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.)