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.
Plaintiff sought leave to add parties and add an additional accused product.
The question was whether the request was timely.
Judge Bennett denied the motions, concluding that the problem was that the defendant hadn’t produced the necessary discovery.
Judge Godbey found that the contentions were sufficient under M.O. 62.
The court noted the “unusually extensive and contentious discovery” in this case.
These orders are always worth studying.
Once again, the argument on the motion to strike was really that the plaintiff’s infringement theory is fatally flawed. Is that enough?
