Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 BECTON, DICKINSON AND Case No.: 21cv1173-CAB (NLS) COMPANY; SIRIGEN, INC; and 12 ORDER REGARDING JOINT SIRIGEN II LIMITED, MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 13 Plaintiffs, OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 1 14 v. [ECF No. 81] 15 BECKMAN COULTER, INC., 16 Defendant. 17

18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 19 Dispute No. 1, wherein Defendant Beckman Coulter, Inc. (“Beckman”) contends that 20 Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions fails to comply 21 with Patent Local Rule Requirements. ECF No. 81. Upon consideration and for the 22 reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 23 motion. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 This is an action for patent infringement where Plaintiffs accuse Beckman of 26 27 28 1 infringing thirteen of their patents. The asserted patents all relate to chemical structures 2 of fluorescent polymer dyes that are used in flow cytometry. The dyes allow scientists to 3 label and detect biological materials of interest in a sample, including small populations 4 of difficult to detect proteins and cells. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 2. The accused products are 5 Beckman’s polymer dye products, its SuperNova Fluorescent Polymer Dyes. Id. at ¶ 4. 6 After filing the complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 7 9. On October 14, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion and denied the request 8 for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 66. While the motion was pending, the Court 9 entered a scheduling order, permitting the parties to begin discovery and setting deadlines 10 for exchanging infringement and invalidity contentions. ECF No. 56. 11 At issue in the present motion are Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions. Beckman 12 argues that the disclosure of accused products and infringement theories in the 13 contentions fail to meet the requirements under Patent L.R. 3.1(b) and 3.1(c). ECF No. 14 81 at 2. 16 The Patent Local Rules were designed to streamline discovery and require parties 17 to crystallize their theories early in the case to prevent “the shifting sands” approach to 18 claim construction.” Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., No. 12cv1627-JLS (NLS), 2013 19 WL 3894880, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2013). The Patent Local Rules accomplish this 20 “by requiring both the plaintiff and the defendant in patent cases to provide early notice 21 of their infringement and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with diligence in 22 amending those contentions when new information comes to light in the course of 23 discovery. The rules thus seek to balance the right to develop new information in 24 discovery with the need for certainty as to the legal theories.” Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., 25 26 27 1 The thirteen patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,362,193, No. 8,455,613, No. 8,575,303, No. 9,139,869, No. 9,547,008, No. 10,094,838, No. 10,288,620, No. 10,302,648, No. 10,365,285, No. 10,458,989, No. 28 1 Inc., No. 18cv01577-H (BGS), 2019 WL 5790999, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019) 2 (citation omitted). 3 Defendant Beckman argues that Plaintiffs’ disclosure of certain accused products 4 and infringement theories fails to meet the requirements of Patent Local Rules 3.1(b) and 5 (c). The Court will address each of these issues in turn. 6 A. Identification of Accused Products under Patent L.R. 3.1(b) 7 Patent Local Rule 3.1 governs disclosure of asserted claim and infringement 8 contentions. Under Rule 3.1(b), Plaintiffs must disclosure “[s]eparately for each asserted 9 claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other 10 instrumentality . . . of each opposing party of which the party is aware.” The 11 identification “must be as specific as possible,” with each product, device, and apparatus 12 “identified by name or model number, if known.” Patent L.R. 3.1(b). The Patent Local 13 Rules “place the burden of specifically identifying all accused devices on the plaintiff.” 14 SPH Am., LLC v. Huawei Techs., Co., No. 13cv2323-CAB (KSC), 2016 WL 11661391, 15 at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 2016). This generally requires “specific identification of accused 16 products” and does not tolerate “broad categorical identification or the use of mere 17 representative examples.” Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corp., 18 No. 11cv6239-MMC (DMR), 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012). 19 Beckman argues that Plaintiffs fail to comply with Rule 3.1(b) when it included a 20 category of products referred to as “Development/Manufacturing Dyes” as Accused 21 Products. These are generally described as “Polymer base dyes and polymer tandem dyes 22 made in the course of Beckman’s internal research and development program, or made as 23 intermediates while making the SuperNova Dyes.” ECF No. 80-1 at 3. These are further 24 broken down to three categories: (1) Development Dyes; (2) Manufacturing Dyes; and 25 (3) UV Development Dyes, which are further defined as follows: 26 (1): Development Dyes - Polymer base dyes and polymer tandem dyes made in 27 the course of Beckman’s internal research and development program. 28 Examples of Beckman’s Development Dyes include, but are not limited to, 1 those disclosed in BEC-SN00000037 at -40 and -44. Development Dyes 2 include any other dyes with similar or related structures being developed by 3 Beckman in connection with the development of SuperNova dyes, such as 4 those found throughout Beckman’s produced lab notebooks. 5 (2): Manufacturing Dyes: Examples of Manufacturing Dyes include intermediates 6 made by Beckman in the process of making the SuperNova Dyes. The 7 manufacturing intermediates are set forth in the preparation protocols 8 produced by Beckman at BEC-SN00000441 at 454. 9 (3): UV Development Dyes: The Development/Manufacturing Dyes also include 10 UV-excited dyes in development by Beckman and, on information and belief, 11 used by Beckman (the “UV Development Dyes”). See, e.g., BEC-SN- 12 00000037 at -40 and -44; BEC-SN00000273 at -295, and BEC-SN_00006277; 13 BEC-SN-00005531; BEC-SN-00000313. 14 Id. at 4. 15 Beckman argues that this type of identification of products is not sufficient under 16 Rule 3.1(b) because the rule does not permit categorical or functional identifications nor 17 representative examples. ECF No. 80 at 3. In support, Beckman cites a string of cases. 18 See, e.g., Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-CV-02463-WHO, 2017 WL 19 76950, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017) (while certain accused products were identified by 20 name and model number, finding insufficient identification where plaintiff also included 21 in its accused products “Samsung ‘smart phones’ with a screen, camera, processor, 22 compass, and accelerometer,” “all ‘tablets’ shipped between 2010 and 2013,” “the 23 Samsung Galaxy, Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab ‘product lines.’”); Uniloc 24 USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. C 18-00360 WHA, 2018 WL 3219486, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 25 2, 2018) (finding insufficient identification of products including categorical products 26 (such as “Apple tablets”) followed by representative samples (“e.g. iPad 9.7, iPad Air 2, . 27 . . running on iOS 9 or later”) and only limiting products to those specifically named); 28 Vigilos LLC v. Sling Media Inc., No. C-11-04117 SBA (EDL), 2012 WL 9973147, at *3– 1 4 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2012) (finding insufficient identification of products where plaintiff 2 only provided a general list by category/functionality: “all Slingbox products (including 3 Slingbox SOLO and Slingbox PRO–HD), all Sling Adapter products, and all 4 SlingLoaded products made, sold or offered for sale by any of the Defendants, including 5 the DISH ViP922 SlingLoaded DVR and all EchoStar Set–Top Boxes using 6 Placeshifting/TV Everywhere technology”); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10- 7 03561 WHA, 2011 WL 4479305, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011) (finding inadequate 8 identification where products were identified as “(i) ‘Android’ or ‘the Android Platform;’ 9 (ii) Google devices running Android; and (iii) other mobile devices running Android. 10 Representative examples of Google devices running Android include the Google Dev 11 Phones, the Google Nexus One, and the Google Nexus S. Representative examples of 12 other mobile devices running Android include HTC’s EVO 4G, HTC’s Droid Incredible, 13 HTC’s G2, Motorola’s Droid, and Samsung’s Captivate.”). 14 While the groupings used in Plaintiffs’ contentions are not quite as broad as the 15 groupings used in some of these cases, the groupings are not limited to specific dyes and 16 do include dyes by way of example. For development dyes, the disclosure describes 17 them as “polymer base dyes and polymer tandem dyes made in the course of Beckman’s 18 internal research and development program” and by way of “example” and “include, but 19 are not limited to, those disclosed in BEC-SN00000037 at -40 and -44.” ECF No. 80-4. 