LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC et al
Filing
130
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 105 Motion for Sanctions (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
LIFESCAN SCOTLAND, LTD.,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: C 11-04494 EJD (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
(Re: Docket No. 105)
In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. (“Lifescan”) moves for
sanctions based on Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC, Instacare Corporation, Pharmatech
18
Solutions, Inc., and Conductive Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) failure to serve
19
20
adequate invalidity contentions pursuant to Pat. L.R. 3-3 and to produce documents pursuant to Pat.
21
L.R. 3-4. Defendants oppose the motion. On August 24, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing.
22
Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lifescan’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED.
24
On May 9, 2012, the parties agreed to an order that no later than May 29, 2012, Defendants
25
26
would supplement their invalidity contentions pursuant to Pat. L.R. 3-3 and produce documents
pursuant to Pat. L.R. 3-4. 1 On May 29, 2012, Defendants served supplemental invalidity
27
28
1
See Docket No. 94.
1
Case No.: C 11-04494 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
contentions. Lifescan contends, however, that Defendants nevertheless have failed to abide by the
terms of the stipulation as follows:
•
Defendants violated paragraph B(1) of the May 9 order and Pat. L.R. 3-4(a) by not
providing any documents describing the accused product;
•
Defendants violated paragraph A(1) of the May 9 order and Pat. L.R. 3-3(c) by not
providing claim charts showing where each reference discloses the claim
limitations;
•
Defendants violated paragraph A(2) of the May 9 order and Pat. L.R. 3-3(b) by not
identifying combinations of references and not providing a reason for making those
combinations;
•
Defendants violated paragraph A(3) of the May 9 order and Pat. L.R. 3-3(a) by not
providing information about prior art products;
•
Defendants violated paragraph A(4) of the May 9 order and Pat. L.R. 3-3(d) by not
providing information about their contentions under 35 U.S.C. §112;
•
3
Defendants violated Paragraph B(2) of the May 9 order and Pat. L.R. 3-4(b) by not
providing publications on which they rely or samples of prior art products.
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
Lifescan argues that it continues to be prejudiced by Defendants’ failure to comply with the May 9
15
order and requests that the court further order Defendants to comply within twenty days. 2 If
16
Defendants do not, Lifescan urges preclusion sanctions. Lifescan also seeks all of its attorney’s
17
fees and costs that were incurred in filing this motion.
18
Defendants respond by conceding that they did not adequately supplement their invalidity
19
contentions and documents as they agreed to do so. They argue, however, that their failure was
20
justified because Judge Davila only recently ruled on their motion for judgment on the pleadings,
21
the motion to stay, and the motion for relief from a non-dispositive order of the magistrate judge
22
relating to the FDA file and sample test strips. 3 All of Defendants’ motions were denied. Now that
23
the motions have been resolved, Defendants contend that Lifescan’s motion is moot because they
24
intend to comply with their obligations to serve adequate invalidity contentions and documents.
25
2
27
In a supplemental response lodged on August 21, 2012, Lifescan represents that after reviewing
documents that Defendants produced on August 17, 2012, Defendants still have not produced
“specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to
show the operation of [relevant] aspects of an accused instrumentality” pursuant to Pat. L.R. 3-4.
28
3
26
See Docket Nos. 107, 108.
2
Case No.: C 11-04494 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
Defendants also argue that Lifescan’s infringement contentions are incomplete – because
2
they provided no specificity or other meaningful information regarding any of the accused
3
products. The order denying Defendants’ motion for relief from non-dispositive order of the
4
magistrate judge required that they produce the FDA file and product samples on or before August
5
20, 2012. The FDA file and product samples have now been produced. Lifescan now has the
6
opportunity to review the information and supplement its infringement contentions so that
7
Defendants can supplement their invalidity contentions. Defendants contend that adequate
8
infringement contentions are a condition precedent to them serving adequate invalidity
9
contentions.3
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The court is not persuaded by Defendants’ excuses. The May 9 agreement was no mere deal
11
between counsel or parties; it was an order by the presiding judge. There is no indication from the
12
docket or otherwise that Defendants ever sought relief from the May 29 deadline. Defendants’
13
claim that the parties awaited adjudication of potentially dispositive motions and that Lifescan’s
14
infringement contentions themselves are lacking does not justify such casual treatment of a court
15
order. No later than September 12, 2012, Defendants shall serve their amended invalidity
16
contentions and complete production of the documents required under Pat. L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 and the
17
May 9 order. In addition, by that same date, Defendants shall pay the attorney’s fees totaling
18
$23,491.74 that Lifescan incurred in bringing its motion and securing relief.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
8/24/2012
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: C 11-04494 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
