IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COGNIPOWER LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00160-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff CogniPower LLC’s (“CogniPower”) Motion for Leave to 

Amend Infringement Contentions (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 58.) Defendants Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) oppose the Motion. 

(See generally Dkt. No. 65.) Having considered the briefing and corresponding arguments, the 

Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

CogniPower filed this patent infringement case on April 10, 2023, asserting that Samsung 

infringes U.S. Reissue Patent Nos. RE47,031 (“the ’031 Patent”), RE47,713 (“the ’713 Patent”), 

RE47,714 (“the ’714 Patent”), RE49,157 (“the ’157 Patent”), and RE49,425 (“the ’425 Patent”) 

(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) On July 27, 2023, CogniPower served 

infringement contentions asserting 190 claims across the five Asserted Patents. (Dkt. No. 45-1.) 

The infringement contentions identified the following as “Accused Instrumentalities” in Appendix 

A: 

• “[a]ll Samsung branded or manufactured chargers with fast-charging capability, 

including but not limited to: [13 named examples],”

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7690
2

• “[a]ll Samsung branded or manufactured freezer/refrigerators, including but not 

limited to: [2 named examples],” and

• “[a]ll Samsung branded or manufactured air-conditioning units, including but not 

limited to: [1 named example].”

(Id. at 21.) CogniPower believes that the accused products implement power conversion, 

management, and/or regulation using demand pulses and include, but are not limited to, those 

products listed in Appendix A. (Dkt. No. 58 at 3.) The infringement contentions assert that the 

accused instrumentalities include those substantially similar to the named products. (Id., citing 

Dkt. No. 58-1 at 2, 5–6.)

On August 14, 2023, Samsung sent CogniPower a letter alleging deficiencies in its 

infringement contentions. (Dkt. No. 58-8 (Samsung complaining of, inter alia, the lack of 

specificity utilized in identifying the accused products and stating “[t]o the extent CogniPower 

contends that any models beyond those specifically listed...are accused, you were required to list 

them by name or model number. Having not done so, CogniPower’s identifications reach only the 

16 products specifically named in Appendix A.”).) On August 28, 2023, CogniPower responded. 

(See Dkt. No. 58-9.) On September 6, the parties conferred telephonically—CogniPower refused 

to identify any additional products at that time. (Dkt. No. 65 at 3.) The next day, however, 

CogniPower agreed to “supplement its [list] to identify additional names/models of Samsung 

branded USB chargers, freezers/refrigerators and air conditioners that appear in a search of public 

records, e.g., the internet.” (Dkt. No. 65-5.) 

On September 8, 2023, CogniPower served the amended infringement contentions at issue. 

(Dkt. Nos. 58-1 through 58-7.) In them, CogniPower identified 61 additional products (in addition 

to the 16 products specifically identified in the original infringement contentions). (Dkt. No. 65 at 

3.) The amended contentions further address “corrections of minor, inadvertent typographical and 

citation errors.” (Dkt. No. 58 at 2.) Specifically, the amendment covers the following: 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 7691
3

• Addition of products that appear in a public internet search of Samsung branded 

charger and appliance/equipment products. [Dkt. No. 58-12.]

• Deletion of Claim 64 of the 031 Patent and its corresponding claim chart. [Dkt. 

No. 58-11 at 1.]

• Correction of the bates number citation for the Dialog iW9801 controller (from 

CP0010476 to CP0040513). [Dkt. No. 58-11 at 4; Dkt. No. 58-13 at B25; Dkt. 

No. 58-14 at C25; Dkt. No. 58-15 at D25; Dkt. No. 58-16 at E 25; Dkt. No.58-

17 at F24.]

• Correction of omitted cited text from CP0040513. [Dkt. No. 58-16 at Claim 22; 

Dkt. No. 58-17 at Claim 28 and Claim 33.]

(Id.) Samsung appears to oppose only the newly identified products, and does not address the 

correction of typographical and citation errors. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 65, 78.)

On September 15, Samsung sent a letter detailing its issues with the proposed supplement. 