20 They also include “any other dyes with similar or related structures” but the contentions 21 do not identify what sort of structures qualify as “similar or related.” For manufacturing 22 dyes, the contentions state that this category includes “examples” such as “intermediates 23 made by Beckman in the process of making the SuperNova Dyes” and are “set forth in 24 the preparation protocols produced by Beckman at BEC-SN00000441 at 454.” ECF No. 25 80-8. This document does not set forth any specific dyes but only shows a process flow 26 chart. For UV development dyes, the disclosure describes them as “UV-excited dyes in 27 development by Beckman” and cites to several documents. ECF No. 80-4; ECF No. 80- 28 5; ECF No. 80-6; ECF No. 80-7. Thus, it appears that these disclosures are not sufficient 1 under Rule 3.1(b) in their use of descriptions and examples to identify the accused 2 products. 3 Defending its disclosures, Plaintiffs argue that they made their disclosures with the 4 information that they had since this category of dyes is based on non-public information. 5 ECF No. 80 at 9. Plaintiffs argue that the use of product groups is not categorically 6 prohibited in infringement contentions as Beckman contends. Id. at 11. Upon review of 7 the cases, the Court finds that they do not save their position. The first two cases that 8 Plaintiffs cite for this proposition deal with adequacy of infringement contentions 9 themselves under Rule 3.1(c), not identification of accused products under Rule 3.1(b). 10 See Fr. Telecom, S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 12-cv-04967 WHA (NC), 11 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63823, at *11 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013); FusionArc, Inc. v. Solidus 12 Networks, Inc., No. C 06-06760 RMW (RS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28970, at *8 (N.D. 13 Cal. Apr. 5, 2007). These cases state that infringement contentions must identify how the 14 accused products infringe “with as much specificity as possible with the information 15 currently available to it.” Fr. Telecom, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63823, at *11. This does 16 not alleviate the requirement to separately identify accused products under Rule 3.1(b). 17 The disclosures under 3.1(b) and 3.1(c) may serve different purposes. Infringement 18 contentions under 3.1(c) put the other party on notice of the theory of infringement—if 19 certain specific products operate in the same way and infringe in the same way, 20 permitting grouping of products under this Rule is reasonable and still provides the other 21 party with the same level of notice. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. C 18-00360 22 WHA, 2018 WL 3219486, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018) (“[Rule 3.1(c) does not 23 necessarily require a separate claim chart for each accused product. Representative 24 infringement contentions may suffice when supported by adequate analysis showing that 25 the accused products share the same critical characteristics.) (citation omitted). However, 26 disclosure of accused products may serve a different purpose under Rule 3.1(b), for 27 example, to permit calculation of damages which depends on specific identification of 28 accused products. 1 Plaintiffs also cite to JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc., No. 12-cv-03662-MRP- 2 JC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207786, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012), which says that 3 product groups are “sometimes acceptable” for infringement contentions. It is true that in 4 making this statement, the JVC court rejected the position cited in the same cases that 5 Beckman cites to. Id. at *6 n.2. However, the case still dealt with infringement charts 6 under 3.1(c) and for the reasons above, does not alleviate it disclosure obligations under 7 Rule 3.1(b). Id. at *6 (“the central question is whether the use of product groups deprives 8 the defendant of adequate notice about the patentee’s infringement theories”). 9 The Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiffs contention that they disclosed the 10 product groups to the best of their ability at this time, given that the 11 Development/Manufacturing Dyes are based on non-public information that is in the 12 control of Beckman. However, Plaintiffs are not left without recourse since disclosure is 13 ongoing and Plaintiffs may move to amend their infringement contentions. See Uniloc, 14 2018 WL 3219486, at *3 (limiting accused products to those “actually listed in its 15 infringement contentions” and holding that proper recourse is to move to amend 16 infringement contentions, not to use “strategic open-ended language” in the contentions). 17 Patent Local Rule 3.6 provides for when during the case Plaintiffs may amend their 18 infringement contentions, including upon a showing of “good cause.” While this 19 district’s Patent Local Rules do not include a similar section, our sister court in the 20 Northern District of California specifically lists “[r]ecent discovery of nonpublic 21 information about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent 22 effort” as an example of good cause to support amendment of infringement contentions. 