Rule 15(d) are the same as those applied under Rule 15(a),”

Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. v. K.U. ex rel. A.D.U., 980 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1175 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

(citing Glatt v. Chicago Park Dist., 87 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 1996)), with the addition that “[j]udicial 

economy is a primary concern under a Rule 15(d) motion to supplement,” Aten Int’l Co., 2010 WL 

1462110 at *5. 

B. Analysis

The Court will now apply the four Foman factors set forth above to this case.

1. Undue Prejudice 

“Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor” to consider in determining 

whether to grant leave to amend. Jackson, 902 F.3d at 1397 (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 

Research Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971)). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden 

of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 187. Defendant contends that it would 

be unduly prejudiced by the proposed amendment because litigating the ’881 Patent will require 

different facts, discovery, legal theories, and defenses. (Doc. 46 at 10–12.) In addition, Defendant 

asserts that is it entitled to test the validity of the ’881 Patent via motion to dismiss and/or inter 

pares review before engaging in discovery related to the ’881 Patent. (Id. at 12–13.)

In Aten, the plaintiffs sought to add three additional patents to the complaint, and the district 

court rejected similar arguments by the defendants opposing amendment. Aten, 2010 WL 1462110, 

at *4. The district court reasoned that the prejudice alleged by defendants—that “three new patents 

will add new legal theories, require proof of additional facts, and delay the pending litigation”—

“amount[ed] to defending a lawsuit, and certainly [did not] rise to the level of prejudice required 

to prohibit [the plaintiffs] from amending their complaint,” given that the claim construction 

hearing not yet been held and discovery in the case did not close for several months. Id. The court 

observed that “[a]mended and supplemental patent claims are frequently added to existing 

lawsuits.” Id. (collecting cases).

Here, as in Aten, the Court finds that Defendant will not be unduly prejudiced by the 

proposed amendment, as the case is still in its early stages. See Robert Bosch LLC v. ADM 21 Co., 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 4 of 11
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

5

No. 210CV01930RLHLRL, 2011 WL 13249638, at *3 (D. Nev. July 12, 2011) (finding no 

prejudice in permitting additional patents to be added in part because “the case remains in its initial 

stages”). Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, non-expert discovery in this case does not close until 

September 2022, and the deadline for expert discovery is in January 2023. (See Doc. 41.) The 

claim construction hearing, currently set for January 6, 2022, has yet to be held. (See id.) 

Resolution of the case will undoubtedly be delayed if claims based on the ’881 Patent are added, 

but “a mere pendency in the resolution of claims does not constitute substantial prejudice.” Sage 

Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., No. 12–CV–6441–JST, 2014 WL 1379282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 8, 2014). 

To ensure that Defendant has a fair opportunity to address and respond to the new claims 

based on the ’881 Patent, and for the parties to fulfill any other obligations in the course of 

litigation, the Scheduling Order will be modified in view of any amendment. See Sage 

Electrochromics, 2014 WL 1379282, at *3 (“the way to avoid any prejudice to [the defendant] is 

to set a case schedule that does not deprive [the defendant] of its fair opportunity to respond to, and 

propose constructions of, the newly asserted claims”); Space Data Corp. v. X, No. 16–CV–03260–

BLF, 2017 WL 3007078, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) (finding minimal prejudice in the addition 

of three patents to the complaint where the claim construction hearing had not yet been held and 

the case was “still at its early procedural stage” and permitting changes to the case schedule so the 

parties could comply with disclosure obligations and prepare for the claim construction hearing).

In sum, in the absence of any showing of undue prejudice to Defendant, the Court finds that 

this Foman factor militates in favor of granting the proposed amendment.

2. Bad Faith

“Bad faith may be shown when a party seeks to amend late in the litigation process with 

claims which were, or should have been, apparent early.” Yates v. W. Contra Costa Unified Sch. 

Dist., No. 16–CV–01077–MEJ, 2017 WL 57308, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017) (citing Bonin v. 

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 846 (9th Cir. 1995)). Bad faith also exists when the moving party seeks to 

amend merely “to prolong the litigation by adding new but baseless legal theories.” Griggs v. Pace 

American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir. 1999). “Examples of bad faith have included—

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 5 of 11
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

6

but are not limited to––instances in which a party makes a claim without alleging any newly 

discovered facts, makes a tactical decision to omit a claim to avoid summary judgment, or includes 

a claim to harass or burden the other party.” Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 

2d 1128, 1159 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

Defendant cursorily contends that Plaintiff acted in bad faith in seeking amendment for two 

reasons: (1) Plaintiff purposefully delayed in seeking amendment “until the eve of serving its 

infringement contentions, trying to force Defendant to respond with invalidity contentions as to 

[the ’881 Patent] on a shortened basis”; and (2) Plaintiff did not file the application for the ’881 

Patent until June 7, 2019, “which suggests that [Plaintiff] waited until it could learn about 

[Defendant’s] irrigation systems so that it could try to tailor the ’881 Patent’s claims to 

[Defendant’s] accused systems, rather than to legitimately claim its invention.” (Doc. 46 at 7.) The 

Court finds that Plaintiff did not act in bad faith in seeking amendment. 

Defendant’s second claim is purely speculative, and the Court will not make a finding of bad 

faith without evidence to support Defendant’s allegation. As for Defendant’s first contention, 

Plaintiff, in its reply, states that it is “willing to forgo the Sept. 2 invalidity contentions specific to 

the ’881 [P]atent from [Defendant][.]” (Doc. 47 at 2 (emphasis in original).) As Plaintiff also notes

(see Doc. 47 at 1), Plaintiff did not believe that the exchange of infringement and invalidity 

contentions was necessary in this case and opposed the inclusion of such as part of the case 

schedule. (See Doc. 38 at 11.) Accordingly, Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff deliberately timed its 

request for amendment to reduce Defendant’s time to produce invalidity contentions as to the ’881 

Patent is unsupported by the existing record. In any event, as discussed above, should amendment 

be granted, the Court will ensure that Defendant has adequate time to respond to, and comply with 

any obligations arising from, claims based on the ’881 Patent.

In sum, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff’s motion to amend was brought in bad faith 

and finds that this Foman factor weighs in favor of amendment.

3. Undue Delay 

“Undue delay is delay that prejudices the nonmoving party or imposes unwarranted burdens 

on the court.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. San Joaquin Valley R.R. Co., No. 08–cv–01086–AWI–SMS, 2011 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 6 of 11
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

7

WL 3328398, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011) (citing Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. and Indem. 

Co., 376 F.3d 420, 427 (5th Cir. 2004)). “Undue delay by itself is insufficient to justify denying 

leave to amend.” United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). 

As Plaintiff alleges in its proposed FAC, the ’881 Patent was issued on May 12, 2020, (see 

Doc. 45-2 at ¶ 34), and Plaintiff sought leave to amend its complaint to add infringement claims 

based on the ’881 Patent on July 23, 2021 (Doc. 45). Plaintiff asserts that it has been diligent in 

investigating Defendant’s alleged infringement of the ’881 Patent since its issuance (see Doc. 45 

at 5–6, 8–9), with the proposed FAC “cit[ing] to evidence published throughout 2020 and even into 

the summer of 2021, detailing the continued development and expansion of infringing systems by 

[Defendant] across tens of thousands of acres” (see id. at 6; see also Doc. 45-2 at ¶¶ 64, 129). 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff unduly delayed by waiting fourteen months after the issuance of 

the ’881 Patent to seek amendment, given that Plaintiff “long knew the alleged bases for its 

infringement claims.” (Doc. 46 at 7.) Specifically, Defendant claims that the majority of the facts 

alleged, and articles relied upon by Plaintiff in the proposed FAC were known to Plaintiff well 

before the date on which Plaintiff filed its motion to amend. (Id. at 7–9.)

While recognizing that Plaintiff could not assert infringement of the ’881 Patent until after 

the Patent issued on May 12, 2020, see AV Media Pte. Ltd. v. Promounts, No. 

207CV00059FMCCTX, 2008 WL 11337210, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2008) (“It is black letter 

law that no suit for patent infringement will lie prior to the issuance of a valid patent.”), the Court 

nonetheless finds some merit to Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff could have sought leave to 

amend sooner that it did. Based on the Court’s review of the proposed FAC, other than one article 

published in June 2021, the vast majority of the publicly available articles and resources relied 

upon by the proposed FAC to support its allegations of Defendant’s infringement of the ’881 Patent 

date from 2014 to December 2020. (See Doc. 45-2 at ¶¶ 63–67, 118–126, 128–29.) However, as 

the Court finds no undue prejudice to Defendant or bad faith on Plaintiff’s part, any undue delay is 

an insufficient basis to deny leave to amend. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d at 1184. 

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 7 of 11
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

8

4. Futility

“Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to 

dismissal.” Clarke v. Upton, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Saul v. United 

States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991)). “[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of 

facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and 

sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

“‘[P]roposed amendments are futile when they are either duplicative of existing claims or patently 

frivolous.’” Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration omitted) (quoting 

Bonin, 59 F.3d at 846). “However, denial on this ground is rare and courts generally defer 

consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend 

is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Clarke, 703 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 (citing Netbula, 

LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003)).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s proposed FAC is futile because the ’881 Patent fails the

two-step patent-eligibility test as set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and 

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). (Doc. 46 at 13–14.) 

