`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`)
`MULTILAYER STRETCH CLING FILM
`)
`HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`No. 2:12-cv-2112-JPM-tmp
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`MSC MARKETING AND TECHNOLOGY,
`INC. d/b/a SIGMA STRETCH FILM, and )
`ALPHA INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel
`Supplementation of Multilayer’s Infringement Contentions (ECF
`No. 75), filed May 31, 2013. On July 23, 2013, the Court held a
`telephonic hearing on the Motion. Present for Plaintiff
`Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or
`“Multilayer”) was Melissa Hunter Smith. Present for Defendant
`MSC Marketing and Technology, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Sigma”) was
`James K. Stronski, Sean E. Jackson, and John R. Branson.
`The Court finds that, as this District’s Local Patent Rules
`are similar to those of both the United States District Courts
`for the Northern District of California and the Eastern District
`of Texas, Multilayer’s initial infringement contentions provide
`“reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02112-JPM-tmp Document 90 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3333Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 62-2 Filed 08/19/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 745
`
`it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement and raise a
`reasonable inference that all accused products infringe.”
`Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. CV 12-01971-
`CW(KAW), 2013 WL 633406, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013).
`Further, the Court agrees that “[i]nfringement contentions are
`not intended to require a party to set forth a prima facie case
`of infringement and evidence in support thereof.” Realtime
`Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc., No: 6:08CV144, 2009 WL 2590101, at
`*5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2009).
`Accordingly, and for the reasons stated during the hearing,
`Defendant’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
`IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of July, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ JON P. McCALLA____________
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2