23 Patent L.R. 3-6(c) (N.D. Cal.); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV- 24 05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015); Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz 25 Pharma LLC, No. 11-CV-05236-YGR, 2012 WL 6000798, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 26 2012); Mediatek, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-5341 YGR JSC, 2013 27 WL 588760, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013). Diligence is a factor considered in this 28 district as well, where the good cause standard focuses on diligence on the part of the 1 party seeking amendment and prejudice to the opposing party. Regents of Univ. of 2 California v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. 17-CV-01394-H-NLS, 2018 WL 4053318, at *2 (S.D. 3 Cal. Aug. 24, 2018) 4 Accordingly, Beckman’s motion on this issue is GRANTED IN PART. The 5 product disclosures on the Development/Manufacturing Dyes will be limited to only 6 those that are identified specifically in the documents that have been cited in the 7 infringement contentions. As discovery continues, Plaintiffs may move to amend its 8 contentions to include any other Development/Manufacturing Dyes that can be 9 specifically identified. 10 B. Infringement Contentions 11 Further, under Rule 3.1(c), Plaintiffs must identify “specifically where each 12 element of each asserted claim is found” within the accused product. Id. at 3.1(c). This 13 rule does not necessarily require a separate claim chart for each accused product— 14 “[R]epresentative infringement contentions may suffice” when “supported by adequate 15 analysis showing that the accused products share the same critical characteristics.” 16 Uniloc, 2018 WL 3219486, at *3. 17 Beckman argues that Plaintiffs’ infringement charts as to the 18 Development/Manufacturing Dyes are insufficient because they mostly are variations of 19 the following phrase: “On information and belief, the Development Conjugates and the 20 Development/Manufacturing Dyes contain SuperNova v428 or another conjugated 21 polymer and meet this claim term either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents in 22 the same way. See, e.g., BEC-SN-00000001-32 at 06; BEC-SN-00000138-73 at 40- 41; 23 BEC-SN-00000174-216 at 175; BEC-SN-00006438-51 at 41.” See, e.g., ECF No. 80-2 24 at 4. Beckman argues that such “on information and belief” disclosures are not sufficient. 25 ECF No. 80 at 5-6. 26 Plaintiffs counter that their infringement charts disclose to Beckman how the 27 commercialized dyes meet the limitations of the asserted claims and essentially disclose 28 that the Development/Manufacturing Dyes meet those limitations in the same way. ECF 1 No. 80 at 13. Plaintiffs state that when their theory of infringement is different for the 2 Development/Manufacturing Dyes, they specifically state how in the infringement charts. 3 Id. at 12-14. 4 While this is a close call, the Court concludes that the infringement contentions for 5 the Development/Manufacturing Dyes that have been specifically named is sufficient. 6 The focus of infringement contentions is to provide the opposing party with notice of the 7 theory of infringement—here, unless otherwise stated, Plaintiffs state that the 8 Development/Manufacturing Dyes infringe in the same way as they allege the 9 commercialized dyes infringe. This precludes Plaintiffs from putting forth a different 10 infringement theory in the future as to the Development/Manufacturing Dyes and does 11 not leave Beckman in the dark as to the infringement theory. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not 12 make the “on information and belief” allegations without any factual support—at the end 13 of these statements, they cite to produced documents that support their allegation. See, 14 e.g., See, e.g., ECF No. 80-2 at 4 (citing to produced documents). 15 Accordingly, Beckman’s motion as to this issue is DENIED. While the Court is 16 limiting the Development/Manufacturing Dyes to those that are identified specifically in 17 the documents that have been cited in the infringement contentions, the Court finds that 18 the theories of infringement that have been disclosed in the infringement chart to be 19 sufficient. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 3 ||} PART Beckman’s motion. The Development/Manufacturing Dyes that are accused 4 || products will be limited to those that are identified specifically in the documents that 5 been cited in the infringement contentions. The infringement theory disclosures for 6 || these in the infringement charts will not be stricken. 8 ||Dated: January 19, 2022 9 Mite. Lemme 10 Hon. Nita L. Stormes United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28