Summary
This memorandum decision and order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah resolves several pretrial motions in a patent declaratory judgment action. The court granted the counterclaimant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply but denied the plaintiff's requests to extend fact discovery and to amend its final invalidity contentions. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish the good cause and diligence required under Federal Rule 16(b)(4) and Local Patent Rule 3.4.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a sur‑reply is warranted in this circumstance.
- Whether Mengdan demonstrated good cause to extend discovery by 45 days.
- Whether Mengdan showed good cause, lack of prejudice, and diligence to amend its final invalidity contentions.
Holdings
- The court grants RVLock’s motion for leave to file a sur‑reply.
- The court denies Mengdan’s motion to extend discovery.
- The court denies Mengdan’s motion to amend its final invalidity contentions.
Key quotations
“In short, the court is not persuaded by Mengdan’s arguments that discovery should be extended by 45 days.”
Factual background
Mengdan sued RVLock for non‑infringement and invalidity of the ‘919 Patent. Discovery closed on June 27, 2025. Mengdan later sought additional discovery time and to amend its invalidity contentions; RVLock sought to file a sur‑reply to address new issues raised in Mengdan’s reply brief.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a declaratory‑judgment action seeking non‑infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,085,919. After fact discovery closed, Plaintiff moved for a 45‑day extension of discovery and to amend its final invalidity contentions; Defendant moved for leave to file a sur‑reply.