In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 10-540 C

(E-Filed: March 20, 2013)

 

)

Motion to Reconsider Order of 

Dismissal of Patent Claims for 

Failure to Prosecute; RCFC 41(b); 

Motion to Reconsider Denied

CANVS CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

 Defendant. )

)

Joseph J. Zito, Washington, DC, for plaintiff.

John A. Hudalla, Attorney, with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, and John Fargo, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. Lindsay 

K. Eastman, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, of counsel.

OPINION

HEWITT, Chief Judge

I. Background

The relevant factual background of this patent infringement action is set out in 

previous orders, see generally Order of Apr. 23, 2012 (Sanctions Order), Docket Number 

(Dkt. No.) 24; Order of July 23, 2012 (Show Cause Order), Dkt. No. 36; Order of Oct. 

25, 2012 (Dismissal Order), Dkt. No. 48, familiarity with which is presumed. To limit

repetition, the court therefore provides only a brief summary.

At the parties’ request, discovery and claim construction proceedings in this matter 

are governed by a scheduling order modeled on the Local Rules of Practice for Patent 

Cases before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See

Joint Prelim. Status Report, Dkt. No. 11, at 5-6 (proposing the schedule); Order of Mar. 

25, 2011 (Scheduling Order), Dkt. No. 12, at 1-3 (adopting the schedule); Order of Oct. 

14, 2011 (Amended Scheduling Order or Am. Scheduling Order), Dkt. No. 18, at 1-2 

(amending the schedule). 
2

The court has granted two motions to compel plaintiff to comply with its 

discovery obligations and one motion to compel plaintiff to comply with the court’s 

scheduling orders.

1

 Sanctions Order 2-4. Plaintiff did not file responses to defendant’s

first two motions to compel.2

Despite the monetary sanction and the court’s warning, plaintiff “continued to 

miss filing deadlines.” Dismissal Order 3 n.4. Plaintiff failed to provide defendant with 

a claim construction statement and expert report as required by the court’s Amended 

Scheduling Order, submitting instead “a document identified as its claim construction 

statement that--plaintiff maintain[ed]--contain[ed] the opinions of its expert.” Show 

Cause Order 6. The court found the document inadequate for either purpose. See id. at 

5. Plaintiff also failed to provide defendant with a claim chart detailing its infringement 

contentions by the date set by the court’s Amended Scheduling Order. Dismissal Order

2. Plaintiff did not respond to multiple e-mails from defendant requesting the claim 

chart, and defendant filed a motion to stay claim construction proceedings. Id. at 2-3. 

After defendant filed its motion to stay, plaintiff e-mailed defendant, stating that it 

intended to rely upon a purported claim chart attached to a previous disclosure (identified 

as “Supplemental Disclosures”), which plaintiff had sent to defendant three months 

before the claim chart was due to be provided. Id. at 3. 

 Id. at 2-3. On April 23, 2012, the court imposed a 

monetary sanction against plaintiff’s counsel, id. at 9, noting that “plaintiff has missed 

eleven deadlines set by the court’s orders or the [Rules of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims (RCFC)] related to discovery, non-discovery disclosures and productions, 

and general responsive briefing deadlines,” id. at 4; see also id. at 4 n.3 (chart of missed 

deadlines). The court invoked the possibility of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, but stated 

that it did not find dismissal appropriate at that time. See id. at 9 (“Although the court 

has not found plaintiff’s repeated disregard for its rules and orders sufficiently egregious 

to warrant dismissal of the action or a citation for contempt, plaintiff’s disregard is not 

harmless.”), 9 n.5 (“Other more stringent sanctions such as dismissing the action or 

treating the failure as contempt of court do not appear to be warranted at this time.”). 

The purported claim chart included in plaintiff’s “Supplemental Disclosures” (the 

claim chart) was adequate with regard to accused devices one and two but inadequate 

with regard to accused devices three through ten.3

 1

It appears that plaintiff, by serving the required interrogatory responses four days late, 

failed to comply in a timely fashion with the court’s first order to compel. See Order of Apr. 23, 

2012 (Sanctions Order), Docket Number (Dkt. No.) 24, at 2.

 Id. Plaintiff acknowledged that the

2

By failing to respond to defendant’s second motion to compel, plaintiff violated the 

court’s Order of March 22, 2012, which directed plaintiff to file a response. See Order of Mar. 

22, 2012, Dkt. No. 20, at 2. To limit the delay caused by plaintiff’s actions, the court granted 

defendant’s third motion to compel on the day that defendant filed it. See Sanctions Order 3-4. 

It is therefore possible that plaintiff would have filed a response to defendant’s third motion to 

compel if allowed the time to do so.

3

The ten accused devices identified by plaintiff are listed in the following chart:
3

claim chart purported to address only the first seven of the ten accused devices. See Pl.’s 

Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims (Supplemental Disclosures), Dkt. No. 35, 

at 1 (stating “Claim Chart attached” with regard to accused devices one through seven); 

Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl. CANVS Corp.’s Mot. to Show Good Cause Supporting the 

Amendment of its Infringement Claim Charts, Dkt. No. 38-1, at 1 (stating that CANVS 

submitted four claim charts “covering seven accused devices”--devices one through 

seven). 

The claim chart made only “brief mentions” of devices three through seven 

without describing “[w]here each element of each infringed claim is found within each 

[accused device]” as required. Show Cause Order 4 (alterations in original) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). During a telephonic status conference (TSC) convened to 

discuss plaintiff’s disclosures, the court asked plaintiff to “point the court to specific 

pages that would support its view” that the claim chart was adequate with respect to 

devices three through ten, but plaintiff was unable to do so. Id. Plaintiff eventually 

conceded during the TSC that, although plaintiff’s Supplemental Disclosures referred to 

an attached claim chart for device seven, no such claim chart appeared to have been 

attached. Tr. of TSC of July 17, 2012, Dkt. No. 46, at 13:3-8 (plaintiff’s counsel). 

Accordingly, by plaintiff’s own admission, the purported claim chart was provided with 

respect to only six of the ten accused devices. 

