UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 26, 2011
NANO-SECOND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., A TAIWANESE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
DYNAFLEX INTERNATIONAL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge
Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Invalidity Contentions 
On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff Nano-Second Technology Co., Ltd.'s Motion to Strike Defendant's Invalidity Contentions  came on for regular calendar before the Court. The Court having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion and having considered all arguments presented to the Court, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Invalidity Contentions is DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) governs sanctions for non-disclosure of discovery documents and dictates that sanctions are not appropriate where a non-disclosure is harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). The Court finds that a Motion to Strike is not appropriate here. Specifically, while Defendant Dynaflex International's Invalidity Contentions were not timely served, the delay was harmless and Plaintiff Nano-Second Technology Co. Ltd. has failed to establish, or even allege, that it suffered any prejudice. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant's Invalidity Contentions should not be stricken due to the brief delay in service, which did not result in any prejudice to Plaintiff.
In addition, the Patent Local Rules for the Northern District of California are not binding on this Court and do not require exclusion of Defendant's Invalidity Contentions. The Parties agreed to a discovery schedule following the Patent Local Rules, but Plaintiff fails to establish that this fact alone requires this Court to adopt another district's local rules.
Finally, even if the Patent Local Rules were applied, the Court finds that they would still not require the exclusion of Defendant's Invalidity Contentions here. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's delay in serving its Invalidity Contentions created a presumption that Plaintiff's patent would not be challenged, and thus the untimely served Invalidity Contentions constitute an amendment, which requires a showing of good cause under Patent Local Rule 3-6. The Court finds that this argument is without merit. A mere four-court-day delay in service of Invalidity Contentions does not create a presumption that the patent at issue will not be challenged, especially where a party is on notice that the opposing party intends to do so, as was the case here. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to establish that the untimely served Invalidity Contentions constitute an amendment and that the good cause requirement of Patent Local Rule 3-6 applies here.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Invalidity Contentions is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.