Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01247/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01247-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Bender
Plaintiff
Nokia Inc.
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY BENDER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NOKIA INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-1247 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

Before the Court is plaintiff Gregory Bender’s (“Bender”) “Motion for Relief from

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge,” filed July 1, 2010. Having read and

considered the motion, the Court DENIES the motion: 

1. To the extent Bender argues that the magistrate judge’s finding that his

“infringement contentions and related claim charts lack the specificity necessary to comply

with the requirements of Patent L.R. 3-1" (Pl.’s Mot., 1), he has failed to demonstrate that

such finding “is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

(providing that a district court judge must set aside any part of an order that is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law). Specifically, Bender has failed to demonstrate that the

magistrate judge erred by ordering him to amend his infringement contentions to comply

with Patent L.R. 3-1, or that his infringement contentions already meet the specificity

requirements thereof. 

Case 3:09-cv-01247-MMC Document 59 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 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

2

2. To the extent Bender challenges the magistrate judge’s decision to “limit[]” his

amendment “to the single product specifically charted in his infringement contentions,” to

wit, a “Nokia 6205 cell phone” (Pl.’s Mot., 2), Bender fails to show that such decision is

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law for the reason that he failed to identify that good

cause exists for amendment. See Patent L.R. 3-6 (“Amendment of the Infringement

Contentions or the Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a

timely showing of good cause.”) 

3. To the extent Bender asserts that the magistrate judge should not have enforced

a standing order on discovery that “does not permit the submission of additional materials[,]

like declarations[,] in support of one’s position” (Pl.’s Mot., 5), there is no indication in the

record before the Court that Bender sought leave from the magistrate judge to present

such materials. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/ Charles R. Breyer 

CHARLES R. BREYER for

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01247-MMC Document 59 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 2