Opinion ID: 2802954
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amended Infringement Contentions

Text: In the alternative, Allvoice argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Allvoice was not diligent in seeking leave to amend its infringement contentions. If Allvoice was allowed to amend its infringement contentions to include a specific reference to the TSF property store, it alleges that the district court would 10 ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. have had no basis to grant Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the “link data” limitation. Under Western District of Washington’s Local Patent Rule 124, a party may only amend its infringement contentions “by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” W.D. Wash. Local Patent R. 124 (emphasis added). Good cause may be demonstrated in various ways, including:
from that proposed by the party seeking amend- ment; (b) recent discovery of material prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Ac- cused Device which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions. Id. In order to establish good cause, the moving party first must demonstrate diligence in amending its contentions. O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366–67. If the moving party is not able to meet that burden, it is unnecessary to examine the potential prejudice of the amendment to the non-moving party. Id. at 1368. Allvoice alleges that the district court’s decision not to allow it to amend its infringement contentions after the district court’s claim construction ruling was an abuse of discretion because the plain language of Local Patent Rule 124 allows for such an amendment if the district court adopts a claim construction “different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment.” W.D. Wash. Local Patent R. 124(a). Additionally, Allvoice contends that, because the parties stipulated that Allvoice could seek leave to amend its infringement contentions on or before April 12, 2012, it was unreasonable for the district court to fault Allvoice for its delay in filing the motion. ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. 11 Here, the district court found that Allvoice had failed to explain why it waited more than three months after the Markman order and over nineteen months after the joint claim chart of disputed terms—where Microsoft first proposed the construction that the district court ultimately adopted for the “link data” limitation—to file its motion to amend. Without any explanation for its delay, the district court determined that the mere fact that the parties had agreed that Allvoice could file a motion did not excuse Allvoice from providing a reason why it waited so long file its motion, especially considering that Allvoice was aware of the possibility that the district court could adopt Microsoft’s construction as early as September 2010. See O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366 (“If the parties were not required to amend their contentions promptly after discovering new information, the contentions requirement would be virtually meaningless as a mechanism for shaping the conduct of discovery and trial preparation.”). While a different claim construction may justify an amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the local rules do not allow a party to amend its infringement contentions as a matter of right whenever the district court adopts a claim construction position at odds with that urged by the moving party. Diligence still must be shown. While, if acting as the district court, one or more of us may have granted leave to amend in these circumstances, that is not the question before us. We assess only whether the district court abused its discretion in requiring a showing of diligence and finding Allvoice’s showing inadequate; we conclude it did not. Although Allvoice also argues that the district court’s ruling was unjustified in light of the case schedule, which provided Microsoft sufficient time to conduct additional discovery and prepare expert reports following an amendment of Allvoice’s contentions, these considerations go to whether Microsoft would suffer prejudice if Allvoice 12 ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. were allowed to amend, not whether Allvoice was diligent in seeking an amendment. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Allvoice did not act diligently in moving to amend its infringement contentions, we need not consider the potential prejudice to Microsoft. 3 The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, in part, because it found an absence of evidence with respect to the “link data” limitation. We review the grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit. Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit reviews the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Leever v. Carson City, 360 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); 3 Allvoice also contends that this dispute regarding the adequacy of its infringement contentions and whether it should have been allowed to amend them could be rendered moot if we agree with it that the district court’s construction of the “link data” limitation was erroneous. Specifically, if we agree that the district court erred when it concluded that link data is stored in the IAP memory, Allvoice contends that its failure to reference the TSP property store would not matter. Neither this argument nor Microsoft’s arguments that Allvoice’s challenge to the “link data” claim construction is waived, irrelevant and inconsistent with prior positions taken by Allvoice need detain us long. We conclude that the language of the claims, the written description, the prosecution history of the ’273 Patent and Allvoice’s interference with the Holt Application all confirm that link data must be stored in the IAP memory. ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. 13 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A movant can satisfy this burden by demonstrating that the nonmoving party “failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Allvoice’s operative infringement contentions did not reference the “TSF property store,” which Allvoice concedes is the only element that arguably satisfies the “link data” limitation in its patent, and Allvoice was not allowed to amend its infringement contentions to specifically include this reference. Without any admissible theory as to how Microsoft’s accused products satisfied the “link data” limitation, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment of noninfringement. Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement as to all remaining asserted claims, we need not reach Allvoice’s other infringement arguments. See Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“An appellate court can affirm a decision of the trial court upon any ground supported by the record.”) (citing Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, 879 F.2d 820, 822 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).