Indirect Infringement Contentions Need Not Identify Specific Third Party Direct Infringer

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims under Fed.R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) (authorizing dismissal for failure to obey a scheduling or pretrial order) for alleged failure to identify third party direct infringers because the local rules contain no such requirement. "Because the disputed contentions disclose information sufficient for [defendant] to determine [plaintiff’s] theories of infringement, dismissing [plaintiff’s] indirect infringement claim is unwarranted at this point. The contentions identify a specific product line . . . and thus provide [defendant] with notice that [defendant] indirectly infringes the Asserted Patents when [its accused products are used in an infringing manner] by a customer. . . . While the contentions do not identify which specific customers perform this [infringing use], [defendant] has identified no case requiring a disclosure under Rule 3-1(d) of the specific third party committing any underlying act of direct infringement."

DCG Systems, Inc v. Checkpoint Technologies, LLC, 5-11-cv-03792 (CAND April 16, 2012, Order) (Grewal, M.J.)