Motion To Compel Supplementation Of Contentions

The issue was whether the plaintiff would be required to supplement its infringement contentions.
The issue was whether the plaintiff would be required to supplement its infringement contentions.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s infringement contentions were insufficient.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion for leave to amend the defendant’s invalidity contentions.
The court granted the motion, finding diligence in seeking third-party discovery and moving to amend.
The plaintiff sought leave to supplement its infringement contentions.
The defendant sought leave to supplement its invalidity contentions.
The defendants asked the court to strike the plaintiff’s amended infringement contentions. The issue here was “representative product” charting.
This order applies the relevant standards to a request to amend the pleadings to add additional patents to the case.
Waco is frozen this morning. So are this defendant’s invalidity contentions.
This looks like another “it wasn’t in the contentions” motion, but is really a “the contentions were too broad” motion.