Motion For Entry Of A Claim Focusing Order Denied

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. 

Motion for Leave to Amend Contentions

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.”

Motion For Leave To Amend Infringement Contentions Granted

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).

Additional Products Added Too Late?

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.