Source: http://www.arilaw.com/blog/patent-local-rules/
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 20:44:02
Document Index: 179171851

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 112', '§112', '§ 112']

CA Local Rules | San Francisco's Business Attorneys
1. SCOPE OF RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 2
1-1. Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 2
1-2. Scope and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 2
1-3. Modification of these Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 2
1-4. Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 2
2. GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 3
2-1. Governing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 3
(a) Initial Case Management Conference . . . . . . . . . PAT 3
2-2. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 3
2-3. Certification of Disclosures . . . . . . . . PAT 3
2-4. Admissibility of Disclosures . . . . . . . PAT 4
2-5. Relationship to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . . PAT 4
3. PATENT DISCLOSURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 5
3-1. Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions . . . PAT 5
3-2. Document Production Accompanying Disclosure . . . . PAT 6
3-3. Invalidity Contentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 6
3-4. Document Production Accompanying Invalidity Contentions . . . . PAT 7
3-5. Disclosure Requirement in Patent Cases for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 8 (a) Invalidity Contentions If No Claim of Infringement . . . PAT 8 (b) Inapplicability of Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 8
3-6. Amendment to Contentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 8
3-7. Advice of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 8
4. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . PAT 10
4-1. Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction . . PAT 10
4-2. Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 10
4-3. Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement . . . . PAT 11
4-4. Completion of Claim Construction Discovery . . . . PAT 11
4-5. Claim Construction Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 12
4-6. Claim Construction Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 12
4-7. Good Faith Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT 12
These are the Local Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. They should be cited as “Patent L.R. .”
(a) Initial Case Management Conference. When the parties confer pursuant to FRCivP 26(f), in addition to the matters covered by FRCivP 26, the parties shall discuss and address in the Case Management Statement filed pursuant to FRCivP 26(f) and Civil L.R. 16-9, the following topics:
(2) The scope and timing of any claim construction discovery including disclosure of and discovery from any expert witness permitted by the court.;
Except as provided in this paragraph or as otherwise ordered, it shall not be a ground for objecting to an opposing party’s discovery request (e.g., interrogatory, document request, request for admission, deposition question) or declining to provide information otherwise required to be disclosed pursuant to FRCivP 26(a)(1) that the discovery request or disclosure requirement is premature in light of, or otherwise conflicts with, these Patent Local Rules, absent other legitimate objection. A party may object, however, to responding to the following categories of discovery requests (or decline to provide information in its initial disclosures under FRCivP 26(a)(1)) on the ground that they are premature in light of the timetable provided in the Patent Local Rules:
Where a party properly objects to a discovery request (or declines to provide information in its initial disclosures under FRCivP 26(a)(1)) as set forth above, that party shall provide the requested information on the date on which it is required to be provided to an opposing party under these Patent Local Rules or as set by the Court, unless there exists another legitimate ground for objection.
(g) If a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the right to rely, for any purpose, on the assertion that its own apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the party shall identify, separately for each asserted claim, each such apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular claim.
(c) A copy of the file history for each patent in suit; and
(e) If a party identifies instrumentalities pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1(g), documents sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of such instrumentalities the patent claimant relies upon as embodying any asserted claims.
(a) The identity of each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. Each prior art patent shall be identified by its number, country of origin, and date of issue. Each prior art publication shall be identified by its title, date of publication, and where feasible, author and publisher. Prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) shall be identified by specifying the item offered for sale or publicly used or known, the date the offer or use took place or the information became known, and the identity of the person or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the person or entity which made the information known or to whom it was made known. Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) shall be identified by providing the name of the person(s) from whom and the circumstances under which the invention or any part of it was derived. Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) shall be identified by providing the identities of the person(s) or entities involved in and the circumstances surrounding the making of the invention before the patent applicant(s);
(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; and
(a) Source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant in its Patent L.R. 3-1(c) chart; and
(b) A copy or sample of the prior art identified pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3(a) which does not appear in the file history of the patent(s) at issue. To the extent any such item is not in English, an English translation of the portion(s) relied upon shall be produced.
Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause. Non- exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non- moving party, support a finding of good cause include: (a) a claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment; (b) recent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions. The duty to supplement discovery responses does not excuse the need to obtain leave of court to amend contentions.
Not later than 50 days after service by the Court of its Claim Construction Ruling, each party relying upon advice of counsel as part of a patent-related claim or defense for any reason shall:
(a) Not later than 14 days after service of the “Invalidity Contentions” pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3, not later than 42 days after service upon it of the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” in those actions where validity is not at issue (and Patent L.R. 3-3 does not apply), or, in all cases in which a party files a complaint or other pleading seeking a declaratory judgment not based on validity, not later than 14 days after the defendant serves an answer that does not assert a claim for patent infringement (and Patent L.R. 3-1 does not apply), each party shall serve on each other party a list of claim terms which that party contends should be construed by the Court, and identify any claim term which that party contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(6).
(a) Not later than 21 days after the exchange of the lists pursuant to Patent L.R.
4-1, the parties shall simultaneously exchange proposed constructions of each term identified by either party for claim construction. Each such “Preliminary Claim Construction” shall also, for each term which any party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), identify the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) corresponding to that term’s function.
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-26053466-1']);