The court directed the parties to file briefing addressing whether plaintiff should 

be permitted to amend its claim chart. Show Cause Order 5. The court explained that, if 

plaintiff did not show good cause to amend its claim chart, plaintiff “would be entitled to 

proceed only with respect to accused devices 1 and 2.” Tr. of TSC of July 17, 2012, at 

15:5-10 (court); see also id. at 14:23-25 (stating that “[i]t’s not clear that a deficiency of 

this magnitude . . . could be dealt with by amendment”). The clear implication of the 

court’s statements was that, if amendment were not allowed, plaintiff would not be 

permitted to proceed with respect to devices three through ten, and that, instead, the court 

would consider dismissing plaintiff’s claims with regard to devices three through ten. 

 

Device Number Device Name

1 Enhanced Night Vision Goggles (ENVG)

2 Dual Band Universal Night Sight (DUNS)

3 Arrowhead Upgrade Program

4 Pathfinder

5 AH-1Z Target Sight System (TSS)

6 Gunship Multi-Spectral Sensor System (GMS2)

7 Digital Vision Enhancer (DVE) System

8 The Future Force Warrior (FFW) Weapon Sight Program

9 Fused Multi-Spectral Weapon Sight (FMSWS or FWS)

10 Digital Enhanced Night Vision Goggle [sic] (DENVG)

See Pl.’s Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims, Dkt. No. 35, at 1; defendant’s 

Concordance Chart for Originally Accused Devices, Dkt. No. 43-3, at 1-3. 
4

Cf., e.g., McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 335 F. App’x 966, 969-70 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 

(unpublished) (affirming the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute after the 

plaintiff failed to make required disclosures, caused delays, displayed “contumacious 

conduct” and failed to produce a claim chart); Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, 

Inc., No. 6:07-CV-559, 2009 WL 81874, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009) (“The Court 

agrees that if it were to strike [the plaintiff’s inadequate preliminary infringement 

contentions],” instead of allowing the plaintiff to amend them, “it would be forced to 

dismiss the case for failure to comply with” the court’s scheduling order.).

Plaintiff filed Plaintiff CANVS Corporation’s Motion to Show Good Cause 

Supporting the Amendment of its Infringement Claim Charts (Pl.’s Mot. Amend), Dkt. 

No. 38, requesting leave to amend its claim chart. Pl.’s Mot. Amend 1-2. In its order

denying plaintiff’s request, the court noted that, “‘unlike the liberal policy for amending 

pleadings, the philosophy behind amending claim charts . . . is decidedly conservative 

and designed to prevent the ‘shifting sands’ approach to claim construction.’” Dismissal 

Order 4, 14 (alteration omitted) (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d 761, 

774 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The court stated that it was “unable to conclude . . . that plaintiff 

acted diligently and, therefore, conclude[d] that plaintiff ha[d] not shown good cause to 

amend its claim chart.” Id. at 8. The court also concluded that the proposed amended 

claim chart provided by plaintiff “remain[ed] significantly deficient.” Id. at 12; see also

Dkt. No. 41 (proposed amended claim chart).

Neither party addressed in its briefing what action it believed the court should take 

if the court determined that plaintiff had not shown good cause to amend the inadequate

portions of its claim chart. However, the court concluded that plaintiff’s conduct 

“reflects a . . . ‘callous disregard for the rules and regulations of the court.’” Dismissal 

Order 14 (quoting Kadin Corp. v. United States (Kadin), 782 F.2d 175, 177 (Fed. Cir. 

1986)). Noting that “the imposition of a lesser, monetary penalty on plaintiff’s counsel 

has not persuaded plaintiff to meet deadlines and otherwise comply with the court’s 

orders and the RCFC,” the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims regarding devices three 

through ten, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the RCFC, for failure to prosecute.4

Plaintiff now “requests that the Court grant its motion for reconsideration and 

vacate that portion of [the Dismissal Order] precluding devices 3-10 from this litigation 

and instead grant[] supplementation.” Pl. CANVS Corp.’s Mot. for Correction of Factual 

Inconsistencies & for Recons. of the Dismissal of Claims in the Ct.’s Oct. 25, 2012 Order 

Regarding Infringement Claim Charts (plaintiff’s Motion or Pl.’s Mot.), Dkt. No. 49, at 2.

 Id.; see also

infra note 16 (discussing plaintiff’s noncompliance after the sanction was imposed).

 4

The court noted that it would also be appropriate to consider sanctions pursuant to Rule 

16(f) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Order of Oct. 25, 2012 

(Dismissal Order), Dkt. No. 48, at 5 n.5; cf. infra note 17 (noting that striking plaintiff’s 

infringement contentions pursuant to Rule 16(f) would likely be appropriate under the applicable 

standard).
5

Before the court are plaintiff’s Motion, filed November 9, 2012; plaintiff’s 

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff CANVS Corporation’s Motion for 

Correction of Factual Inconsistencies and for Reconsideration of the Dismissal of Claims 

in the Court’s October 25, 2012 Order Regarding Infringement Claim Charts (Pl.’s 

Mem.), Dkt. No. 49-1, filed November 9, 2012; Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal of Certain Accused Devices in the Court’s 

October 25, 2012[] Order (Def.’s Resp.), Dkt. No. 57, filed December 11, 2012; and 

Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Correction and 

Reconsideration5

II. Legal Standards

(plaintiff’s Reply or Pl.’s Reply), Dkt. No. 58, filed January 4, 2013.

Rule 54(b) of the RCFC provides that “any order or other decision . . . may be 

revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the 

parties’ rights and liabilities.” RCFC 54(b). The moving party must support its motion 

for reconsideration by a showing of exceptional circumstances justifying relief, based on 

a manifest error of law or mistake of fact. Henderson Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 3 v. 

United States (Henderson), 55 Fed. Cl. 334, 337 (2003) (citing Franconia Assocs. v. 

United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 315, 316 (1999), aff’d, 240 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001), rev’d 

on other grounds, 536 U.S. 129 (2002)); Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 29 

Fed. Cl. 157, 164 (1993) (citing Weaver-Bailey Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 20 Cl. 

