Opinion ID: 2827015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identification of Accused Products

Text: Keranos argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying Keranos’s motions for leave to amend infringement contentions because, by identifying the accused technology (i.e., “SuperFlash”), certain product families, and certain product numbers in the original 16 KERANOS, LLC v. SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. infringement contentions, Keranos gave appellees sufficient notice of its theory of infringement. Keranos acknowledges that Patent Rule 3-1(b) requires that it identify each product by product name or model number, if known, but Keranos asserts that the local rules allow for the addition of new products to the infringement contentions if those products operate in a manner reasonably similar to the specific theory of infringement identified in the original infringement contentions. Keranos’s infringement contention against Microchip is representative: Based on the current investigation, without the advantage of discovery, Microchip (or foundries on their behalf) made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported SuperFlash [integrated circuits] under license from SST, including but not limited to the PIC18; PIC24; dsPIC DSCs; PIC32 and related family of products which are said to include Su- perFlash memory. J.A. 21552. According to Keranos, the term “SuperFlash” refers to a narrow group of products with flash memory, and the contentions alleged that (1) the manufacturerappellees obtained licenses and the know-how to make SuperFlash memory from SST and (2) the alleged customer-appellees selected SuperFlash memory for their products. Keranos points out that the appellees’ noninfringement positions analyzed SuperFlash only generally, rather than asserting distinct non-infringement positions for their specific products. Keranos concludes that its infringement theory requires only use of the SuperFlash technology, and that the new products all use SuperFlash. Keranos’s infringement contentions also identified certain product families as infringing the asserted patents. For example, in the infringement contention excerpt above, Keranos identified Microchip’s PIC18, PIC24, KERANOS, LLC v. SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. 17 dsPIC DSCs, and PIC32 product families as accused products. Keranos argues that identifying product family numbers was sufficient, because appellees referenced their products by family numbers in responding to discovery requests, and the product family number was the most specific information Keranos could find in publicly available documents for some of the appellees. Appellees disagree that Keranos’s identification of SuperFlash technology and certain product families sufficiently disclosed its theory of infringement. Appellees first argue that if Keranos had identified additional products, it would have further defined Keranos’s theories of direct infringement because different products allegedly perform certain steps of the asserted method in different ways. Second, appellees argue that the identification of additional products would have in turn prompted inquiries into the specific activities and specific intent required to prove indirect infringement. Finally, appellees argue that the identification of additional products could have revealed Keranos’s specific damages allegations, as SuperFlash memory can be incorporated into increasingly larger products. Additional information about the amount of potential damages, according to appellees, would then inform early decisions relating to settlement. Like the district court, appellees also focus on the requirement of Patent Rule 3-1(b) that the accused products be identified “as specific[ally] as possible” and “by name . . . or number, if known.” Appellees argue that Keranos’s failure to search for and identify products using information publicly available at the time it filed its original infringement contentions precludes Keranos from amending its infringement contentions to add those products. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Keranos to “demonstrate that it acted diligently in searching for and naming the additional 18 KERANOS, LLC v. SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. products that incorporate the accused technology” in its initial infringement contentions. J.A. 7–8 (citing Am. Video Graphics, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 560). The local patent rules require that the patent owner identify in its infringement contentions each accused product “of which [it] is aware . . . as specific[ally] as possible,” which requires identifying each product “by name or model number, if known.” Local Patent Rule 3-1(b). In most cases, if the patent owner wishes to add additional products to its infringement contentions, it must seek leave of court, which “shall only be entered upon a showing of good cause.” Local Patent Rule 3-6(b). In the Eastern District of Texas, good cause requires the patent owner to demonstrate, inter alia, that it was diligent in discovering the products it wishes to add to its infringement contentions. See J.A. 6 (citing West v. Jewelry Innovations, Inc., No. C 07-1812 JF, 2008 WL 4532558, at  (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008) (“[T]he Court also must address whether the party was diligent in discovering the basis for the proposed amendment.”)). Although a district court, depending on the circumstances, might not require that the patent owner identify each accused product by name or model number, a district court is well within its discretion to refuse the patent owner’s request to amend infringement contentions if the patent owner does not show that it acted diligently in its identification of accused products, which may require the identification of products by name or model number. Compare Linex Techs., Inc. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 703, 711 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (“[U]sing an exemplary product to outline infringement contentions can be sufficient.”), with SmartPhone Techs. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10-cv-580, 2012 WL 1424173, at  (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2012) (denying-in-part motion for leave to amend infringement contentions as to the products for which the accused infringer did not dispute that public information was available). KERANOS, LLC v. SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. 19