Opinion
Case No. C06-5701RJB.
November 16, 2007
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Supplemental Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. Dkt. 49. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file herein.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 11, 2006, Plaintiff Wacom Co., LTD., ("Plaintiff") and Plaintiff Wacom Technology Corporation filed a complaint alleging Patent Infringement, Violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292, and Unfair Competition by Defendant Hanvon Corporation and Defendant Hanwang Technology Co., LTD. ("Defendants").
On March 13, 2007, the parties filed the Joint Status Report. Dkt. 23. Based on that report, the Court set the following pre-trial deadlines:
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement deadline April 3, 2007;
Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions and documents deadline May 15, 2007. Dkt. 27.
On May 16, 2007, Defendants' served Plaintiff with Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Dkt. 49 at 2. On June 4, 2007, Defendants served Plaintiff with Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions. Id. On October 18, 2007, Defendants served Plaintiff with Supplemental Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions and a Supplemental Disclosure of Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Id.
On October 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Supplemental Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. Dkt. 49. On November 5, 2007, Defendants filed a response to that motion. Dkt. 73. On November 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 83.
DISCUSSION
A. Local Patent Rules
Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike the Defendants' supplemental contentions and disclosure because the Local Patent Rules do not allow Defendants to supplement their preliminary contentions. Dkt. 49 at 2. Defendants contend that the proposed Local Patent Rules allow such supplementation. Dkt. 73 at 6. What neither party advances is an authority for the Court to enforce the proposed Local Patent Rules that have yet to be adopted.
In the initial stages of this litigation, in an effort to assist the parties with case management, the Court provided the parties with the proposed Local Patent Rules, that had been submitted to the Court in 2004 by the Federal Bar Association, but that have not yet been adopted. The proposed rules are designed to streamline the pre-trial and claim construction process, and generally to reduce the cost of patent litigation. In the Joint Status Report, both parties consented to the adoption of some of the provisions of the proposed Local Patent Rules. As a result, the Court set some pre-trial dates according to the proposed schedule. Without the Court's involvement, the parties agreed to work within the bounds of the proposed rules. See Dkt. 73 at 2. While an agreement to follow the deadlines set forth by the proposed rules seems to be in the best interests of both parties, the Court did not order that the parties comply with all of the provisions of these proposed rules. Moreover, as is apparent, the deterioration of an agreement to follow the proposed Local Patent Rules creates the exact opposite of a streamlined process, resulting in the consideration of additional motions and expense of other litigation inefficiencies. It is extremely unfortunate that this situation has become an example of the need for Local Patent Rules. Nonetheless, as discussed below, Plaintiff has not shown that it has been prejudiced by Defendants' supplements.
Therefore, the Court should decline to grant Plaintiff's motion to strike based on a violation of the proposed Local Patent Rules.
B. Scheduling Order
The Court set a deadline for Defendants to serve preliminary invalidity and non-infringement contentions. Dkt. 27. Defendants complied with that scheduling order by serving Plaintiff with the required material. Dkt. 49 at 2. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' violated that scheduling order by supplementing their preliminary material. See Dkt. 49. The Court's scheduling order set a deadline for preliminary and final contentions. Defendants supplemental contentions do not violate that scheduling order. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to show that it has been prejudiced by Defendants' supplemental material. Id. Therefore, the Court should decline to grant Plaintiff's motion to strike on this issue.
ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Supplemental Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. 49) is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.