Amendment of Contentions & Summary Judgment

Judge Ellison denied both the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its preliminary infringement contentions and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot,finding that the plaintiff properly amended its contentions under Patent Rule 3-6, and that the defendant’s summary judgment motion was addressed to a patent that was no longer being asserted and contentions that had since been supplemented.

Amended Patent Contentions

Both parties sought leave to amend their contentions in this patent case. Judge Payne granted the plaintiff’s, which sought to revise the language regarding accused products, finding the good cause standard met. The court granted only in part the defendant’s motion to amend its invalidity contentions, however, concluding that while there was good cause as to two of the additional references, there was not as to a third due to lack of diligence.

Amended Contentions

Judge Payne granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions. He had previously struck a proposed amendment claimed permissible without leave as a result of the court’s claim construction ruling under P.R. 3-6(a), but granted this motion, finding that with the benefit of a three-month continuance, good cause for the amendment was shown under P.R. 3-6(b).

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.”