(Dkt. No. 65-2.) As detailed below, Samsung complained that certain identified products did not 

appear to be Samsung products, that certain identified products did not appear to have been offered 

or sold in the U.S., and that the “catch-all” language remaining in the amended contentions was 

improper. (Id. at 1–3.) CogniPower did not respond to the September 15 letter, but indicated in its 

opposition brief to Samsung’s motion to compel additional claim charts that it would shortly be 

filing its motion for leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 57 at 15, filed September 27, 2023.) On September 

29, Samsung sent CogniPower an email concerning the issues it had previously raised, suggesting 

a meet-and-confer. (Dkt. No. 65-3.) CogniPower did not respond, filing the present Motion on 

October 2, 2023. (See Dkt. No. 65 at 8; see also Dkt. No. 58.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Local Patent Rule 3-1 requires a party claiming infringement to identify each accused 

product in its infringement contentions.” Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 

2:16- CV-00980-JRG, 2017 WL 4812436, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2017) (quoting Tivo Inc. v. 

Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:15-CV-1503-JRG, 2016 WL 5172008, at *1 (E.D. Tex. 2016)). The 

purpose of infringement contentions under P.R. 3-1 is to put the infringer on reasonable notice of 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 7692
4

plaintiff’s infringement theories. Harris Corp. v. Huawei Device USA, 2019 WL 4247067, at *3 

(E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019). “It is expected that during the course of discovery, infringement 

contentions may be clarified or refined.” Id. Under P.R.3-6(b), leave to amend or supplement may 

be granted “upon a showing of good cause.” Courts consider four factors: “(1) the explanation for 

the party’s failure to meet the deadline, (2) the importance of what the Court is excluding, (3) the 

potential prejudice if the Court allows the thing that would be excluded, and (4) the availability of 

a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 797 F.3d 1025, 

1035 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Samsung argues that CogniPower’s Motion should be denied for two independent reasons: 

first, that the amended identification of products does not comport with P.R. 3-1(b); and second, 

that CogniPower does not have good cause to amend its infringement contentions to identify 

products for which there is no apparent factual or legal basis to accuse of infringing. (Dkt. No. 65 

at 9–10.)

A. CogniPower’s Identification of Accused Products in Proposed Supplement Does 

Not Preclude Amendment of Infringement Contentions

Samsung makes three principal arguments regarding the impropriety of the proposed 

amended infringement contentions before it reaches the good cause analysis. The Court addresses 

each in turn. 

First, Samsung complains that CogniPower seeks to add products to the case that are selfevidently not Samsung products—they are sold or offered by brands/companies called 

“HJPowcord,” “Celux,” “Pukiou,” or “Aksenli.” (Dkt. No. 65 at 4.) In its September 15 letter, 

Samsung identified 16 such products that “either do not appear to be Samsung products and/or it 

is unclear from the information provided in [the amended contentions] what Samsung product 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 7693
5 

CogniPower is referring to.” (Dkt. No. 65-2 at 2–3.) For example, Samsung points out that a 

Google search on September 15, 2023 for “18W Fast Charger for Samsung Galaxy A51 A21 S10 

S10e,a71 A72 A52 5G A31 A41 S20 Fe 5G A30 A42 A20s,s9 S8,Nokia 6.2 7.2 8.3 7.1,Quick 

Charge 3.0 USB,” returned an Amazon page showing this to be a product offered from a company 

called “HJPowcord.”1 (Dkt. No. 58 at 4, citing Dkt. No. 58-2 at 1; Dkt. No. 58-7.) This product 

appears on Newegg.com and is listed as a “CELUX” product.2 (Id.) Samsung contends that the 

same publicly available information that CogniPower relied upon demonstrates that CogniPower 

has no basis to suggest that these are Samsung products. (Id.) In Samsung’s view, CogniPower 

cannot shift the blame to Samsung by arguing that any “accuracy determination or correction” may 

be made after discovery. (Id.) Samsung urges that “no discovery should be needed to prevent 

CogniPower from doing something it was not supposed to do in the first place.” (Id. at 13.) 

Second, Samsung argues that the proposed amendment adds products for which it appears 

CogniPower had no basis to allege were sold or available in the US. (Id. at 6–7.) For example, the 

“EP-TA200 V2” charger CogniPower listed does not have a US compatible wall plug. (Id., citing 

Dkt. No. 65-12.) Samsung argues that the teardown report that CogniPower itself relied on in its 

contentions (see Dkt. No. 58-1 at 4 n.2) explains that this product is “mainly used in most countries 

in the EU and India.” (Dkt. No. 65 at 7, citing Dkt. No. 65-12.) Samsung identified 10 products in 

the proposed supplemental list that it urges “do not appear to be made, sold, offered, or otherwise 

1 The Amazon product page is no longer available on the live internet. (Dkt. No. 65 at 4.) 

2 Samsung describes two more examples of such products in the briefing. (Id. at 4–6.) Samsung identifies the “USB 

C Box Fast Wall Charger for Samsung Galaxy A14 5G/S23/S22 Ultra/S21 Fe 5G/A13/A54/A03s/S21/A53/A23/Z 

Fold 5 4/S20FE/A12,Pad,Google Pixel 7A 7 6” product, which Samsung notes appears on Amazon.com as a “Pukiou” 

brand product, and contains the “Google Pixel” brand in the product name. (Id. at 5, citing Dkt. No. 65-10.) Samsung 

argues that this demonstrates the product is a third-party device meant to be compatible with numerous brand devices, 

including Samsung, Google, and “Pad” devices. (Id.) Additionally, Samsung notes that certain of the charger products 

expressly state in the name that they are made to be “compatible” with Samsung products and other products, like an 

identified “Aksenli” brand charger. (Id. at 6, citing Dkt. No. 65-11.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 7694
6 

available by or from the defendants in the United States.” (Id., citing Dkt. No. 65-1 at 2–3.) 

Samsung contends it is unclear what basis there is for accusing these products, as there can be no 

infringement liability for such products. (Id. at 13, citing 35 U.S.C. § 271 (requiring that 

infringement occur “within the United States”).) 

Third, Samsung urges that CogniPower refused to remove improper “catch-all” language 

in its supplemental P.R. 3-1(b) listing. (Id. at 7–8.) The contentions as amended still purport to 

accuse “[a]ll Samsung branded or manufactured chargers with fast-charging capability,” “[a]ll 

Samsung branded or manufactured freezer/refrigerators,” and “[a]ll Samsung branded or 

manufactured air-conditioning units.” (Id. at 10, citing Dkt. No. No. 58-12.) Samsung argues that 

the use of catch-all language has repeatedly been rejected in this District to identify accused 

products under P.R. 3-1(b). (Id. at 10–11, citing, inter alia, Mobile Telecom. Tech., LLC v. Sprint 

Nextel Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-832, ECF No. 152 at 3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014) (“[plaintiff] 

simply appending the words ‘but not limited to’ in its identification of devices cannot excuse it 

from its obligations under the local patent rules and, thus, has no legal effect”).) Specifically, 

Samsung contends that this language is especially problematic here because, taken at face value, 

it would cover (1) products that CogniPower has already represented are not accused (i.e., wireless 

chargers) (see Dkt. No. 58-2 at 4) and (2) products that pre-date the priority date of the asserted 

patents and would invalidate the asserted claims.3

 (Dkt. No. 58 at 8.) 

In response, CogniPower notes Samsung’s complaints and responds that “Samsung 

requested that CogniPower search for and list more...products. Even though CogniPower did not 

have visibility...absent discovery (and informed Samsung of this), to avoid further dispute, 

3 Samsung notes that it “has been selling refrigerators, for example, in the United States since long before the priority 

date of the asserted patents” and that if all such products are accused, CogniPower’s allegations “necessarily render 

all asserted claims invalid under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” (Id. at 11.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 7695
7

CogniPower did just that.” (Dkt. No. 76 at 1.) CogniPower argues, for example, that the three 

charger products that Samsung identifies in its opposition do not reveal that those products aren’t 

Samsung products. (Id.) It contends that it is not uncommon for third parties to sell products similar 

to branded products, noting that “Samsung’s own U.S.-facing web-site advertises these same 

chargers.” (Id.) CogniPower further argues that the fact that one air conditioner product is sold in 

Africa, and the fact that one charger product is mainly used outside the U.S., does not preclude 

these products from being made, sold, or imported into the U.S. (Id. at 1–2, citing Dkt. No. 65 at 

7.) In any case, CogniPower points out that Samsung’s arguments go to infringement and liability 

issues rather than sufficiency of notice. (Id. at 2.)

The Court finds that the first two arguments Samsung raises (CogniPower’s identification 

of purported non-Samsung products and products allegedly not sold in the U.S.) are infringement 

and liability issues—these are a matter of evidence to be developed and clarified via discovery. 

Much of CogniPower’s argument revolves around the lack of technical discovery and the inherent 

difficulty of identifying infringing products where Samsung does not publish the internal power 

circuits of its products, resulting in a lack of “visibility.” (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 76 at 1.) The Court 

agrees that the merits of the infringement claims should be tested by discovery. If discovery reveals 

that an accused product is not actually a Samsung product, or is not sold or offered for sale in the 

United States, the Court anticipates that such products will be promptly dropped from 

CogniPower’s infringement case. Samsung has avenues for relief if CogniPower becomes so 

unreasonable as to pursue its infringement theories against such products. However, the Court is 

not prepared to deny leave to amend infringement contentions where there is good cause, simply 

because it is disputed whether some of the products are Samsung products and/or are sold in the 

U.S. 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7696
8 

As to Samsung’s argument that “catch-all” language is used, such does not prevent granting 

leave to supplement where it is otherwise warranted. Samsung’s specific concerns are that this 

language sweeps in certain products—namely, wireless chargers or products that pre-date the 

asserted patents. However, CogniPower’s reply itself resolves this concern: it unequivocally 

represents that “this listing does not include wireless chargers or products that pre-date the asserted 

patents.” (See Dkt. No. 76 at 2.) To the extent CogniPower later tries to argue that such products 

are included, Samsung need only point to the record. That said, the Court does not construe 

CogniPower’s use of this language as an excuse not to comply with its obligations under the local 

rules. To be clear, appending this catch-all language does not excuse CogniPower from identifying 

devices that it alleges infringe. 

The Court finds unpersuasive Samsung’s arguments that the product listing is improper 

under P.R. 3-1(b) such that leave to amend should be denied. 

B. CogniPower Has Demonstrated Good Cause 

i. Explanation for Failure to Meet the Deadline

Under the first factor, CogniPower argues that it timely served its original contentions, 

which were prepared “to the best of its current ability without the benefit of discovery.”4 (Dkt. No. 

58 at 6, citing Am. Video Graphics, L.P. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 558, 560–61 (E.D. 

Tex. 2005)).) Further, CogniPower points out that it served its amended contentions within less 

than a month and a half of its original service, during which time it argues that it diligently sought 

to confer with Samsung and address the issues it raised to reach a joint resolution. (Id. at 7.)

4 Samsung says that American Video Graphics is a case pertaining to P.R. 3-1(c), but is relevant to claim charts only 

and not to accused product listing under P.R. 3-1(b). (Dkt. No. 65 at 1 n.2.) However, the American Video Graphics

opinion points out that “there are times when plaintiffs’ preparation is restricted by defendants’ sole possession of the 

information plaintiffs need.” 359 F. Supp. 2d at 560. There the Court found that the plaintiff there complied with its 

obligations under P.R. 3-1(c) “to the best of its current ability” without discovery. Id. at 561. The Court is of the 

opinion that this logic applies to the specific facts here, where Samsung does not publish the internal components or 

structures of the power circuits in its products. (See Dkt. No. 58 at 1.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 7697
9

CogniPower contends that because the search simply identified products that appeared under the 

categories enumerated by Samsung, the additional information was always possessed by Samsung. 

(Id.)

Samsung responds that CogniPower identified these products by merely searching the 

internet, and it offers no justification for its failure to identify the 61 additional products in its 

original contentions. (Dkt. No. 65 at 13.) It notes that CogniPower does not contend that these are 

new products that couldn’t have been located sooner using public information. (Id., citing Sol IP, 

2020 WL 1911388, at *3.) In Samsung’s view, CogniPower’s claim that it was “diligent in 

responding to Samsung’s complaints” is misplaced. (Id. at 14.) The issue, Samsung urges, is the 

failure to identify these products in the first place. (Id.) Further, Samsung points out that 

CogniPower failed to respond to Samsung’s September letter and email, and failed to make any 

requested changes, such that CogniPower did not address the issues Samsung raised. (Id.)

The Court finds that CogniPower acted diligently to address Samsung’s complaints 

regarding the lack of specifically identified accused products. Even if there had been a “failure to 

meet the deadline” for identification, CogniPower worked to provide the identification requested 

by Samsung. As noted supra, Samsung does not publish the internal power circuits of its products. 

CogniPower complains (and Samsung does not dispute) that the internal features and components 

are not publicly accessible or ascertainable through simple inspection. (Dkt. No. 76 at 7.) Without 

discovery, identification of accused products based on the accused power circuitry is not a simple 

matter. Service of the amended contentions occurred within less than a month and a half of the 

service of the original infringement contentions. Such does not preclude leave to amend. 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 7698
10

ii. The Importance of What the Court Is Excluding

CogniPower contends that its amended contentions are important to support a full and fair 

resolution of the case. (Dkt. No. 58 at 7.) First, CogniPower argues that denying the amendment 

would be inefficient and result in duplicative litigation under the same infringement theory, and 

that judicial economy weighs in favor of granting leave. (Dkt. No. 58 at 7, 9, citing GREE, Inc. v. 

Supercell Oy, 2020 WL 7698831, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020).) CogniPower further points out 

that the amendment was at the request of Samsung and is important because Samsung essentially 

refused to provide discovery “[w]ithout a more particularized identification” of products. (See id.

at 8, citing Dkt. No. 58-8 at 2.) It notes that the scope of the additionally identified products is 

consistent with the scope defined in the original infringement contentions, and that the amendment 

was simply CogniPower’s way of helping “ensure that Samsung is on notice of the accused 

infringement.” (Id., citing Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 2015 WL 1774448, at *2 (E.D. 

Tex. Apr. 16, 2015).) 

Samsung focuses its argument on its assertions that the additional products include (1) nonSamsung products, and (2) products not sold or offered by Samsung in the United States. (Dkt. 

No. 65 at 14.) It maintains that it is “futile and improper to accuse products for which there is no 

basis.” (Dkt. No. 78 at 5, citing Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United 

State of Am. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 771 (5th Cir. 1999) (“A district court acts within its discretion when 

dismissing a motion to amend that is frivolous or futile.”).) 

As stated above, the Court is not prepared to find that the products Samsung contends are 

non-Samsung products and/or products not sold or offered by Samsung in the United States in fact 

are improper when there has been no discovery into the matter. While the Court does not find that 

Samsung is making “ticky-tack complaints” as CogniPower contends, the complaints are 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 7699
11

premature. The Court is not required “to assess the strength of the plaintiff’s infringement 

contentions as part of a good cause determination.” Arbitron, Inc. v. Int’l Demographics Inc., 2009 

WL 166555, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2009). Further, the Court does not find that CogniPower’s 

amendment is “frivolous or futile” based on the record before it. See Martin’s Herend Imports, 195 

F.3d at 771. The amendment identifies specific accused products under the same infringement 

theory as the original contentions, and is important because without leave to amend, CogniPower 

would be unable to accuse the additional products in this litigation. See Mediostream, Inc. v. 

