`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
`PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`TO SERVE FINAL INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS (DOC. NO. 84)
`
`Case No: 2:21-cv-00283
`
`District Judge Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`
`v.
`
`NEARMAP US, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`In this patent infringement case, Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry
`
`International Corp. (collectively, “Eagle View”) move for a four-week extension of the June 30,
`
`2022 deadline to serve final infringement contentions. (Mot., Doc. No. 84.) Defendant Nearmap
`
`US, Inc. (“Nearmap”) opposes the motion. (Opp’n, Doc. No. 89.) The court held a hearing on
`
`July 5, 2022. (See Doc. No. 91.) Because good cause supports the requested extension, the
`
`motion is granted.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A party seeking to modify a scheduling order deadline must show good cause. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Good cause means the deadline cannot be
`
`met despite diligent efforts. Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d
`
`1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014).
`
`Eagle View argues good cause exists for the requested extension for two reasons. First,
`
`Eagle View notes it changed counsel less than two months before the deadline to serve final
`
`infringement contentions. (Mot. 2, Doc. No. 84.) Eagle View asserts its new counsel has
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 92 Filed 07/08/22 PageID.1649 Page 2 of 3
`
`worked diligently to get up to speed on this case, including producing more than 300,000
`
`documents, negotiating search terms for discovery, analyzing two Nearmap products accused of
`
`infringement, and reviewing Nearmap’s source code. (Id. at 2–3.) Eagle View states it needs
`
`additional time to serve final infringement contentions despite these diligent efforts. (Id. at 3.)
`
`Second, Eagle View alleges its recent source code review revealed a new “accused product”
`
`relevant to the infringement allegations in this case, and additional discovery is needed regarding
`
`this product. (Id. at 1, 4–5.)
`
`The majority of Nearmap’s opposition is devoted to challenging Eagle View’s claim that
`
`it recently discovered a new accused product. (Opp’n 1–6, Doc. No. 89.) Nearmap argues the
`
`product was previously known to Eagle View and is not properly within the scope of the
`
`infringement allegations in this case. (Id.) Nearmap also claims Eagle View was not diligent in
`
`reviewing Nearmap’s source code and argues Eagle View should be held to the schedule agreed
`
`to by its former counsel. (Id. at 6–9.) Finally, Nearmap contends it will be prejudiced by an
`
`extension because this litigation casts a cloud on Nearmap’s legitimate business. (Id. at 7.)
`
`The court need not address the merits of Eagle View’s allegations regarding discovery of
`
`a new accused product. Eagle View has demonstrated good cause for the requested extension
`
`based solely on the recent change in counsel. Eagle View has shown its new counsel made
`
`diligent efforts to meet the current deadlines and, despite these efforts, additional time is needed
`
`to prepare and serve final infringement contentions. The requested extension is reasonable, and
`
`Nearmap has not identified any concrete prejudice which would result from a four-week delay.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 92 Filed 07/08/22 PageID.1650 Page 3 of 3
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Eagle View’s motion is granted. In light of this ruling, the parties stipulated at the
`
`hearing to corresponding extensions of all final contention deadlines. Accordingly, the
`
`contention deadlines in the Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 56), are extended as follows:
`
`1. Final Infringement Contentions: July 28, 2022.
`
`2. Final Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions: August 11, 2022.
`
`3. Final Non-Infringement Contentions: August 25, 2022.
`
`DATED this 8th day of July, 2022.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`____________________________
`Daphne A. Oberg
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