Ct. 158, 158 (1990)), aff’d, 50 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Specifically, the moving 

party must show: (1) the occurrence of an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)

the availability of previously unavailable evidence; or (3) the necessity of allowing the 

motion to prevent manifest injustice.” Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 524, 526 

(2006) (citing Griswold v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 458, 460-61 (2004)). 

Where a party seeks reconsideration on the ground of manifest injustice, it cannot 

prevail unless it demonstrates that any injustice is “apparent to the point of being almost 

indisputable.” Pac. Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 779, 785 (2006), 

aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 536 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In other 

words, “manifest” is understood as “clearly apparent or obvious.” Ammex, Inc. v. United 

States, 52 Fed. Cl. 555, 557 (2002).

“A motion for reconsideration is not intended . . . to give an ‘unhappy litigant an 

additional chance to sway’ the court.” Matthews, 73 Fed. Cl. at 525 (quoting Froudi v. 

United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 290, 300 (1991)). A motion for reconsideration is not an 

opportunity to make new arguments that could have been made earlier; “an argument 

made for the first time in a motion for reconsideration comes too late, and is ordinarily 

 5

Because Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Correction 

and Reconsideration (plaintiff’s Reply or Pl.’s Reply), Dkt. No. 58, does not contain page 

numbers, see generally Pl.’s Reply, the court cites plaintiff’s Reply using the page numbers 

generated by the court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system.
6

deemed waived.” Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. United States (Bluebonnet), 466 F.3d 

1349, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Gen. Electric Co. v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 116, 118, 416 

F.2d 1320, 1322 (1969) (per curiam) (stating that, in general, “requests for post-decision 

relief will be rejected if the [movant] has, without sufficient excuse, failed to make his 

point prior to the decision”).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff contends that reconsideration is appropriate because the court’s Dismissal 

Order “is based on mistakes of fact and law.” Pl.’s Mem. 6. Specifically, plaintiff 

contends that the court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s claim chart was inadequate with 

regard to accused devices eight, nine and ten, id. at 4-5, 7, and the court’s conclusion that 

plaintiff had not demonstrated diligence warranting amendment of its claim chart, see id.

at 7, are errors of fact. Plaintiff contends that the court committed an error of law by not 

applying the proper legal standard when determining whether to dismiss plaintiff’s claims 

with prejudice. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff contends, the court’s denial of plaintiff’s 

request to amend its claim chart and the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims regarding 

accused devices three through ten “would work a manifest injustice.” Id. at 6. The court 

addresses the asserted errors of fact and law in turn.

A. Plaintiff Identifies No Error of Fact

1. Devices Eight, Nine and Ten

Plaintiff contends that the court incorrectly determined that plaintiff’s claim chart 

was insufficient as to accused devices eight (the Future Force Warrior), nine (the Fused 

Multi-Spectral Weapon Sight) and ten (the Digital Enhanced Night Vision Goggle [sic]

6

 6

The word “goggle” has been defined as “[t]o stare with wide and bulging eyes.” The 

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 754 (4th ed. 2006). The word “goggles” 

has been defined as “[a] pair of tight-fitting eyeglasses, often tinted or having side shields, worn 

to protect the eyes from hazards such as wind, glare, water, or flying debris.” Id.

or DENVG). Id. at 4-5, 7. Plaintiff notes that the court found plaintiff’s claim chart to be 

adequate with regard to accused device one (the Enhanced Night Vision Goggles 

(ENVG)) and accused device two (the Dual Band Universal Night Sight (DUNS)). Id. at 

4; cf. Show Cause Order 3 (finding plaintiff’s claim chart adequate with respect to 

accused devices one and two). Plaintiff contends that “[t]he Court did not appreciate that 

[devices] (8) and (9) are simply other names for the DUNS . . . [and] that [device] (10) is 

simply a renamed ENVG,” and therefore that devices eight, nine and ten are “covered 

by” the portions of plaintiff’s claim chart found by the court to be adequate. Pl.’s Mem. 

4. In support of its view, plaintiff reframes its infringement contentions, describing 

devices eight, nine and ten as “Accused Project[s]” that make use of “Accused 

Device[s]” one and two. Id. at 3-4. In the past, plaintiff has referred to each accused 

device as an accused device, without attempting to classify certain devices as accused 

projects making use of accused devices. See, e.g., Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl. CANVS 
7

Corp.’s Mot. to Show Good Cause Supporting the Amendment of Its Infringement Claim 

Charts (Pl.’s Show Cause Mem.), Dkt. No. 38-1, at 1 (describing devices eight, nine and 

ten as “accused devices” rather than accused projects).

Defendant responds that “the Court should not allow plaintiff’s new arguments 

[regarding accused devices eight, nine and ten], because ‘new legal theories [are] not 

properly brought for the first time on a motion for reconsideration.’” Def.’s Resp. 4 

(second alteration in original) (quoting Corrigan v. United States, 223 F. App’x 968, 971 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished)). Defendant notes that, at the time of plaintiff’s motion to 

show cause why it should be permitted to amend its claim chart, plaintiff “made no 

attempt to link” devices eight, nine and ten to the portions of plaintiff’s claim chart found 

adequate by the court, relying instead on separate generic block diagrams to describe its 

infringement contentions with regard to each of these devices. Id. at 4-5. Defendant 

contends that “[p]laintiff is wrong to suggest that the Court made a mistake of fact in 

considering the original motion to show good cause when, in actuality, plaintiff is 

pivoting away from the legal basis in its original motion.” Id. at 5.

Additionally, defendant contends, “plaintiff’s new ipse dixit contentions about 

accused devices 8, 9, and 10 are still deficient under this court’s claim construction 

procedure.” Id. at 6 (capitalization and emphasis omitted). Defendant contends that, 

“[b]y attempting to group disparate accused devices that are manufactured by

assorted contractors, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s directive to disclose 

[w]here each element of each infringed claim is found within each apparatus, product, 

device, process, method, act or other instrumentality.” Id. at 6 (second alteration in 

original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Defendant argues that “the correlations that plaintiff attempts to draw between the 

devices that remain in this case and accused devices 8, 9, and 10 do not make sense.” Id. 

