Repeated Assertion of Vague Infringement Contentions Warrants Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to plaintiff's flexible interface patents because plaintiff's infringement contentions did not contain the required specificity. "Through its experienced patent lawyers, [plaintiff] blatantly disregarded the Sixth [Practice and Procedure Order]. The Court took [plaintiff] to task for obfuscating its infringement theories, finding that [it] had done so intentionally as part of its strategy to extend this litigation excessively, since [plaintiff's] business is litigation. . . . [Plaintiff's] failure to properly detail its infringement claims was not an innocent error; it was part of a calculated strategy. For this astounding and brash failure to follow court orders, the Court imposed a reasonable sanction against [plaintiff] -- requiring [it] 'to live with its Final [Infringement] Contentions as they stand without further modification.'. . . Having made only bald allegations against the Table 15 devices, [plaintiff] cannot demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with regard to infringement, nor can [it] present specific facts that would enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor."

In re: Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation - MDL 1880, 1-07-mc-00493 (DCD July 1, 2013, Order) (Collyer, J.).