The court granted plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment of no induced infringement where defendant did not include indirect infringement allegations in its contentions and the court denied its motion to amend infringement contentions. "[Defendant] contends that its omission of the Rule 3-1(d) disclosure was merely a 'scrivener’s error' and that summary judgment should be denied because defendants have been on constructive notice of [defendant's] indirect infringement claims since the inception of the case. . . . Though the court is reluctant to dispose of substantive infringement claims based on noncompliance with the Patent Local Rules, [defendant's] failure to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(d) goes to a substantive element of a claim of indirect infringement, not merely a procedural defect."
Sybase, Inc. et al v. Data Retrieval Technology LLC et al., 3-08-cv-05481 (CAND June 23, 2010, Order) (Walker, J.)