REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Re: ECF No. 82

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Aavid Thermalloy LLC brings this patent-infringement suit against defendants Cooler Master Co. Ltd. and CMI USA, Inc. (collectively, "Cooler Master"). Aavid holds three patents-at-issue that relate to "vapor chamber cooling devices" and alleges that Cooler Master makes vapor chambers that infringe on its patents.

Aavid served its initial infringement contentions ("ICs") on March 9, 2018.1 Aavid now moves to amend its ICs to add approximately 100 allegedly infringing products and to make other "minor, clarifying revisions" to its original ICs.2 Aavid said that it was able to add these additional products, which were not in its original ICs, only after receiving discovery from Cooler Master.3 Cooler Master does not oppose Aavid's motion.4

Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides that a party may amend its ICs only by order of the court on a showing of good cause. Where, as here, a defendant does not oppose a motion to amend ICs, "the Court need not determine whether [plaintiff] has shown good cause for amending its infringement contentions" and may summarily grant the motion to amend. LG Elecs. Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 367, 368-69 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (summarily granting unopposed motion to amend ICs and add new products). In any event, Local Rule 3-6 provides that "[r]ecent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions" can constitute good cause for amending ICs. Aavid has made a showing that it recently discovered nonpublic information about accused Cooler Master products that it had not discovered before it served its original ICs that support an amendment of its ICs here. Cf. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-HSG(JSC), 2017 WL 4025219, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017) (granting motion to amend ICs where plaintiff was not aware of technical information regarding defendant's products until it received information in discovery). For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court grant Aavid's unopposed motion to amend its ICs.

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right to review the issue in the district court.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.