The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge
*E-FILED: April 12, 2013*
ORDER GRANTING YAHOO! INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL AMENDED INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (Dkt. 203)
In this patent infringement case, defendant Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") moves to compel plaintiff Droplets, Inc. ("Droplets") to supplement its infringement contentions to comply with the specificity requirements of Patent L.R. 3-1. Droplets responds that its contentions are sufficient to meet its 18 burden. The parties appeared for oral argument on March 5, 2013. Having reviewed the parties' 19 papers and Droplets' infringement contentions, and after considering oral arguments, the court 20 GRANTS Yahoo's motion.
Droplets alleges Yahoo's products directly and indirectly infringe 137 claims in two patents:
U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745 ("'745 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838 ("'838 Patent") 25
(collectively "the Patents"). Both patents claim systems and methods for a series of connections to 26 transfer information over a network and present information to a user. Droplets alleges that many of 27
Yahoo's products, including Yahoo's "Maps-Panning and zooming" product, infringe both patents.
3 series of interrogatories that accused infringers would likely have propounded in its absence." 4
FusionArc, Inc. v. Solidus Networks, Inc., No. C 06-06770 RMW (RS), 2007 WL 1052900, at *2 5 6
VRW, 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002)). As such, a plaintiff is required to include in 8 its infringement contentions all facts known to it, including those discovered in its Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 9 pre-filing investigation. Network Caching Tech., LLC, 2002 WL 32126128 at *4. The rules 10
The Patent Local Rules of this District provide for a "streamlined mechanism to replace the
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2007) (quoting Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell Inc., No. C-01-2079-
"require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed." O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, ...