§Why CasetextPricing

Honeywell International Inc et al v. Acer America Corporation et al

MOTION to Strike Defendant Novatek's Amended Invalidity Contentions and to Preclude Defendants from Asserting Invalidity Arguments not Disclosed in Their Original Invalidity Contentions

9 Cited authorities

  1. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, LLC

    350 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 278 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "inequitable conduct, while a broader concept than fraud, must be pled with particularity"

  2. Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co.

    389 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1968)   Cited 289 times
    Recognizing the "importance, except in the most flagrant circumstances, of resorting to sanctions that do not deprive a litigant of his day in court"

  3. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.

    424 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Tex. 2006)   Cited 40 times
    Denying amendment: "DirecTV did not adequately explain how the court's definition of any of the terms in dispute was so surprising, or differed so greatly from the proposals made by the parties, that it justifies admission of new prior art references two weeks before Finisar's deadline to submit rebuttal expert reports."

  4. Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.

    481 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 15 times
    Allowing amendment to previously disclosed invalidity contentions to add prior art

  5. Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc.

    250 F.R.D. 284 (E.D. Tex. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Finding amendments to invalidity contentions would be "highly prejudicial" where "the additional prior art references may give rise to new claim construction issues"

  6. Arbitron, Inc. v. International Demographics Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-434 (TJW) (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-434 (TJW). October 29, 2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER T. WARD, District Judge Pending before the Court is defendant IPSOS America, Inc.'s ("Ipsos") Motion to Amend its Invalidity Contentions (Docket Entry No. 73) and related briefing. Ipsos requests leave of the Court to amend its initial P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions to include its indefiniteness positions on four limitations from the patent claims asserted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes the motion. In light of

  7. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 96,831 times   669 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  8. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 49,437 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  9. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,648 times   324 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness