`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
`PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`NEARMAP US, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING NEARMAP’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`RELY ON PREVIOUSLY-
`UNIDENTIFIED PRIOR ART IN ITS
`UNENFORCEABILITY AND
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`(DOC. NO. 122)
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00283
`
`District Judge Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 146 Filed 11/03/22 PageID.2854 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`In this patent infringement case, Defendant Nearmap US, Inc. (“Nearmap”) moves for
`
`leave to rely on three prior art references asserted in its September 16, 2022 Final
`
`Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions which were not previously identified in its February
`
`14, 2022 Initial Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions.1 Nearmap asserts it identified
`
`those prior art grounds in the course of further investigation and discovery.2 Nearmap represents
`
`Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. (collectively, “Eagle
`
`View”) do not oppose the motion.3
`
`
`
`
`1 (Nearmap’s Unopposed Mot. for Leave to Rely on Previously-Unidentified Prior Art in Its
`Final Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions, (“Mot.”), Doc. No. 122.)
`
`2 (Id. at 2.)
`
`3 (Id. at 1–2.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 146 Filed 11/03/22 PageID.2855 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`As relevant here, the Local Patent Rules provide: “Final Unenforceability and Invalidity
`
`Contentions may rely on no more than 10 prior art references, from the set of previously
`
`identified prior art references, per asserted patent without an order of the court upon a showing
`
`of good cause and absence of unfair prejudice to opposing parties.”4 Nearmap contends that
`
`even with the addition of three prior art grounds, it is compliant with limit of ten references per
`
`patent.5 Given that the motion is unopposed, Nearmap has stated good cause to rely on
`
`previously unidentified prior art references, and there is no unfair prejudice to Eagle View.
`
`Accordingly, the motion is granted. Nearmap may rely on the following previously
`
`unidentified prior art references in its Final Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions:
`
`1. Microsoft Virtual Earth 3D against U.S. Patent No. 8,593,518 (the “’518 patent”),
`
`2. WO 99/33026, an international patent application (“Boesjes”), against both the ’518
`
`patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,542,880 (the “’880 patent”), and
`
`3. EagleView’s own prior art core tools system (“Render House”) against the ’880
`
`patent.
`
`DATED this 2nd day of November, 2022.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`____________________________
`Daphne A. Oberg
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`4 LPR 3.1.
`
`5 (Mot. 2, Doc. No. 122.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
