Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 152 Filed 12/11/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 33590
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`AX WIRELESS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-0280-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., HP Inc., and Lenovo
`
`Group Limited’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions. After
`
`consideration, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend as provided below.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Defendants first served their Invalidity Contentions on January 23, 2023. (Mot. at 1.) On
`
`March 29, 2023, Ax Wireless sent a letter to defendants detailing alleged deficiencies with
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and requesting a meet and confer in advance of a motion to
`
`strike. (Dkt. No. 108-121.) On May 5, 2023, Defendants responded to Ax Wireless’s letter
`
`providing “the Original Invalidity Contentions provided ample and fair notice to Plaintiff of
`
`Defendants’ invalidity theories” but agreed to prepare supplemental contentions. (Mot. at 2.) On
`
`June 6, 2023 Defendants served proposed amended contentions on Ax Wireless. (Id.) Thereafter
`
`the parties disputed the scope and appropriateness of the proposed amendments ultimately
`
`resulting in the Defendants’ Motion on July 25, 2023. (Id.)
`
`
`1 The Court cites to the docket of Ax Wireless LLC v. Dell Inc., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-00277-RWS-RSP (E.D.
`Tex), though the briefing is identical in Ax Wireless LLC v. HP Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00279-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex)
`and Ax Wireless LLC v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case No. 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 152 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 33591
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“Amendment or supplementation of any Infringement Contentions or Invalidity Contentions . . .
`
`may be made only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” P.R.
`
`3-6(b). “Good cause,” according to the Federal Circuit, “requires a showing of diligence.” O2 Micro Int’l
`
`Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Courts in this District routinely
`
`apply a four-factor test to determine whether good cause has been shown. See Alt v. Medtronic, Inc., No.
`
`2:04-CV-370, 2006 WL 278868, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2006) (citation omitted). Those four factors are:
`
`(1) the explanation for the failure to meet the deadline; (2) potential prejudice in allowing the thing that
`
`would be excluded; (3) the importance of the thing that would be excluded; and (4) the availability of a
`
`continuance to cure such prejudice. The burden of proving good cause rests with the party seeking the
`
`untimely amendment. Id; S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir.
`
`2003)).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Ax Wireless does not dispute all amendments, rather the dispute is limited to certain “new
`
`theories” Ax Wireless alleges Defendants added in their proposed Amended Contentions. In
`
`particular, Ax Wireless contests Defendants’ addition of new prior art citations and internal cross-
`
`references particularly where they were added to previously blank limitations. (Opp. at 7-10.) Ax
`
`Wireless does not contest Defendants’ addition of a previously omitted chart, removal of “catch-
`
`all” obviousness combination, and addition of obviousness combination language to previously
`
`blank elements. (Id. at 5.)
`
`a. Diligence and Reason for the Delay2
`
`
`2 Defendants utilize a different set of factors than the Court typically considers when presented
`with a motion to amend contentions. The Court will consider the parties’ arguments regarding
`timing of the motion and diligence under this heading, but notes that the factors in §II supra are
`those that the Court finds most relevant in this analysis.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 152 Filed 12/11/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 33592
`
`Defendants contend “any delay is largely attributable to Defendants’ good-faith efforts to
`
`negotiate with Plaintiff to provide non-controversial amendments in response to Plaintiff’s request
`
`for supplemental contentions.” (Mot. at 5.) Defendants allege this accounts for the delay between
`
`Ax Wireless’s first letter on March 29 and their filing of the instant motion. (Id.) Defendants seem
`
`to further blame the initial two months after the service of invalidity contentions on Ax Wireless’s
`
`delay in notifying Defendants of alleged deficiencies. (Id. at 6 (“Plaintiff first raised concerns with
`
`Defendants’ Original invalidity Contentions on March 29, 2023, two months after Defendants
`
`served their original contentions.”).)
`
`Defendants argue they were diligent in preparing their proposed amendments. (Id. at7.)
`
`Defendants argue the “inadvertent errors” they allege the proposed amendments fix, do not
`
`foreclose the possibility of finding diligence. (Id.) Defendants contend “diligence is demonstrated
`
`by the months of negotiation with Plaintiff to provide the requested amendments.” (Id. at 8.)
`
`Defendants point to the back and forth with plaintiff’s counsel where they proposed different
`
`formats for their amendments including offering to replace new targeted citations with cross
`
`references to other elements and replacing claim elements defendants combined for the first time
`
`in the proposed amendments such that disclosures previously relating to only one element would
`
`now appear relating to both with similar internal cross references. (Id. at 9-10.)
`
`Ax Wireless responds that Defendants do not show diligence in part by entirely ignoring
`
`the initial two months after they served their original contentions and by failing to show how it
`
`took from March 29 to June 6 to correct “inadvertent errors.” (Mot. at 11.)
