Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CG Technology Development, LLC v. 888 Holdings PLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 6, 2017

CG Technology Development, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
888 Holdings PLC, Defendant.

          ORDER [DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO STRIKE, ECF NOS. 73, 75] [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, ECF NO. 92]

          CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Defendants 888 Holdings; Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment, Bwin.Party (USA), and Bwin.Party Entertainment (NJ)'s motions to strike Plaintiffs CG Technology Development, Interactive Games Limited, and Interactive Games LLC's amended infringement contentions (ECF Nos. 73, 75), Plaintiffs' response (ECF No. 76), and Defendants' reply (ECF No. 77). Before the Court is also Defendants' second motion for extension of time (ECF No. 92), Plaintiffs' response (ECF No. 98), and Defendants' reply (ECF No. 100). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motions to strike and motion for extension of time are granted.

         I. Background

         This case arises from Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants have infringed on Plaintiffs' patents used in gaming. Plaintiffs filed their initial disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions on January 5, 2017. (ECF No. 73 at 2). Defendants subsequently filed their initial disclosure of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability contentions. (ECF No. 76 at 1). In response to Defendants' contentions, Plaintiffs filed an amended set of contentions. (Id.). In a letter to Defendants, Plaintiffs stated, “Based on Defendants' noninfringement contentions, it became clear that Defendants' misinterpreted Plaintiffs' theories…. Plaintiffs responded by clarifying and amplifying their positions, as to avoid further confusion, particularly as these cases enter the scheduled claim construction proceedings.” (ECF No. 73, Ex. 1 at 2).

         The briefings in this case highlight several changes made in Plaintiffs' amended contentions. Plaintiffs added claims 26, 30, and 33 regarding the 818 patent. (ECF No. 73 at 1). These claims are similar to Plaintiffs' original claims, merely changing certain terms such as “portable communication device” to “controller” and “allowing play” to “either allowing participation in the game…or adjusting the game.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiffs also added claims 1 and 6-9 regarding the 058 patent. (ECF No. 75 at 2). These claims are similar to original claims, changing “computer system” to “method” and adding details about the display screen. (Id. at 3). In addition, Plaintiffs changed terms used in its original claims regarding the 818 and 952 patents, such as changing “control switch” to “multiple capacitor sensors” and changing the definition of “selectable betting parameter.” (Id. at 6).[1]

         Defendants filed two motions to strike the amended contentions on June 30, 2017. (ECF No. 73, 75). Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack good cause to amend their contentions because the claims should have been asserted in Plaintiffs' original contentions. (ECF No. 73 at 5, ECF No. 75 at 4). Defendants assert Plaintiffs are impermissibly setting a moving target for Defendants to chase. (ECF No. 75 at 6-7). In response, Plaintiffs argue amending their contentions was a procedurally proper way to respond to Defendants' misapprehension of Plaintiffs' claims. (ECF No. 76 at 4-5).

         While the motions to strike were pending, the parties exchanged their proposed terms for construction on August 10, 2017. (ECF No. 91 at 2-3). Defendants proposed terms included several terms added to, removed from, or altered in Plaintiffs' amended contentions, such as “portable communication device, ” “control switches, ” “allowing play, ” and “selectable betting parameter.” (Id., Ex. 2 at 1-4).

         Plaintiffs, however, asserted that “Plaintiffs do not believe that any terms of [the patents] requires construction by the Court at this time.” (Id., Ex. 1 at 1).

         The parties were originally scheduled to exchange their preliminary claim constructions on September 8, 2017. (ECF No. 91 at 2). Defendants filed a motion to extend this deadline on August 28, 2107. (Id. at 1). Plaintiffs argue addition time is needed to define the terms and prepare evidence in support of the proposed definitions. (Id. at 3-4). In response, Plaintiffs argue the current discovery schedule is adequate to meet the parties' discovery needs. (ECF No. 98 at 2-3).

         II. Discussion

         In support of their request for an extension of time to define terms in this case, Defendants argue that the new or altered claims at issue in their motions to strike present a moving target until the motions to strike are resolved. (ECF No. 91 at 2, 7). As these motions are related, the Court will begin by resolving Defendants' motions to strike Plaintiffs' amended contentions.

         A. Motion to Strike

         Defendants argue there was no good cause for Plaintiffs to amend their contentions because (1) the amended claims are similar to the original claims, (2) the amended claims are based on the same evidence as the original claims, and (3) Defendants will be prejudiced by the amendments. (ECF No. 73 at 4-7; ECF No. 75 at 2-8). Plaintiffs argue there was good cause for the amendment because (1) the rules of procedure allow amendments as a form of responding to Defendants' contentions, (2) the amendments were necessary to correct Defendants' misapprehension of Plaintiffs' claims and add in information provided in Defendants' contentions, and (3) Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments. (ECF No. 76 at 2-10). Plaintiffs assert they did not change their theory in the case but merely clarified their position. (Id. at 10-12). For example, “Plaintiffs were forced to clarify through their supplemental contentions that a touch screen is a ‘control switch' based on its functionality.” (Id. at 11).

         The Court does not agree that amending initial contentions should be allowed as a response to initial noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability contentions under LPR 1-10. The process of serving a response and amending initial contentions are controlled by separate rules. Plaintiffs' arguments regarding ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.