Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc., 3-18-cv-00360 (CAND July 2, 2018, Order) (Alsup, USDJ)
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Infringement Contentions Limited to Specifically Identified Products
The court granted defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's infringement contentions because plaintiff failed to sufficiently identify the accused instrumentalities. "[Plaintiff] merely asserts in a footnote for each claim chart that the dozens of accused products 'operate in substantially the same manner with respect to the accused functionality.' This conclusory assertion is insufficient. '[I]n order to rely on a claim that one accused product represents another for purposes of Rule 3–1(c), a patentee must do more than state as much. A patentee must state how.'. . . [Defendant] argues that '[plaintiff's] broad categorical identifications and improper use of open-ended language ('e.g.') should be stricken, and [its] allegations should be limited to the products specifically identified.' This order agrees."