`
`The Court finds this factor weighs somewhat against granting the motion. Defendants
`
`corrected “inadvertent errors” some four months after their service of invalidity contentions. While
`
`“inadvertent errors” may explain Defendants’ initial failure to include its proposed amendments
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 152 Filed 12/11/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 33593
`
`in their contentions, it is not clear why it took four months. “Good-faith negotiations” only account
`
`for so much when the Court would expect “inadvertent errors” could be corrected fairly quickly.
`
`Thus the Court finds that the Defendants failed somewhat in their diligence.
`
`b. Potential Prejudice
`
`Defendants argue plaintiff will suffer no “unfair prejudice” because 1) the proposed
`
`amendments present no new prior art references or combinations; 2) Ax Wireless was on notice of
`
`the proposed amendments; and 3) Ax Wireless requested the proposed amendments. (Mot. at 12.)
`
`Defendants further argue that because Ax Wireless has sufficient time to respond to the proposed
`
`amendments there is little prejudice. (Id. at 13-14.) Defendants contend the Court has permitted
`
`experts to rely on citation to previously disclosed prior art where the specific citation was not
`
`expressly identified in the contentions. (Id. at 13 n.3.) Thus, Defendants suggest Ax Wireless is
`
`not prejudiced because even without the proposed amendment, defendants’ case would proceed
`
`the same regardless. (See id.)
`
`Ax Wireless contends the proposed amendments add new invalidity theories, turning what
`
`were only obviousness combinations into anticipation theories. (Opp. at 14.) Ax Wireless notes
`
`Defendants confirm a “blank” element was an indication that the element would be addressed
`
`under §103. (Sur-Reply at 2 (citing Mot. at 4).) Ax Wireless further contends that as this case has
`
`been pending for over a year, it is prejudiced by such a late amendment. (Opp. at 14.)
`
`Defendants respond that they had previously asserted anticipation theories rather than
`
`merely obviousness combinations. (Reply at 1 (citing language in its claim charts asserting the
`
`reference anticipated claims).)
`
`The Court finds Ax Wireless is not unduly prejudiced by the proposed amendments.
`
`Defendants’ motion was filed more than four months prior to the close of fact discovery and Ax
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 152 Filed 12/11/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 33594
`
`Wireless has identified no unique prejudice beyond needing to address additional invalidity
`
`contentions. As such while this does prejudice Ax Wireless, such prejudice is minimal.
`
`Throughout their motion, Defendants contend that Ax Wireless requested the proposed
`
`amendments, but do not document such a request. Defendants content “Defendants provide
`
`Plaintiff with their amended contention about two months after Plaintiff requested the
`
`amendments.” (Mot. at 5.) A threat to file a motion to strike contentions as deficient is not the
`
`same as a request to serve new contentions. Defendants should be more accurate with their
`
`representations to the Court.
`
`c. Importance of the Matter
`
`Defendants contend this factor favors their motion as the amendments are important
`
`“because they address most, if not all, of the purported deficiencies upon which the Plaintiff
`
`contends the contentions should be struck.” (Mot at 11.) Defendants further contends importance
`
`“because [the amendments] help explain and clarify how Defendants prior art either anticipates or
`
`renders obvious the alleged inventions of the Asserted Patents.” (Id.)
`
`Ax Wireless argues that it is the role of the original invalidity contentions to provide the
`
`clarity Defendants suggest their proposed amendments provide. (Opp. at 13.) Further, Ax Wireless
`
`contends Defendants’ importance argument conflicts with their prejudice argument in that “either
`
`the amendments are limited, clarifying, and unprejudicial, or they are important.” (Id.)
`
`The Court agrees with Ax Wireless that Defendants’ importance argument is somewhat at
`
`odds with their prejudice arguments. Further, Ax Wireless is also correct that Defendants’
`
`prejudice arguments suggest these amendments have no importance. In particular, if it is
`
`Defendants’ opinion that they can support the invalidity expert’s report with or without
`
`amendment, as it appears to be, (Mot. at 13 n.3), then these amendments are less important.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 152 Filed 12/11/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 33595
`
`However, Ax Wireless’s arguments too are somewhat inconsistent between the prejudice
`
`and importance factors. Ax Wireless contends the proposed amendments disclose new invalidity
`
`theories. (Opp. at 7.) Disclosure of invalidity theories is important as this is the entire purpose of
`
`such contentions. The mere fact that Defendants should have included such theories in their
`
`original invalidity contentions does not minimize their importance.
`
`The Court finds the proposed amendments are important as they disclose and clarify
`
`contested invalidity theories.
`
`d. Availability of Continuance
`
`Ax Wireless contends continuance is unnecessary and Defendants do not address this
`
`factor. The Court finds this factor is neutral.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`As the proposed amendments are important and do not unduly prejudice Ax Wireless and
`
`Defendants were not dilatory, the Court therefore GRANTs Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 87).
`
`6
`
`