Defendant notes that, according to a document produced in discovery and referenced in 

plaintiff’s claim chart, device one (the ENVG) makes use of a mirror-based, analog 

“beam combiner” to combine infrared and optical images into a composite output image. 

Id. at 6-7. Defendant states that, in contrast, the website of the manufacturer of device 

ten (the Digital Enhanced Night Vision Goggle) states that the DENVG “digitally

combines video imagery from a low-light-level sensor and an uncooled long-wave 

infrared (Thermal) sensor.” Id. at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant 

contends that this “exemplary difference . . . proves that plaintiff is wrong to conflate the 

analysis of these two fundamentally different devices.” Id.

As an additional example of why plaintiff’s grouping of devices is inappropriate, 

defendant observes that a patent related to device two (the DUNS) was “[t]he basis of the 

DUNS analysis accepted by the Court,” id. at 7, and argues that “[p]laintiff’s underlying 

premise--that distinct accused devices coming from the competitors of [the DUNS 

manufacturer] would resemble the embodiments of [the patent related to the DUNS]--

strains credulity and is not supported by any facts,” id. at 8. In other words, defendant 
8

appears to argue that, absent evidence to the contrary, the patent covering technology 

contained in device two would not likely be an appropriate basis for analysis of devices 

from numerous other manufacturers that compete with the patented technology. See id.

at 7-8; see also id. at 8 (noting that plaintiff describes device eight as constituting 

“devices from ‘Litton, L3Insight, Basher, DRS and Night Vision Labs and others’” and 

describes device nine as constituting “devices from ‘L3 Insight[,] the successor to 

Litton[,] and Northr[o]p Grumman.’” (first and second alterations in original) (quoting 

Pl.’s Mem. 4)). 

In its Reply, plaintiff does not respond to defendant’s contentions, stating only that 

“CANVS’[s] clarification endeavors to demonstrate that there are only four devices, not 

ten as misapprehended by the Court. This is simply a fact, not a shift in legal theory.” 

Pl.’s Reply 1. 

Plaintiff is incorrect. To the extent that plaintiff now asserts that there are four 

infringing devices rather than ten, see id., plaintiff is directly contradicting its previous 

position that there were ten infringing devices, see, e.g., Pl.’s Show Cause Mem. 1 

(describing ten accused devices). To the extent that plaintiff now contends that devices 

eight, nine and ten are “covered by” the portions of plaintiff’s claim chart addressing

devices one and two, see Pl.’s Mem. 4, plaintiff is directly contradicting its previous 

admission that the claim chart only purported to “cover[] seven accused devices,” devices 

one through seven, Pl.’s Show Cause Mem. 1; see also Supplemental Disclosures 1 

(stating “Claim Chart attached” with regard to devices one through seven), and plaintiff’s 

later admission that, in fact, the claim chart was provided with respect to only six of the 

accused devices, see supra Part I. “[A]n argument made for the first time in a motion for 

reconsideration comes too late, and is ordinarily deemed waived.” Bluebonnet, 466 F.3d 

at 1361. Plaintiff’s new arguments that there are only four accused devices (employed in 

ten accused projects) and that devices eight, nine and ten are “covered by” the portion of 

plaintiff’s claim chart addressing devices one and two, Pl.’s Mem. 3-4, are untimely and 

are deemed to be waived, cf. Bluebonnet, 466 F.3d at 1361. 

Additionally, defendant is correct, see Def.’s Resp. 6-8, that plaintiff is attempting 

to group disparate devices produced by multiple manufacturers without providing any 

analysis or evidence that devices eight, nine and ten are, in fact, similar enough to devices 

one and two to be represented by the same portions of plaintiff’s claim chart. The 

evidence provided by defendant suggests that there are significant differences between 

devices that plaintiff describes as differing only in name. See id. at 6-7 (describing the 

use of an analog beam combiner in device one as distinguished from a digital beam 

combiner in device ten). Plaintiff does not rebut--or even mention--defendant’s 

contentions with regard to the grouping of dissimilar devices. Plaintiff’s contention that 

the portion of plaintiff’s claim chart addressing devices one and two covers devices eight 

and nine--themselves comprising multiple devices produced by multiple manufacturers--

and device ten, see Pl.’s Mem. 4, is therefore unpersuasive, cf. Bender v. Maxim 
9

Integrated Prods., Inc., No. C 09-01152 SI, 2010 WL 1135762, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 

2010) (finding the use of representative claim charts to describe multiple accused 

products inadequate where the plaintiff had “not provided an adequate explanation of 

why the claim charts are representative of all of the accused products”). 

Plaintiff’s contention that accused devices eight, nine and ten are “covered by” the 

portion of plaintiff’s claim chart found adequate by the court, see Pl.’s Mem. 4, does not 

identify a mistake of fact meriting reconsideration, cf. Henderson, 55 Fed. Cl. at 337

(stating that an error of fact warrants reconsideration).

2. Plaintiff’s Diligence 

In its Dismissal Order, the court denied plaintiff’s request to amend its claim chart

in part because plaintiff failed to act diligently in seeking information upon which to base 

its claim chart. See Dismissal Order 10. The court noted that “plaintiff did not make a 

single discovery request until after defendant filed its motion to stay proceedings,” id., 

and stated that “[i]f plaintiff could foresee that it did not have the information necessary 

to serve a complete claim chart . . . based on public information and defendant’s initial 

production of documents, then plaintiff should have sought discovery to supplement its 

information,” id. at 9-10. The court further noted that where, as in this case, a plaintiff

seeks to amend its claim chart based upon information that was publicly available prior to 

the time of filing of the claim chart, “a court should be reluctant to permit amendment.” 

Id. at 9 (citing, inter alia, Global Sessions LP v. Travelocity.com LP, No. 6:10cv671 

LED-JDL, 2012 WL 1903903, at *4 (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2012) and SmartPhone Techs.

LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10cv580 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 1424173, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 

16, 2012)).

Plaintiff contends without elaboration that the court incorrectly rejected plaintiff’s

“unrebutted evidence . . . that the additional information that it discovered about devices 

3 through 10 was not available to it prior to June 18, 2012, in spite of its diligence in 

searching to locate it.” Pl.’s Mem. 7. However, plaintiff does not describe this

purportedly unrebutted evidence or why the court erred by rejecting it.7

 7

Plaintiff also states that the court erred by rejecting “unrebutted evidence” that plaintiff’s 

claim chart was adequate. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl. CANVS Corp.’s Mot. for Correction 

of Factual Inconsistencies & for Recons. of the Dismissal of Claims in the Ct.’s Oct. 25, 2012 

Order Regarding Infringement Claim Charts (Pl.’s Mem.), Dkt. No. 49-1, at 7. However, 

plaintiff does not explain its position or the purportedly unrebutted evidence that would support 

it.

 Instead, plaintiff 

offers two new reasons that plaintiff was unable to locate the additional information 

before submitting its claim chart: that the accused devices are produced under a number 

of trade names, “making specific identification by project or trade name difficult,” Pl.’s 

Reply 1, and that plaintiff’s president has access to classified information, making it more 
10

difficult for him to communicate with counsel and locate unclassified information upon 

which to base plaintiff’s claim chart,

8

Plaintiff’s new arguments are both untimely--being raised for the first time on 

reconsideration, cf. Bluebonnet, 466 F.3d at 1361--and unpersuasive. A court should be 

reluctant to allow amendment of a claim chart based on publicly available information,

see Global Sessions LP, 2012 WL 1903903, at *4; SmartPhone Techs. LLC, 2012 WL 

1424173, at *3, and plaintiff’s sudden ability to find the additional information--within 

two weeks of the court’s order finding much of its claim chart inadequate--belies 

plaintiff’s claim that it was unable, despite diligent efforts, to find the information in the 

two years between its filing of this case and its service of the claim chart, see Dismissal 

Order 9. Additionally, if plaintiff was unable to find the information it needed from 

publicly available sources, a diligent search would have required plaintiff to avail itself of

the discovery process. Cf. West v. Jewelry Innovations, Inc., No. C 07-1812 JF (HRL), 

2008 WL 4532558, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008); see also Dismissal Order 9-10 (“If 

plaintiff could foresee that it did not have the information necessary to serve a complete 

claim chart . . . based on public information and defendant’s initial production of 

documents, then plaintiff should have sought discovery to supplement its information.”). 

The court also agrees with defendant that, “if plaintiff’s principal has specialized 

knowledge about the accused devices, then it is surprising that plaintiff did not leverage 

this knowledge to target relevant public information or to tailor discovery requests for 

necessary unclassified information before its due date.” Cf. Def.’s Resp. 9.

Pl.’s Mem. 9-10.

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration on the issue of plaintiff’s diligence in 

seeking information upon which to base its claim chart relies on untimely and 

unpersuasive arguments. Plaintiff has therefore not identified a mistake of fact or new 

evidence that warrants reconsideration on this issue. Cf. Henderson, 55 Fed. Cl. at 337

(stating that an error of fact warrants reconsideration); Matthews, 73 Fed. Cl. at 526 

(stating that the discovery of previously unavailable evidence warrants reconsideration).

B. Plaintiff Identifies No Error of Law

Plaintiff contends that the court applied the incorrect legal standard when 

determining whether plaintiff’s claims related to accused devices three through ten 

 8

Plaintiff also claims that defendant’s initial discovery disclosures were inadequate. See

Pl.’s Reply 3 (stating that “the Government should have long ago produced” circuit diagrams of 

the accused devices (emphasis omitted)). This objection comes too late. If plaintiff found 

defendant’s initial disclosures insufficient, it should have used the discovery process or--

following an attempt to resolve the issue with defendant--filed a motion to compel disclosure. 

Cf. West v. Jewelry Innovations, Inc., No. C 07-1812 JF (HRL), 2008 WL 4532558, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 8, 2008) (stating that diligence warranting amendment requires a party to avail itself of 

the discovery process).
11

should be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to RCFC 41(b). Pl.’s Mem. 7. 

Plaintiff appears to contend that the court should have applied the “‘non-exhaustive list of 

factors’” that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has stated that 

United States district courts “‘ordinarily should consider in determining whether to 

dismiss an action with prejudice under Rule 41(b),’”9 id. at 8 (emphasis omitted) (quoting 

Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1143 (10th Cir.

2007)), as well as factors considered by trial courts in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, id. at 

9 (citing Boyle v. Am. Auto Serv., Inc., 571 F.3d 734, 739 (8th Cir. 2009) and Nealey v. 

Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1277-80 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

Plaintiff contends that “[t]he Court must find that the delay was unreasonable under the 

circumstances, was unexplained by the Plaintiff and there was demonstrated prejudice 

suffered by the Defendants.” Id. at 8.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has 

not required that courts consider a similar list of factors. See, e.g., Claude E. Atkins 

Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183-84 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming 

dismissal pursuant to RCFC 41(b) without discussing a similar mandatory list of factors); 

Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176-77 (same). Accordingly, the court was not required to make 

factual findings of the type described by plaintiff. Cf. Pl.’s Mem. 8-10. However, 

applying the type of factors considered by trial courts in other circuits confirms that 

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute is appropriate. In particular, the 

five factors considered in the Ninth Circuit are representative and comprehensive with 

regard to the types of factors considered by trial courts in other circuits when determining 

whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute.

The five factors considered in the Ninth Circuit are: “(1) the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 

of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine 

(PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. (PPA Prods.), 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “These factors are not a series of conditions precedent before 

the judge can do anything, but a way for a [trial] judge to think about what to do.”10

 9

Although the cases cited by plaintiff refer to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (FRCP), the RCFC generally mirror the FRCP. See RCFC 2002 rules committee note 

(“[I]nterpretation of the court’s rules will be guided by case law and the Advisory Committee 

Notes that accompany the [FRCP].”). Rule 41(b) of the RCFC is substantially similar to Rule 

41(b) of the FRCP. Compare RCFC 41(b), with FRCP 41(b). The court therefore relies on 

authorities interpreting FRCP 41(b) as well as authorities interpreting RCFC 41(b).

