Technology Properties Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL

In each of these two related cases, Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions 1 and Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants to produce discovery arising from those contentions. 2 At issue is whether Plaintiffs’ contentions meet the requirements of Patent L.R. 3-1 and whether Plaintiffs properly accuse “instru-mentalities” — Patent Local Rules-speak for products — that were never made, sold, used or imported, or released before the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Because Plaintiffs’ contentions are insufficient and improperly accuse instrumentalities that could not possibly infringe, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to strike by ordering Plaintiff-to supplement the contentions and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions to compel.

I.

Rule 3 — 1(c) of the Patent Local Rules states that a patentee must provide “[a] chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” 3 A plaintiff violates this rule where it fails to “provide reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a ‘reasonable chance of proving…