Microsoft Corp., 2010 WL 4118589, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2015). 

iii. The Potential Prejudice If the Court Allows the Thing That Would Be 

Excluded

CogniPower contends that its amendments do not prejudice Samsung primarily because its 

original contentions gave Samsung notice of the scope and nature of the accused products and 

infringement in this case. (Dkt. No. 58 at 9–10.) It points out that the additionally identified 

products do not change CogniPower’s infringement theories or claims. (Id. at 10, citing CyWee

Grp. Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2018 WL 574871, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2018) (finding “little, 

if any, prejudice [when a plaintiff] is not changing its infringement theory relative to its preliminary 

infringement contentions.”).) Further, CogniPower again notes that any accuracy determination or 

correction to the identified accused products may be made after CogniPower inspects Samsung’s 

discovery, and that Samsung’s objections are irrelevant to this analysis. (Id. at 11.) Additionally, 

CogniPower notes that any prejudice has been minimized due to the early stage of the case. (Id., 

citing Harris Corp. v. Huawei Device USA, 2019 WL 4247067, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019)

(finding little to no prejudice where Markman hearing had not occurred, discovery had not been 

completed, and deadline for disclosing experts had not passed).) 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 7700
12

Samsung responds that it would be “significantly prejudiced” by this amendment. (Dkt. 

No. 65 at 14.) It argues that, “[f]or example,” Samsung would have to “provide discovery 

addressing products and resolving an issue for which there was no basis for their inclusion in this 

case in the first place.” (Id.) It urges that it should not be required to defend itself against baseless 

claims. (Dkt. No. 78 at 5.) Samsung notes that CogniPower’s argument that it provided notice of 

its infringement theories through its charting of representative products is irrelevant under P.R. 3-

1(b). (Dkt. No. 65 at 14–15, emphasis in original.) 

The Court is not persuaded that granting CogniPower leave to amend its infringement 

contentions would ultimately prejudice Samsung. Importantly, the amendment does not change 

CogniPower’s infringement theories in this case. Further, the Court has already observed that the 

accuracy determination is not properly embedded within the good cause analysis, which is 

Samsung’s chief concern under this factor. Even if it were, Samsung’s argument fails—as 

CogniPower points out, whether a product is Samsung branded or manufactured can be borne out

in the discovery process. (See Dkt. No. 76 at 4.) The same is true of the products Samsung urges 

have not been made, offered, sold, used, or imported into the U.S.—discovery resolves this issue. 

To the extent a listed product is improperly accused, CogniPower has represented it is willing to 

further amend its contentions. (See id. at 5.) The Court agrees with CogniPower that such is “the 

natural progression of discovery in a patent case.” (See id. at 4.) Additionally, any prejudice is 

alleviated by the early stage of the case. Fact discovery does not close until August 30, 2024, claim 

construction does not begin until March 14, 2024, and the expert disclosure deadline is not until 

September 30, 2024. (Dkt. No. 34.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 7701
13 

iv. Availability of a Continuance

CogniPower contends that no continuance is necessary, while Samsung argues that it will 

be prejudiced either way. (Compare Dkt. No. 76 at 5 with Dkt. No. 78 at 5.) As noted above, the 

Court finds there will be no undue prejudice to Samsung in granting CogniPower leave to amend 

its infringement contentions at this time. The parties are at an early stage of this case, and there is

plenty of time to proceed efficiently hereafter. 

v. Observation

Disputes of this type often bring to the Court’s mind the ancient query: “Which comes first,

the chicken or the egg?” Samsung says it cannot provide discovery without more precise 

contentions and CogniPower says it cannot deliver more precise contentions without the benefit 

of discovery. This type of standoff often belies a failure by one or both litigants to do their best to

be forthcoming. The solution usually is found in the Court being creative in finding ways to 

motivate both sides to improve their efforts within this context. The Court will not shy away from

its need to be appropriately motivating if necessary. It would be easier for all concerned if such 

does not become necessary. The parties should ponder this, as we go forward. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is

GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that CogniPower is granted leave to amend its 

infringement contentions as set forth in the Motion. 

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00160-JRG Document 92 Filed 01/11/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 7702