The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend its infringement contentions despite defendant's argument that "the information providing the basis for the amendment was publicly available. . . . This case is similar to [American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Tex. 2005)] insofar as both of these software cases involve alleged-infringing products that require analysis of highly technical information that is not necessarily apparent in the products’ final manifestation. While the final manifestation of [defendant's] products and some of the technical information underlying them may have been publicly available . . . this does not mean [plaintiff] could have meaningfully utilized that information in making its preliminary infringement contentions."
Prism Technologies v. Research in Motion, Ltd. et al., 8-08-cv-00537 (NED March 24, 2010, Memorandum Order) (Strom, J.)