Opinion ID: 2802954
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Operative Infringement Contentions

Text: Allvoice alleges that its infringement contentions adequately identified the SAPI Server as meeting the “link data” limitation. Because it disclosed in its contentions that the link data is stored in the memory of the SAPI Server in Microsoft’s products and stated that the SAPI Server includes the TSF, Allvoice contends that it sufficiently disclosed that the link data is stored in the proper- 8 ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. ty storage of the TSF, because that is what the SAPI Server’s memory is. Allvoice, however, fails to demonstrate how the district court’s decision that Allvoice was required to explicitly reference the TSF property store in its contentions was an abuse of discretion. This court gives “broad deference” to a district court’s enforcement of local patent rules. Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]his court gives broad deference to the trial court’s application of local procedural rules in view of the trial court’s need to control the parties and flow of litigation before it.”). This discretion extends to any decision to exclude evidence for failure to comply with disclosure requirements of the local patent rules. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining “that the exclusion of evidence is often an appropriate sanction for the failure to comply with [the local rule] deadlines”). Accordingly, “[d]ecisions enforcing local rules in patent cases will be affirmed unless clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; based on erroneous conclusions of law; clearly erroneous; or unsupported by any evidence.” Id. at 1366–67 (citing Genentech Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d 761, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Here, the district court acknowledged that Allvoice, in its operative contentions, had alleged that the SAPI Server “forms” link data and stores it in its memory. Summary Judgment Order, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 1256. But, it concluded, and Allvoice does not dispute, that there were no explicit references to the property store of the TSF in the operative infringement contentions. While Allvoice argued below that the documents cited within its contentions contained such a reference, the district court concluded that “a careful review” of the cited documents indicated that they referred to another program—the Speech TIP—and not the TSF property store. Id. at 1260. Allvoice does not dispute this point on appeal, arguing ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. 9 simply that its references to the SAPI Server were sufficient to provide adequate notice of its infringement theory. We disagree. Western District of Washington Local Patent Rule 124(c) requires that the party alleging patent infringement must provide infringement contentions that “identify[] specifically where each element of each Asserted Claim is found within each Accused Device.” W.D. Wash. Local Patent R. 124(c) (emphasis added). It is well within the discretion of a district court to require specificity in infringement contentions, especially considering that the purpose of these contentions is to require “parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation . . . .” O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1364 (quotation omitted); see W.D. Wash Local Patent R. 101 (explaining that the local patent rules were “designed to streamline the pre-trial and claim construction process, and generally to reduce the cost of patent litigation”). A review of the record and documents cited in Allvoice’s infringement contentions supports the district court’s finding that neither Allvoice’s contentions nor the documents referenced therein discuss the TSF property store. Allvoice’s references to the SAPI Server were insufficient to satisfy its notice obligations. Without evidence that Allvoice did in fact specifically reference the TSF property store in its operative contentions, the district court’s decision to exclude the TSF property store theory at the summary judgment stage for Allvoice’s failure to comply with the local patent rules was not an abuse of discretion.