Judge: Rodney Gilstrap
Holding: Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions GRANTED
As the late Andy Rooney would have put it, did you ever wonder what the standards were for amending infringement contentions?
Well, wonder no more because they're laid out here by Judge Gilstrap. In determining whether good cause for amending contentions under P.R. 3-6 exists, "the Court has broad discretion and considers four factors: “(1) the explanation for the party’s failure to meet the deadline; (2) the importance of what the Court is excluding; (3) the potential prejudice if the Court allows the thing that would be excluded, and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.”
In this case, Judge Gilstrap found that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the first factor because it should have either (1) clarified with the defendant whether the first supplemental contentions were sufficient or (2) served the supplemental contentions much sooner. But since the other three "good cause" factors weighed in favor of the amendment, he granted it anyway. To cure the limited prejudice as a result, he permitted a subsequent deposition at Lake Cherokee's expense (Lake Cherokee is responsible for reimbursing the reasonable travel costs of Marvell’s and LSI’s counsel to take such deposition and shall bear the associated court reporter and videographer costs). In addition, with regard to further amendments, the Court wrote that "to clarify for all parties the Court’s posture in this regard going forward, the Court believes that this Order affords Lake Cherokee reasonable relief but it also closes the door on any future need to further amend the infringement contentions in this case."
Finally, Judge Gilstrap denied the pending letter briefs seeking to strike the contentions and for summary judgment of noninfringement based on them, without prejudice to filing a letter brief seeking summary judgment again.