Elawyers Elawyers

SENTIUS INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 5:13-cv-00825-PSG. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140328997 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (Re: Docket No. 70) PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff Sentius International, LLC's motion for leave to amend infringement contentions 1 to add three dependent claims in this case following the court's claim construction order 2 issued in January. Defendant Microsoft Corporation opposes. Pursuant to the Civil L.R. and at the invitation of the parties, the court finds this dispute suitable for dispositio
More

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (Re: Docket No. 70)

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff Sentius International, LLC's motion for leave to amend infringement contentions1 to add three dependent claims in this case following the court's claim construction order2 issued in January. Defendant Microsoft Corporation opposes. Pursuant to the Civil L.R. and at the invitation of the parties, the court finds this dispute suitable for disposition on the papers.3

Although Microsoft takes issue with Sentius' diligence in seeking leave, the court finds Sentius moved with adequate diligence following an adverse claim construction ruling.4 Microsoft's more compelling argument centers on the prejudice it might face by adding dependent claims into the mix in this case. To mitigate any prejudice, the court will permit Sentius to supplement its infringement contentions with three additional dependent claims, but it must drop three additional claims in the process from the `633, `731 or `985 patents and keep the total number of asserted claims within the three remaining patents at twenty-nine.5 With trial set for February of 2015, plenty of trial preparation time remains. The court also will entertain requests for relief from the case scheduling order should either party benefit from some reshuffling of intermediate deadlines. The court similarly will entertain requests for additional construction triggered by the addition of these dependent claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. See Docket No. 70.
2. See Docket No. 66.
3. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b) ("In the Judge's discretion, or upon request by counsel and with the Judge's approval, a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call.").
4. See Docket No. 66 at 2. CLAIM TERM/DISPUTE CONSTRUCTION "a link to the at least one of the plurality of a pointer to data or information or the location external reference materials/links to the external of data or information that is external to the reference materials" source material The `633 and `731 patents / pointers to data or information or the location of data or information that is external to the source material
5. See Docket No. 71-3, Ex. B at 3. Patent Claims Alleged Infringed Literally and/or Under the Doctrine of Equivalents U.S. Patent No. RE40,731 ('731 patent) 8, 18, 24, 26, 27, 36, 49, 96 U.S. Patent No. RE43,633 ('633 patent) 62, 64, 67, 70, 72, 76, 146, 148, 149, 151, 154, 156, 159, 164 U.S. Patent No. 7,672,985 ('985 patent) 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,349 ('349 patent) 1, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 35, 41
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer