-have found it appropriate where the defendant “reasonably specifies” the possible combinations of prior art, including by “organiz[ing] prior art references into groups and articulat[ing] an overarching theory of obviousness that applied to ‘each and every possible combination[ ]' of prior art within the groups.” 0912139 B.C. Ltd. v. Rampion USA Inc., No. C18-1464JLR, 2019 WL 3082290, at *6 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2019) (alteration in original) (collecting cases).
ABB responds that its initial invalidity contentions are sufficient because those contentions "organize its prior art references into groups and articulate an overarching theory of obviousness that applies to each and every possible combination of prior art within those groups." D.I. 84 at 2-3 (cleaned up) (citing 0912139 B.C. Ltd. v. Rampion USA Inc., 2019 WL 3082290, at *l-5 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2019)).
At the hearing, Apple argued that it should be permitted to amend its invalidity contentions through its Opposition, citing-concededly for the first time-to Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-CV-01161-HSG(DMR), 2017 WL 235049, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017), and 0912139 B.C. Ltd. v. Rampion USA Inc., No. C18-1464JLR, 2019 WL 3082290, at *8 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2019). The Court agrees with Taction that it was improper for Apple to raise this argument for the first time at the hearing, and, therefore, the argument is untimely and waived.