Here it is – a single order with all the standards for amending – both pleadings and contentions.
There’s no question that my Lexington is going to have flight deck striping – but it’s still to early to determine exactly what it’s going to be. Similarly, Judge Gilstrap concluded that the request that he enter the court’s Model Patent Order at this time was premature, deciding that it would be better to wait till after the defendant serves its invalidity contentions with corresponding technical discovery.
Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not sufficiently diligent with respect to the proposed amended infringement contentions adding additional accused products, and that addition at this stage would be highly prejudicial to defendants. But in a footnote it stated that “[r]ecognizing the potential importance of the amendment, the Court does not foreclose the ability of Finesse to pursue the additional products in a separate proceeding.”
The procedural context is confused, but the ruling is not. Judge Schroeder ordered that any prior art not included in the defendant’s preliminary election of prior art would be excluded from the final election of prior art in this case.
In much the same way that my new build dock allows me to add to my, um, work, Judge Gilstrap granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend its infringement contentions, which allowed it to identify additional accused products, add four more claims from the patent, update its claim charts for each asserted patent to add citations to technical documents produced by the defendant, and modify its list of which of its own products allegedly practice the asserted patents under P.R. 3-1(f).
Noting that leave to amend was sought prior to the court order deadline, Judge Payne granted the motion, noting that complaints as to the propriety of the counterclaim or more appropriately addressed on a motion to dismiss.
Judge Godbey granted the motion, finding good cause for the amendments to add more disputed products.
The court declined to exclude the referenced products from the case on timeliness grounds. While the order does not provide detailed grounds for the court’s ruling, it appears that the plaintiff’s expert amended his report after receiving a “correlation chart” regarding products ordered produced by the court, and the court declined to exclude the products as not charted.
Plaintiff had asked to add products – the court found it hadn’t show diligence and the amendments would be highly prejudicial.
The court construed the motion as one to amend invalidity contentions and granted it.