Summary
This Memorandum Opinion and Order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas grants the plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement its technical expert's report. The court analyzed whether the supplemental report introduced a new infringement theory, conflicted with prior claim construction rulings, or improperly raised a standard essential patent argument. Applying the applicable four-factor test for post-discovery expert report supplementation, the court concluded that the amendment was necessary to address the court's supplemental claim construction order and would not prejudice the defendants. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the supplemental expert report introduced a new infringement theory concerning the “multiple users” limitation.
- Whether the supplemental report was inconsistent with the Court's supplemental claim construction order.
- Whether the supplemental report asserted a new standard-essential-patent theory of infringement.
- Whether good cause existed to permit supplementation of the expert report after the close of expert discovery.
Holdings
- The supplemental report did not introduce a new infringement theory because the opening report had already addressed spatial layers and digital data streams transmitted through MIMO systems.
- The supplemental report was consistent with the Court's construction of “multiple users” as “multiple sources of digital data streams for transmission.”
- The supplemental report did not assert a new standard-essential-patent theory merely because it cited materials describing 5G and LTE standards.
- Good cause existed to permit Plaintiff to supplement Dr. Kowalski's expert infringement report.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Supplemental Report has not introduced a new infringement theory.” (Section III.A)
“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Supplemental Report is not inconsistent with the Supplemental Order.” (Section III.B)
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not invited a SEP theory of infringement.” (Section III.C)
“Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause for the requested leave exists.” (Section IV)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 7,463,703 and 7,920,651 and two other patents directed to increasing capacity in co-channel communications. The asserted claims include the limitation “multiple users,” which the Court initially construed as “sources emanating from devices” and later construed as “multiple sources of digital data streams for transmission.” Plaintiff's expert submitted a supplemental report addressing the “for transmission” language and mapping multiple users to MIMO signals or layers.
Procedural history
Collision Communications sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for infringement of claims in several patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,463,703 and 7,920,651. After the Court issued a supplemental construction of the term “multiple users,” Plaintiff sought leave to supplement Dr. Kowalski's infringement reports. The Court granted the motion.