The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Grewal United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Re: Docket No. 100)
Defendants Ralink Technology Corporation, a California corporation, and Ralink Technology Corporation, a Taiwanese corporation (collectively "Ralink"), move to strike Plaintiff 20 Lantiq Deutschland GMBH's ("Lantiq") Patent L.R. 3-1 disclosure of asserted claims and 21 infringement contentions. Lantiq opposes the motion. On May 1, 2012, the parties appeared for 22 hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel, 23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ralink's motion to strike is GRANTED.
Ralink moves to strike Lantiq's Pat. L.R. 3-1 disclosure of asserted
claims and infringement
contentions on the grounds that they include reference to products
made and sold by Ralink's 26 parent company, MediaTek, Inc.
("MediaTek"). At present, MediaTek is neither a party to the case 27
nor is it an "opposing party" within the meaning of Pat. L.R.
3-1.*fn1 In addition to 50 accused Ralink 2 products,
Lantiq's infringement contentions also include 50 accused MediaTek
products. Lantiq's 3 contentions allege that Ralink and MediaTek
directly infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,351,799 (the "'799 4
MediaTek indirectly infringe both patents. Ralink complains that rather than specify the exact party 6 practicing each limitation as Pat. L.R. 3-1 requires, Lantiq has resorted to creating a fictitious non-7 party identified only as "MediaTek/Ralink." While Ralink acknowledges that it is a subsidiary of 8
Taiwanese government documents it has produced to Lantiq). Because MediaTek is not a party to 10 the case and Lantiq has not sought to "pierce the corporate veil," Ralink argues that Lantiq's Patent"), that Ralink infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,061,904 (the "'904 Patent"),*fn2 and that Ralink and 5
MediaTek, it stresses that the two companies are separate entities (as evidenced by certain 9 infringement contentions that reference "MediaTek/Ralink" should be struck. Finally, Ralink complains that Lantiq served purposefully vague contentions by grouping Ralink and MediaTek 13 products together in groups of representative products. Such contentions fail to provide Ralink with 14 adequate notice of any alleged infringement specific to its own products. 15
16 that there is no complication or delay attendant to including MediaTek products in Lantiq's 17 contentions. Regardless of whether MediaTek is a party in the case, Lantiq argues that the 18
MediaTek-branded products identified in its contentions nevertheless are relevant. MediaTek itself 19 acknowledges publicly that at least some MediaTek-branded products incorporate Ralink 20 technology. Lantiq also notes that it did move to add MediaTek as a party to the case. 21
22 amended complaint adding three MediaTek entities, including MediaTek USA and MediaTek 23 24
Lantiq responds that Ralink has been dilatory in bringing this motion in the first place and
On April 30, 2012, the presiding judge granted Lantiq's motion for leave to file a second
Wireless, Inc., as defendants in the case.*fn3 In light of this order, Ralink's motion to strike Lantiq's 2 contentions on the grounds that ...