Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 POWER PROBE GROUP, INC., Case No.: 2:21-cv-00332-GMN-EJY 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 5 vs. EMERGENCY MOTION TO AMEND 6 (ECF No. 272) AND DENYING INNOVA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 7 EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED EXPERTS Defendant. (ECF No. 271) 8

9 Pending before the Court are Defendant Innova Electronics Corporation’s (“Defendant”) 10 Emergency Motion to Amend or Confirm Sufficiency of the LPR 1-15 Statement to Permit 11 Non-Testimonial Technology Tutorial Presentation by Dr. Mark Ehsani (“Emergency Motion 12 to Amend”) (ECF No. 272) and Plaintiff Power Probe Group, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion in 13 Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Experts from Participating in the Claim Construction Hearing 14 and Patent Tutorial (“Motion to Exclude”) (ECF No. 271). For the reasons discussed below, the 15 Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Amend and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude. 16 While separate motions, the Court considers Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Amend 17 to function as a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude. Plaintiff’s primary argument in its 18 Motion to Exclude is that Defendant had not included Dr. Mark Ehsani in its LPR 1-15 Joint 19 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (“LPR 1-15 Statement”), an omission which 20 Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Amend seeks to cure. (Motion to Exclude, ECF No. 271-2). 21 Defendant cites the “substantial procedural developments, including two appeals, extended 22 periods of inactivity, and multiple scheduling resets” as supporting good cause for an 23 amendment to the LPR 1-15 Statement to substitute a presenting expert witness for the 24 technology tutorial. (Emergency Motion to Amend, ECF No. 272-5). This Court agrees and 25 finds that good cause for the amendment is shown. 1 || Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 2 1. Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Amend is GRANTED, and the LPR 1-15 3 Statement is deemed amended to identify Dr. Mark Ehsani as the presenter of 4 Defendant’s technology tutorial. ° 2. Dr. Ehsani is permitted to present Defendant’s technology tutorial live at the hearing scheduled for October 14, 2025.

g 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude is DENIED. 9 4. Dr. Ehsani is advised that mention of the accused products during claim construction 10 is not permitted. See SRI Intern. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 11 1107, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ("A claim is construed in the light of the claim 12 language, the other claims, the prior art, the prosecution history, and the specification, 13 not in light of the accused device."). The words of each claim must be construed 14 "independent of the accused product." Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. 15 Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated this 12 day of September, 2025. 20 j Y, 21 iy ! Gloria MANk varro, District Judge 22 United buy s District Court 23 24 25

Page 2 of 2