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

1

See Bender v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. C 09-02114 JF, 2009 WL 4730900, at *1 n.1

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2009) (collecting cases filed by Plaintiff). 

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

GREGORY BENDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOKIA INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-01247 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY

LETTER (DKT. #54)

 Before the Court is the joint discovery dispute letter (“Joint Letter”) filed by Plaintiff

Gregory Bender (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Nokia Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. #54.) Defendant seeks

an order striking Plaintiff’s infringement contentions or alternatively, limiting their scope and

compelling Plaintiff to amend his contentions to comply with Patent Local Rule (“Rule”) 3-1. 

Plaintiff’s infringement contentions have been the subject of much dispute of late. Plaintiff

has filed over twenty lawsuits1

 alleging infringement on U.S. Patent No. 5,103,188 (the “‘188

Patent”) and judges in this district, including the undersigned, have repeatedly found that his

infringement contentions lack the specificity necessary to comply with Rule 3-1. In this Court’s

most recent Order on the matter, Bender v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., C 09-1156 PJH, 2010

WL 1689465 (N.D. Cal. April 26, 2010), the undersigned held that Plaintiff’s Secondary

Infringement Contentions did not comply with Rule 3-1. There, the defendant asked for an order

striking Plaintiff’s Secondary Infringment Contentions or alternatively, to limit further amendments

to the specific products already charted, exactly as Defendant has done here. Freescale, at *1. The

Court did not strike Plaintiff’s Secondary Infringement Contentions, but limited further amendments

Case 3:09-cv-01247-MMC Document 56 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
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

The Infringement Contentions here are Exhibit A to Dkt. #54. The Secondary Infringement

Contentions in the Freescale matter are Exhibit B to Dkt. #58.) 

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

to the 15 products charted, and the undersigned stated that the motion to strike would be revisited

should the amendments fail to comply with Rule 3-1. Id. at *4. 

Here, Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions are identical to his Secondary Infringement

Contentions in the Freescale matter, with the exception of Defendant’s name.2 Because Plaintiff has

not yet had an opportunity to amend his Infringement Contentions in the instant case, the Court will

allow him to do so. However, the Court limits Plaintiff to the single product specifically charted in

his Infringement Contentions. See Freescale, at *7.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's motion to strike all of

Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions, and GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel Infringement

Contentions limited to the one product specifically charted therein. As such, Plaintiff is ORDERED

to amend his Infringement Contentions in accordance with Rule 3-1 and serve them upon Defendant

within 30 days following issuance of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-01247-MMC Document 56 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2