 Id.

10Defendant is therefore correct that “the Court need not find actual prejudice to support 

its dismissal.” Cf. Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. of the Dismissal of Certain Accused 

Devices in the Ct.’s Oct. 25, 2012[] Order (Def.’s Resp.), Dkt. No. 57, at 11. A court may 

dismiss a case for failure to prosecute without determining that the defendant was prejudiced. 
12

(internal quotation marks omitted). These factors are also similar to the standard that 

plaintiff has requested the court to apply: whether delay was unreasonable and 

unexplained and whether defendant was prejudiced. Cf. Pl.’s Mem. 8; see also id. at 9 

(citing Ninth Circuit authority in support of its position). Although the Federal Circuit 

does not require that a trial court consider any particular list of factors, it has weighed 

similar “relevant factors” in determining whether dismissal pursuant to RCFC 41(b) was 

an abuse of discretion. See Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc., 899 F.2d at 1183 (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1183-84 (discussing factors including past 

warnings by the court and failure to comply with deadlines); Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176-77 

(discussing plaintiff’s ignoring of deadlines and court rules as relevant factors). The 

court concludes that, even applying the Ninth Circuit’s five-factor analysis, which is 

more comprehensive than that required by the Federal Circuit, dismissal of plaintiff’s 

claims related to accused devices three through ten was appropriate. 

The first two factors--relating to the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

the litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket--are usually reviewed in 

conjunction and relate to whether a delay is unreasonable. PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1227; 

cf. Pl.’s Mem. 8 (stating that the court must find that delay was unreasonable and 

unexplained). In this case, plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery and filing 

deadlines has interfered with the expeditious resolution of the litigation and with the 

court’s management of its docket. Pursuant to the court’s original scheduling order, a 

claim construction hearing was to be held in July 2012. See Scheduling Order 3. In part 

because plaintiff failed to respond to defendant’s discovery requests, inhibiting 

defendant’s preparation and drafting of disclosures in advance of the hearing, the court

rescheduled the claim construction hearing to December 2012. See Am. Scheduling 

Order 2; Def.’s Unopposed Mot. to Amend the Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 17, at 2-3

(stating the reasons for the proposed amendments). After plaintiff’s continued 

noncompliance with its discovery obligations--requiring two additional orders to compel 

compliance, see Sanctions Order 2-4--and plaintiff’s failure timely to serve an adequate 

claim chart, claim construction statement and expert report, the court stayed the claim 

construction process, indefinitely suspending the claim construction hearing, Show Cause 

Order 7; see also supra Part I (discussing plaintiff’s late and inadequate filings and filings 

that plaintiff simply failed to make); infra note 13 (discussing additional late filings).

With one exception, see Sanctions Order 8, plaintiff has offered no persuasive 

explanation of its late and inadequate filings and disclosures; in many instances, plaintiff 

 

See, e.g., Price v. McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472, 475 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Moore v. Telfon 

Commc’ns Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 1978) (“Failure to prosecute diligently alone 

justifies dismissal, even where actual prejudice to the defendant is not shown.”); Guy v. City of 

Wilmington, 169 F.R.D. 593, 596 (D. Del. 1996) (finding, in dismissing for failure to prosecute, 

that “Defendants have not been prejudiced in their defense by the actions of Plaintiff but that the 

administration of justice has suffered tremendously”).
13

failed to offer any explanation at all, see, e.g., id. at 2-3 (discussing plaintiff’s failure to 

file responses to defendant’s first two motions to compel). The most recent explanations 

plaintiff offers for the insufficiency of its claim chart--that discovery of information 

supporting its claims is more difficult because of the access plaintiff’s principal has to 

classified information and because the allegedly infringing devices are produced under a 

number of trade names--are both untimely and unpersuasive. See supra Part III.A.2

(discussing these explanations). Accordingly, although the length of the delay created by 

each individual missed deadline or insufficient filing is not great, the court finds the 

delays occasioned by plaintiff to be unreasonable because they have been numerous and 

unjustified, because several of the delays were ended only by an order of the court 

directing plaintiff to act and because the delays have led to repeated rescheduling of 

events ordered by the court--significantly interfering with the court’s efforts to resolve 

this matter in an expeditious fashion and to manage its own docket.11

Plaintiff’s actions have further undermined the expeditious resolution of this case 

and the management of the court’s docket by requiring repeated expenditures of judicial 

resources. As a result of plaintiff’s conduct, the court has focused its resources on 

conducting status conferences to discuss plaintiff’s late and inadequate filings, see Order 

of Apr. 13, 2012, Dkt. No. 23, at 2 (setting a status conference to discuss sanctions);

Order of July 3, 2012, Dkt. No. 30, at 1 (setting a status conference to discuss plaintiff’s 

inadequate disclosures and the resulting implications for the schedule), and on deciding

motions to compel and motions to amend inadequate documents, see generally Sanctions 

Order (discussing motions to compel); Show Cause Order (finding plaintiff’s claim 

construction statement, expert report and most of plaintiff’s claim chart inadequate); 

Dismissal Order (finding no showing of good cause to amend plaintiff’s claim chart), 

 Cf. PPA Prods., 

460 F.3d at 1226-27. 

 11Plaintiff contends that “[t]he Government’s characterization of the activities of Plaintiff 

during the preliminary stages of discovery [is] inaccurate” and does not reflect conversations 

between counsel or the fact that “[a]s many extensions of time were granted to the Government’s 

counsel as to Plaintiff’s counsel.” Pl.’s Reply 3. However, plaintiff does not describe or provide 

documentation of any conversations between counsel that would support plaintiff’s position. 

Nor does plaintiff cite any enlargement of time granted to defendant. A review of the docket in 

this case confirms that the court has not granted defendant an enlargement of time to meet any 

deadline since the entry of the court’s Order of March 25, 2012 (Scheduling Order), Dkt. No. 12. 

The court granted defendant’s request to amend the scheduling order, see Order of Oct. 14, 2011 

(Am. Scheduling Order), Dkt. No. 18, at 2 (listing amendments), but the amendment was made 

necessary in part by plaintiff’s failure to make discovery responses and scheduled disclosures, 

and by plaintiff’s identification of additional accused devices after filing its complaint, see Def.’s 

Unopposed Mot. to Amend the Scheduling Order (Def.’s Mot. Amend), Dkt. No. 17, at 2-3

(stating the reasons for the proposed amendments). Additionally plaintiff overlooks the 

difference between delays occasioned by duly filed motions for enlargement of time and by 

plaintiff’s failures to comply with the courts rules and orders.
14

rather than on addressing the merits of plaintiff’s claims. The first two factors, therefore, 

support dismissal. Cf. PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1227.

The third factor is the risk of prejudice to defendant. Id. at 1226; cf. Pl.’s Mem. 8 

(stating that the court must find that prejudice was suffered by defendant). If the plaintiff 

“come[s] forth with an excuse for his delay that is anything but frivolous, the burden of 

production shifts to the defendant to show at least some actual prejudice.” Nealey, 662 

F.2d at 1281. However, “[i]f [the defendant] does so, the plaintiff must then persuade the 

court that such claims of prejudice are either illusory or relatively insignificant when 

compared to the force of [the plaintiff’s] excuse.” Id. “‘A weak excuse may suffice if 

there has been no prejudice; an exceedingly good one might still do even when there has 

been some.’” Id. at 1280 (quoting Larios v. Victory Carriers, Inc., 316 F.2d 63, 67 (2d 

Cir. 1963)). The plaintiff has the burden of persuasion as to both the strength of its 

excuse and the lack of prejudice to the defendant. Id.

Plaintiff has, more often than not, failed to provide excuses for its noncompliance 

with the court’s rules and orders. For instance, plaintiff did not file a response to 

plaintiff’s first two motions to compel to explain its noncompliance with its discovery 

obligations.12

Plaintiff contends that defendant does not claim to be prejudiced, Pl.’s Mem. 9, 

and maintains that its actions have caused little delay, see Pl.’s Mot. 1 (describing the 

delay created by plaintiff as a “short delay” lasting only from June 18, 2012 to July 16, 

2012, the time it took plaintiff to offer its proposed amended claim chart after the court 

found plaintiff’s original claim chart inadequate); Pl.’s Reply 2 (describing the delay 

caused by plaintiff as a delay of less than three weeks, which, plaintiff states, “hardly 

constitutes a party dragging [its] feet”). Plaintiff also notes that defendant did not 

originally request dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute. Pl.’s Mem. 8-9.

 See supra Part I. When plaintiff has provided explanations, the court has, 

with one exception, see Sanctions Order 8, found them entirely without merit, see, e.g., 

supra Part III.A.2 (discussing two reasons that plaintiff claims it was unable timely to file 

a complete and adequate claim chart). Therefore, plaintiff’s excuses could be outweighed 

by relatively little prejudice to defendant. Cf. Nealey, 662 F.2d at 1280; Larios, 316 F.2d 

at 67.

Plaintiff mischaracterizes the delays it has created and the prejudice it has caused 

defendant.13

 12In a subsequent telephonic status conference (TSC), plaintiff’s counsel stated that “there 

isn’t any really good excuse,” that he is “overworked and understaffed” and that he “wish[ed] 

[he] had a better reason for being behind than that.” Tr. of TSC of Apr. 18, 2012, Dkt. No. 56, at 

3:16-17, 4:5, 7-8 (plaintiff’s counsel).

 Defendant does not list the ways in which it has been prejudiced but states 

13Defendant states that “plaintiff attempts to recast its efforts in this litigation as

demonstrating ‘cooperat[ion] with the Defendant to complete the major tasks that are set forth in
15

that it has been harmed by plaintiff’s actions. See Def.’s Resp. 12 (“[P]laintiff’s 

transgressions have not been costless to defendant and the Court.”). Plaintiff’s actions 

have prejudiced defendant in several ways. “Failing to produce documents as ordered is 

considered sufficient prejudice” to support dismissal for failure to prosecute. PPA 

Prods., 460 F.3d at 1227. In this case, plaintiff has repeatedly failed to produce discovery 

responses and scheduled disclosures in a timely fashion. See Sanctions Order 2-4; Show 

Cause Order 2-4, 6. 

Prejudice may also be presumed from unreasonable delay, PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 

1227, particularly in complex cases, such as this one--which involves a number of 

accused devices produced by multiple manufacturers, see Pl.’s Mem. 3-4 (listing devices 

and manufacturers)--in which “[e]arly preparation and participation are essential,” PPA 

Prods., 460 F.3d at 1228. Furthermore, defendant has been prejudiced by the additional 

burden of filing multiple motions to force plaintiff to fulfill its obligations. Cf. id.

(stating that prejudice “may also consist of costs or burdens of litigation”). Perhaps most 

significantly, however, plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with its obligations has 

interfered with defendant’s ability to draft scheduled disclosures and to prepare for the 

claim construction hearing originally scheduled for July 2012. See Scheduling Order 3; 

cf. Order of Apr. 13, 2012, at 1 (noting, in granting defendant’s third motion to compel, 

that plaintiff had not yet disclosed to defendant its proposed claim terms for construction 

although the parties were scheduled to meet and confer eleven days later regarding 

 

the Scheduling Order.’” Def.’s Resp. 8 (alteration in original) (quoting Pl.’s Mem. 6). The court 

agrees with defendant, however, that “plaintiff’s chronicle related to some of its Court-ordered 

disclosures is demonstrably false.” Cf. id. Plaintiff filed its revised disclosure of asserted claims 

on March 5, 2012 although they were due on February 17, 2012, see Sanctions Order 4 n.3, a 

deadline that was set after plaintiff failed to serve them, as ordered, on September 9, 2011, see

Scheduling Order 2 (setting deadline); Def.’s Mot. Amend 2 (stating, on October 13, 2011, that 

plaintiff had not served its revised disclosure of asserted claims). Plaintiff was required to serve 

its proposed claim terms and disclose its expert witness on April 10, 2012, see Am. Scheduling 

Order 1, but had not done so when defendant filed its third motion to compel on April 13, 2012, 

Sanctions Order 3-4, and, if plaintiff did so before plaintiff was sanctioned on April 23, 2012, 

plaintiff did not advise the court of this fact, see id. at 4 n.3 (stating that service of these 

documents was still pending). The court cited these four missed deadlines, among others, when 

sanctioning plaintiff. See id. But plaintiff now claims, without acknowledging that it was 

sanctioned for missing these specific deadlines, among others, or citing evidence to support its 

position, to have complied with each of these deadlines. See Pl.’s Mem. 5-6.

Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the RCFC, by presenting a 

brief or motion to the court, he certifies “to the best of [his] knowledge, information, and belief, 

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” that factual representations made in 

the brief or motion have evidentiary support. See RCFC 11(b). The court does not impose 

sanctions at this time. Plaintiff shall note that the court may consider sanctions at any time it 

determines that a filing violates Rule 11(b). See RCFC 11(c) (providing for sanctions).
16

proposed claim construction terms). That the court rescheduled, Am. Scheduling Order

2, and then stayed, Show Cause Order 7, claim construction proceedings to mitigate the 

prejudice to defendant does not render plaintiff’s actions harmless. The court concludes 

that the prejudice to defendant outweighs the excuses offered by plaintiff for the delays it 

has caused.14

The fourth factor relates to the importance of addressing cases on their merits. 

PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1226. However, this concern “lends little support to a party 

whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose 

conduct impedes progress in that direction.” Id. at 1228 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s rules and orders has repeatedly 

impeded the progress of this case. See supra Part I (summarizing plaintiff’s actions).

 Cf. Nealey, 662 F.2d at 1280; Larios, 316 F.2d at 67. The third factor, 

therefore, supports dismissal. Cf. PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1227-28.

15

The fifth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id. at 1226. Relevant 

considerations include whether the plaintiff’s conduct continued after the court imposed 

lesser sanctions and whether the court warned the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal. 

Id. at 1228-29; cf. Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc., 899 F.2d at 1183-84 (considering past 

warnings by the court and the plaintiff’s continued failure to meet court deadlines); 

Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176-77 (considering that the plaintiff ignored court deadlines and 

rules). In this case, the court imposed a monetary sanction on plaintiff’s attorney after 

granting defendant’s third motion to compel. Sanctions Order 9. The court has warned 

plaintiff that it was considering dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and that it would consider 

dismissal in the event of further noncompliance with the court’s rules and orders. Id.

 

The fourth factor, therefore, does not weigh heavily against dismissing plaintiff’s claims. 

Cf. PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1228.

 14The types of prejudice identified by plaintiff, “‘loss of evidence and loss of memory by 

a witness,’” Pl.’s Mem. 9 (quoting Boyle v. Am. Auto Serv., Inc., 571 F.3d 734, 739 (8th Cir. 

2009)), would appear to be more applicable when failure to prosecute takes the form of excessive 

delay in bringing a case to trial rather than violation of a court’s rules and orders.

15Plaintiff briefly contends, without citation to authority, that reconsideration is warranted 

“because imposing such a harsh, irrevocable sanction [as dismissal for failure to prosecute] on a 

party for . . . delays occasioned by counsel would work a manifest injustice.” Id. at 1. However, 

as the United States Supreme Court has explained in similar circumstances,

There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim 

because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the 

client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the 

action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this 

freely selected agent.

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. 

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396-97 (1993) (quoting a portion of the same). 
17

(“Although the court has not found plaintiff’s repeated disregard for its rules and orders 

sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal of the action or a citation for contempt, 

plaintiff’s disregard is not harmless.”); id. at 9 n.5 (“Other more stringent sanctions such 

as dismissing the action or treating the failure as contempt of court do not appear to be 

warranted at this time.”). Despite being sanctioned and warned of the possibility of 

dismissal, plaintiff failed timely to file an adequate claim construction statement, expert 

report and claim chart.

16

Considering the five factors, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims 

regarding devices three through ten for failure to prosecute is appropriate.

 See Show Cause Order at 3-4, 6. The fifth factor, therefore, 

supports dismissal. Cf. PPA Prods., 460 F.3d at 1228-29; Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc.,

899 F.2d at 1183-84; Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176-77.

17

IV. Conclusion

 Cf. PPA 

Prods., 460 F.3d at 1226.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Emily C. Hewitt 

EMILY C. HEWITT

 16To the extent that plaintiff contends that it “needs no further sanctions for deterrence” 

because plaintiff’s counsel “employed an additional attorney to devote substantial time to this 

matter,” “shortly” after plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned, Pl.’s Reply 2, plaintiff’s view is 

contradicted by plaintiff’s own actions. Plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned on April 23, 2012. 

See generally Sanctions Order. However, nearly two months later, on June 18, 2013, plaintiff 

failed to serve an adequate claim construction statement, expert report and claim chart. Order of 

July 23, 2012, Dkt. No. 36, at 3-4, 6. On July 13, 2012, without explanation, plaintiff served a 

brief that was due to be filed three days earlier. Id. at 2 n.2. Further violation of the court’s rules 

and orders has not been sufficiently deterred by the monetary sanction.

17As the court noted in its Dismissal Order, it would also be appropriate to consider 

sanctions under Rule 16(f) of the RCFC. See supra note 4. “The standards governing dismissal 

for failure to obey a court order are basically the same under either” Rule 41(b) or Rule 16(f). 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Velazquez-Rivera v. 

Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 920 F.2d 1072, 1075 (1st Cir. 1990) (same); Price, 792 F.2d at 474 (same). 

Compare In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 

2006) (setting out factors to be considered before dismissing claims for failure to prosecute), 

with Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 822 (E.D. Tex. 

2007) (setting out similar factors to be considered before striking inadequate infringement 

contentions pursuant to Rule 16(f)). Accordingly, because the court finds that dismissal is 

warranted under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute, it is likely that striking plaintiff’s 

infringement contentions regarding devices three through ten and dismissing the associated 

claims under RCFC 16(f) would also be appropriate. Cf. Malone, 833 F.2d at 130.
18

Chief Judge