Costly Consequences To Limiting Discovery Scope

Order Re: "Other Enplas Lenses", Enplas Display Device Corp., et al. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-05038 (U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins)

Sometimes, it works to a patent owner's advantage not to allege infringement by products other than those specifically identified in preliminary infringement contentions, even where discovery is not complete. This unusual procedural tactic led Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins to recently deny summary judgment of non-infringement.

In the underlying declaratory judgment action¹, the Defendant, SSC accused the Plaintiff, Enplas, of manufacturing seven infringing lenses. In its infringement contentions, SSC accused these seven lenses by product number, and also identified "lenses having a shape similar to one or more of these lenses." Enplas moved for summary judgment as to these "other Enplas lenses" not specifically identified by product number in SSC's infringement contentions.