Opinion ID: 2743726
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Separately for each asserted claim, each ac-

Text: cused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused Instru- mentality”) of each opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification must be as specific as possible. Each product, device and apparatus must be identified by name or model number, if known. Each method or process must be identified by name, if known, or by any prod- uct, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in the practice of the claimed method or process; c. A chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality, 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 the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed function; d. Whether each element of each asserted claim is claimed to be literally present and/or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused In- strumentality; e. For any patent that claims priority to an earli- er application, the priority date to which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled; and f. If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that its own apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the party must identify, 12 ANTICANCER, INC. v. PFIZER, INC. separately for each asserted claim, each such ap- paratus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular claim. The Southern District of California adopted Patent Local Rules similar to those of the Northern District of California and refers to decisions of the Northern District as authority for their interpretation. 7 See NessCap Co., Ltd. v. Maxwell Techs., Inc., No. 07cv0704, 2008 WL 152147, at  (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2008) (“[B]ecause the Southern District’s Patent Local Rule 3.4(a) is similar in all material respects to the corresponding patent local rules promulgated by the Northern District of California . . . this Court relies on published and unpublished precedent from that court[] as persuasive authority.”); see also Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg., LLC, No. 10cv0541, 2013 WL 1626111, at  (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (looking to Northern District case law with respect to Patent Local Rule 3.1); Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., No. 12cv1659, 2013 WL 3894880, at  (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (same); accord Dist. Ct. Op. at 5 n.4 (“This Order cites to out-of-district case law interpreting patent local rules promulgated by other districts that are substantively similar to our own as persuasive authority.” (citing NessCap, 2008 WL 152147, at )); id. at 6. We observed in O2 Micro that the Northern District’s rules were designed to “‘require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation’ so as to ‘prevent the shifting sands approach to claim construction.’” 467 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, 7 The Southern District of California adopted amended patent local rules on February 8, 2013. This decision is directed to the rules in effect at the time of these proceedings. ANTICANCER, INC. v. PFIZER, INC. 13 Inc., No. C 95-1987, 1998 WL 775115, at  (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 1998)). The district court cited the explanation by the Northern District of California that “‘infringement contentions need not prove infringement’ but must ‘outline a plaintiff’s theories of infringement.’” Dist. Ct. Op. at 6 (quoting Data Retrieval Tech., LLC v. Sybase, No. C 08-5481, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129454, at  (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2009)). In Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Northern District explained that “Rule 3-1 does not necessarily require the patent holder to produce evidence of infringement.” 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010). In Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, the Northern District summarized: The purpose of the disclosure rules is to fur- ther the goal of full, timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate notice of and infor- mation with which to litigate their cases. In ana- lyzing disclosures in the parallel context of infringement contentions pursuant to Patent L.R. 3–1, courts have distinguished between the re- quired identification of the precise element of any accused product alleged to practice a particular claim limitation, and every evidentiary item of proof showing that the accused element did in fact practice the limitation. No. C 10–2037, 2012 WL 424985, at  (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2012) (citations and quotations omitted). We apply this guidance to determine whether the sanction here imposed as a condition of supplementing the Rule 3.1 Preliminary Infringement Contentions was an abuse of discretion.