Source: http://www.lithosphere.com/local_patent_rules.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-06 11:51:08
Document Index: 559626774

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112']

Local Patent Rules - www.lithosphere.com
Patents are complex. We make them easier to understand.
Local patent rules have been established in a number of federal district courts. The rules govern the particular practice and procedure involved with specific issues germane to patent litigation. In general, the rules cover aspects of the parties' contentions (infringement, non-infringement and invalidity), preliminary discovery, and claim construction. Sometimes the contentions are referred to as preliminary invalidity contentions and preliminary infringement contentions. Some of the rules have removed the term "preliminary" from each type of contention. Most of the rules address the form and substance of patent claim chart requirements for both plaintiffs and defendants.
Because PatDek is directed to organizing patent contentions, and more particularly claim charts, the information presented below highlights aspects of the local rules governing invalidity contentions. Our goal is to maintain an up-to-date, comprehensive list of local patent rules for every United States jurisdiction (over 20 jurisdictions with patent local rules).
Northern District local rules ( here) (published December 1, 2009) L.R. 3-3 and 3-4	Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 for the Northern District of California
L.R. 3-3(b) provides:
L.R. 3-3(c) provides:
(c) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
L.R. 3-4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
Northern District patent jury instructions (here) (published November 3, 2011) Southern District local rules ( here) (published November 1, 2011) Patent L.R. 3.3 and 3.4	Patent L.R. 3.3 and 3.4 for the Southern District of California
Patent L.R. 3.3.b provides:
b. Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If a combination of items of prior art makes a claim obvious, each such combination must be identified;
Patent L.R. 3.3.c provides:
c. A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
Patent L.R. 3.4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
Northern District local rules ( here) (effective July 15, 2004)
Patent L.R. 4.3	Patent L.R. 4.3 for the Northern District of Georgia
L.R. 4.3(a)(2) provides:
(2) For each item of prior art disclosed, whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If the disclosing party contends that a combination of items of prior art makes a claim obvious, each such combination, and the motivation to combine such items, shall be identified.
L.R. 4.3(a)(3) provides:
(3) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found;
L.R. 4.3(b) concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
District Court local rules ( here) (revised and adopted January 1, 2012)
Dist. Idaho Loc. Patent R. 3.3 and 3.4	Dist. Idaho Loc. Patent R. 3.3 and 3.4 for the District Court of Idaho
Dist. Idaho Loc. Patent R. 3.3(b) provides:
Dist. Idaho Loc. Patent R. 3.3(c) provides:
Dist. Idaho Loc. Patent R. 3.4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
LPR 2.3 and 2.4	LPR 2.3 for the Northern District of Illinois
LPR 2.3(b)(2) provides:
(2) a statement of whether each item of prior art allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If a combination of items of prior art allegedly makes a claim obvious, each such combination, and the reasons to combine such items must be identified;
LPR 2.3(b)(3) provides:
LPR 2.4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
District Court local rules ( here) (as of July 1, 2011)
Rule 804.1.c and 804.1.d	Rule 804.1 for the District Court of Maryland
Rule 804.1.c.ii provides:
(ii) Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If obviousness is alleged, an explanation of why the prior art renders the asserted claim obvious, including an identification of any combinations of prior art showing obviousness;
Rule 804.1.c.iii provides:
(iii) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
Rule 804.1.d concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
District Court local rules ( here) (published February 1, 2012)
LR 16.1 (proposed scheduling order)	16.1 for the District of Massachusetts (proposed scheduling order)
(under L.R. 16.1) Proposed Scheduling Order (A)(2) provides:
The accused infringer shall identify prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the identified patent claims in question and, for each such prior art reference, shall specify whether it anticipates or is relevant to the obviousness inquiry.
The Proposed Scheduling Order further provides:
Section (A)(2) also concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
District Court local rules ( here) (published May 9, 2011)
Rule 26(f) Report (proposed report)	(proposed) Rule 26(f) Report for the District of Minnesota
Section (g)(2) of the proposed report provides:
Defendant shall serve on Plaintiff a list of all of the prior art on which it relies, and a complete and detailed explanation of what it alleges the prior art shows and how that prior art invalidates the claim(s) asserted by Plaintiff ("Defendant's Prior Art Statement").
Eastern District local rules ( here) (no date)
Local Patent R. 3-4 and 3-5	Local Patent R. 3-4 and 3-5 for the Eastern District of Missouri
Local Patent R. 3-4(b) provides:
(b) On a claim-by-claim basis, whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If a combination of items of prior art makes a claim obvious, each such combination, and the basis for such allegation, must be identified;
Local Patent R. 3-4(c) provides:
Local Patent R. 3-5 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
District Court local rules (here) (published July 27, 2011)
LR 16.1-8 and 16.1-9	LR 16.1-8 and 16.1-9 for the District of Nevada
LR 16.1-8(c) provides:
(c) Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If obviousness is alleged, an explanation of why the prior art renders the asserted claim obvious, including an identification of any combinations of prior art showing obviousness;
LR 16.1-8(d) provides:
(d) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
LR 16.1-9 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
District Court local rules ( here) (published December 1, 2011)
SPR 5.1	SPR 5.1 for the District of New Hampshire
SPR 5.1(c)(2) provides:
(2) Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious and, if obviousness is alleged, an explanation of why the prior art renders the asserted claim obvious, including an identification of combinations of prior art showing obviousness, and an explanation of why a person of skill in the art would find obvious the asserted claim(s) in light of such combinations (e.g., reasons for combining references);
SPR 5.1(c)(3) provides:
(3) A chart (or charts) identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
SPR 5.1(d) concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
District Court local rules ( here) (published November 1, 2011)
L. Pat. R. 3.3 and 3.4	L. Pat. R. 3.3 and 3.4 for the District of New Jersey
L. Pat. R. 3.3(b) provides:
L. Pat. R. 3.3(c) provides:
(c) Other than for design patents, a chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
L. Pat. R. 3.4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
Northern District local rules ( here) (effective January 1, 2012)
L. Pat. R. 3.3 and 3.4	L. Pat. R. 3.3 and 3.4 for the Northern District of New York
Local Civil Rule 303.3 and 303.4	Local Civil Rule 303 for the District of North Carolina
Local Civil Rule 303.3(b)(2) provides:
Western District local rules ( here) (published March 31, 2011) P.R. 3.3 and 3.4	P.R. 3.3 and 3.4 for the Western District of North Carolina
P.R. 3.3(B) provides:
P.R. 3.3(C) provides:
P.R. 3.4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
Northern District local rules (here) (no date) L.P.R. 3.5 and 3.6	L.P.R. 3.5 and 3.6 for the Northern District of Ohio
L.P.R. 3.5(b) provides:
L.P.R. 3.5(c) provides:
L.P.R. 3.6 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Southern District local rules ( here) (published June 1, 2010) Pat.L.R. 103.4 and 103.5	Pat.L.R. 103.4 and 103.5 for the Southern District of Ohio
Pat.L.R. 103.4(2) provides:
Pat.L.R. 103.4(3) provides:
Pat.L.R. 103.5 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Western District local rules ( here) (effective December 1, 2009)
LPR 3.4 and 3.5	LPR 3.4 and 3.5 for the Western District of Pennsylvania
LPR 3.4 provides:
(b) Whether each item of prior art allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If a combination of items of prior art allegedly makes a claim obvious, each such combination, and the motivation to combine such items, must be identified; LPR 3.4 further provides:
(c) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), a description of the claimed function of that element and the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function; LPR 3.5 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Western District local rules ( here) (September 19, 2011)
LPR 3.5 and 3.6	LPR 3.5 and 3.6 for the Western District of Tennessee
LPR 3.5(b) provides:
LPR 3.5(c) provides:
LPR 3.6 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions. ×
Eastern District local rules ( here) (published April 21, 2011)
L.R. 3-3 and 3-4	Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 for the Eastern District of Texas
L.R. 3-4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Northern District local rules ( here) (amended November 17, 2009)
Miscellaneous Order No. 62, Paragraphs 3-3 and 3-4	Paragraphs 3-3 and 3-4 for the Northern District of Texas
Paragraph 3-3(a)(2) provides:
Paragraph 3-3(a)(3) provides:
(3) A chart identifying where specifically and in detail in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found, including for each element that the party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. 5 112(6), the identity of the structure, act, or material in each item of prior artthat performs the claimed function;
Paragraph 3-4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Southern District local rules ( here) (reprinted December 2009)
P.R. 3-3 and 3-4	P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 for the Southern District of Texas
P.R. 3-3(b) provides:
(b) whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious and, if the latter, the detailed bases for these contentions;
P.R. 3-3(c) provides:
(c) a chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function;
P.R. 3-4 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Eastern District local rules ( here) (effective November 10, 2010)
LPR 121 and 122	LPR 121 and 122 for the Eastern District of Washington
LPR 121(c) provides:
(c) Whether each item of prior art anticipates each Asserted Claim or renders it obvious. If a combination of items of prior art makes a claim obvious, each such combination must be identified;
LPR 121(d) provides:
(d) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each Asserted Claim is found, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function.
LPR 122 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.
Western District local rules ( here) (effective January 1, 2009)
Local Patent Rules 121 and 122	Local Patent Rules 121 and 122 for the Western District of Washington
Local Patent Rule 121(c) provides:
Local Patent Rule 121(d) provides:
Local Patent Rule 122 concerns the document production that is to accompany invalidity contentions.