Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01931/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01931-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aquatic AV, Inc.
Plaintiff
Magnadyne Corporation
Defendant
SSV Works, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

AQUATIC AV, INC., a California

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAGNADYNE CORPORATION, 

a California corporation, and SSV

WORKS, INC., a California corporation, 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-01931 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO AMEND

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this patent-infringement action involving docking stations, plaintiff moves to amend

its infringement contentions. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED. 

The March 12 hearing is hereby VACATED. 

STATEMENT

In this action, our patentee, Aquatic AV, Inc., asserts two patents against defendant

Magnadyne Corporation. Both patents pertain to digital media docking stations with remote

controls. U.S. Patent No. 7,831,756 (“the ’756 patent”), entitled “Apparatus and Method for

Docking and Housing a Removable Electronic Device,” was filed in 2007, and issued in 2010. 

The continuation-in-part, U.S. Patent No. 8,578,081 (“the ’081 patent”), entitled “Docking

Station for an Electronic Device,” was filed in 2010, and issued in 2013. This action began in

April 2014.

In September through December 2014, our patentee served written discovery requests on

Magnadyne. Our patentee then served its infringement contentions in October 2014. Those

contentions charted Magnadyne’s wireless remote controls as infringing the ’756 patent and

included Magnadyne’s wired remote controls as infringing the ’081 patent. The patentee,

Case 3:14-cv-01931-WHA Document 124 Filed 03/04/15 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

however, did not identify the wired remote controls on the list of accused instrumentalities

(Bohrer Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, Exh. A). 

In January 2015, our patentee obtained physical samples of the wired remote controls

from Magnadyne and deposed Magnadyne’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness (Bohrer Decl. ¶ 7).

A February 2015 order then (1) found Claim 16 of the ’756 patent invalid as indefinite

and alternatively, (2) granted partial summary judgment in favor of Magnadyne because the

accused wireless remote controls did not infringe Claim 16. 

Now, the patentee moves to amend its infringement contentions to include wired remote

controls as infringing the ’756 patent. “[S]ales of wired remote controls over the last several

years do not exceed 20 units,” defense counsel represented in an unsworn statement 

(Supp. Br. 1–2). Fact discovery closes in July 2015, and trial begins in November 2015 

(Dkt. Nos. 56, 117). This order follows full briefing and supplemental submissions.

ANALYSIS 

Under Patent Local Rule 3-6, amendment of infringement contentions requires a timely

showing of good cause. The good cause inquiry considers whether the moving party was

diligent in seeking to amend its contentions and whether the nonmoving party would suffer

prejudice if the motion is granted. O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems,

Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Our patentee moves (1) to accuse wired remote controls as infringing the ’756 patent and

(2) to add wired remote controls to the list of accused products. The motion is GRANTED.

First, our patentee has demonstrated diligence. In late 2014, our patentee served written

discovery on Magnadyne, who responded by producing “operating manuals and marketing

literature” on wired remote controls. Our patentee then identified wired remote controls as

infringing the ’081 patent. In January 2015, Magnadyne produced a physical sample of the

wired remote controls and shortly thereafter, our patentee filed the instant motion. Fact

discovery closes in four months and trial does not begin until November 2015. Accordingly, our

patentee has been diligent in seeking to amend its contentions.

Case 3:14-cv-01931-WHA Document 124 Filed 03/04/15 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

Second, contrary to Magnadyne, it would not suffer prejudice if the motion is granted. 

Magnadyne argues that because a February 2014 order granted partial summary judgment in its

favor, allowing leave to amend would make the summary judgment order incomplete 

(Supp. Br. 1).

This order disagrees that this amounts to prejudice barring an amendment in our action. 

Although the February 2015 order held that the accused wireless remote controls did not infringe

Claim 16 of the ’756 patent, it also held that Claim 16 was indefinite. Claim 16 is invalid

regardless of whether the accused remote controls are wireless or wired. Since the patentee

sought this amendment only three months after serving its original infringement contentions and

fact discovery does not close until July 2015, this order finds that neither side would suffer

prejudice from the proposed amendment. Indeed, if this order denied the patentee’s motion, the

patentee would simply file a new lawsuit and relate the cases. We would still need to resolve the

question of infringement and invalidity as it pertains to the asserted claims in the ’756 patent and

wired remote controls. Since several months remain in the fact discovery period, it would be far

better to resolve all of these issues on the same record in the same action.

Accordingly, our patentee has shown good cause to amend the infringement contentions. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the patentee’s motion to amend the infringement

contentions is GRANTED. The March 12 hearing is hereby VACATED. Any motion for partial

summary judgment with respect to the ’756 patent and wired remote controls must be filed by

MARCH 24 AT NOON. The moving papers must not exceed fifteen pages of briefing; the

opposition must not exceed fifteen pages of briefing; and the reply must not exceed seven pages

of briefing. To be clear, this is not an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the February 2015

order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-01931-WHA Document 124 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 3