Under the Alice/Mayo test, a court must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to 

one of those patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citing 

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–78). “If so, the court must then ask [w]hat else is there in the claims, which 

requires consideration of the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered 

combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a 

patent-eligible application.” Timeplay, Inc. v. Audience Entm’t LLC, No. CV 15–05202–SJO 

(JCx), 2015 WL 9695321, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). “In this second step, the court must search for an inventive concept—i.e., an element or 

combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to 

significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to statute, “[a] patent shall be presumed valid,” 35 U.S.C § 282, and a defendant 

carries a high burden of establishing that claims are patent-ineligible, see Boar’s Head Corp. v. 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 8 of 11
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

9

DirectApps, Inc., No. 2:14–cv–01927–KJM–KJN, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2015). With that in 

mind, and considering that courts rarely deny motions to amend on the basis of futility, see Clarke, 

703 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, the Court declines to find that the proposed amendment is futile. Indeed, 

the district judge denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the ’810 Patent and ’834 Patent as patentineligible under the Alice/Mayo test. (See Doc. 31.) Accordingly, any challenge to the validity of 

the ’881 Patent can be made via motion to dismiss or petition for inter pares review after leave to 

amend is granted and the proposed FAC is filed.

Consequently, the final Foman factor, i.e., whether the proposed amendment is futile, also 

weighs in favor of allowing the amendment.

5. Judicial Economy

“Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for . . . supplemental pleading. 

It is a useful device, enabling a court to award complete relief, or more nearly complete relief, in 

one action, and to avoid the cost, delay and waste of separate actions which must be separately tried 

and prosecuted. So useful they are and of such service in the efficient administration of justice that 

they ought to be allowed as of course, unless some particular reason for disallowing them appears, 

though the court has the unquestioned right to impose terms upon their allowance when fairness 

appears to require them.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988). In deciding whether 

leave to amend should be granted to allow for the inclusion of additional patents, district courts in 

this Circuit often consider judicial economy in addition to the Foman factors. See Space Data 

Corp., 2017 WL 3007078, at *4 (“[I]t does not serve judicial economy and ends of justice if [the 

plaintiff]’s recourse is to file a separate case solely for the purpose of asserting additional patents.”); 

Robert Bosch LLC, 2011 WL 13249638, at *3 (“Because the case remains in its initial stages and 

efficiency favors litigating the patents together, the ADM Defendants will not be prejudiced if the 

Court grants the motion to add the New Jersey Patents.”); Aten Int’l Co., 2010 WL 1462110 at *5

(“[A]dding the patents to the current lawsuit would save the Court and the parties costs, time, and 

effort when compared to another separate lawsuit. Thus, the interest in judicial economy favors 

allowing amendment.”).

The Court finds that judicial economy would be served in this case by permitting 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 9 of 11
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

10

amendment and adding the ’881 Patent to the existing lawsuit. The ’881 Patent is undoubtedly 

related to the ’810 Patent and ’834 Patent, as all three patents claim inventions related to a smart 

irrigation system. (Doc. 45-2 at ¶¶ 24–36.) Litigating all three patents together will save the Court 

and the parties effort, time, and resources.

Accordingly, judicial economy weighs in favor of granting leave to amend.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Given that judicial economy and the Foman factors, with the possible exception of the undue 

delay factor, weigh in favor allowing Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, Plaintiff’s motion to amend 

the complaint (Doc. 45) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint, which is 

attached as Exhibit 1 to its motion to amend (Doc. 45-2), by no later than three days of the date of 

this order. Defendant shall respond to the amended complaint within 21 days after its filing.

To ensure that both parties have adequate time to prepare their respective cases in view of 

the amendment, the Scheduling Order is hereby MODIFIED as follows1:

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

1 Revised dates for the production of Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and production of Defendant’s invalidity 

contentions are not being included in the modified case schedule, as it appears that Plaintiff has already provided 

infringement contentions as to the ’881 Patent (see Doc. 45 at 1), and in its reply brief, Plaintiff states that it is willing 

to forgo invalidity contentions from Defendant as to the ’881 Patent (see Doc. 47 at 2). Should the parties wish to 

modify any of the revised dates, they may do so by submitting a stipulation for court approval.

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 10 of 11
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

11

Event New Deadline

Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction March 22, 2022

Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions April 5, 2022

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement April 12, 2022

Completion of Claim Construction Discovery April 26, 2022

Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief 

Filing Deadline May 11, 2022

Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction 

Brief Filing Deadline May 25, 2022

Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief 

Filing Deadline June 3, 2022

Defendant’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction 

Brief Filing Deadline June 14, 2022

Claim Construction Hearing July 7, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

Non-Expert Discovery March 6, 2023

Expert Disclosures April 17, 2023

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures May 30, 2023

Expert Discovery July 12, 2023

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline July 26, 2023

Deadline to Hear Non-Dispositive Motions August 23, 2023

Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline August 9, 2023

Deadline to Provide Proposed Settlement 

Conference Dates January 4, 2023

Pre-Trial Conference November 29, 2023 at 8:15 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 51 Filed 10/20/21 Page 11 of 11