Geotag, Inc. v. Guess? Retail Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00469 (E.D. Tex. June 12, 2013) — Order (Dkt. 75)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

GEOTAG, INC.,

§ §

Plaintiff,

§ §

§ § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-265

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., ET AL.

§ (LEAD CASE)

YELLOWPAGES.COM, LLC, ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-272

GEORGIO ARMANI S.P.A., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-569

AROMATIQUE, INC., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-570

GUCCI AMERICA, INC., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-571

RENT-A-CENTER, INC., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-573

ROYAL PURPLE INC, ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-575

YAKIRA, LLC, ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:10-CV-587

WHERE 2 GET IT INC., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:11-CV-175

EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. § CASE NO. 2:11-CV-404

AMERCO, ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:11-CV-421

7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:11-CV-424

SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. § CASE NO. 2:11-CV-425

CANON, INC., ET AL. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-043

AMERICAN APPAREL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-436

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-437

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS INC.. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-438

ANN INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-439

BURLEIGH POINT LTD. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-441

CATALOGUE VENTURES, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-442

BURBERRY LIMITED § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-443

BURLINGTON FACTORY WAREHOUSE §

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-444

CORPORATION §

CACHE INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-445

THE WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-446

CHARMING SHOPPES INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-447

CHICO’S FAS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-448

CITI TRENDS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-449

CLAIRE’S BOUTIQUES, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-450

COLDWATER CREEK INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-451

DAVID’S BRIDAL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-452

2DELIAS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-454

DIESEL U.S.A. INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-456

DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-457

LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-458

DOTS, LLC § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-459

DRAPER’S & DAMON’S INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-460

EDDIE BAUER LLC § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-461

ESPRIT US RETAIL LIMITED § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-462

THE FINISH LINE INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-464

FOREVER 21 RETAIL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-465

FORMAL SPECIALISTS LTD. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-466

FREDRICK’S OF HOLLYWOOD STORES, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-467

GROUPE DYNAMITE, INC. D/B/A GARAGE § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-468

GUESS? RETAIL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-469

H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-470

HANESBRANDS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-471

HOT TOPIC INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-472

HUGO BOSS FASHION INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-473

J. CREW GROUP INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-474 JIMMY JAZZ INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-475

JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-476

ALCO STORES INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-477

BROWN SHOE COMPANY INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-480

COLLECTIVE BRANDS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-481

CROCS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-482

DSW INC. D/B/A DSW SHOE INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-483

GENESCO INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-486

HEELY’S INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-487

AMERICAN GREETING CORPORATION § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-520

HALLMARK CARDS, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-521

HICKORY FARMS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-522

SPENCER GIFTS LLC § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-523

INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-524

THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-525

THE YANKEE CANDLE COMPANY, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-526

BOSE CORPORATION § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-527

GUITAR CENTER INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-528

24 HOUR FITNESS WORLDWIDE INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-530

BALLY TOTAL FITNESS CORPORATION § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-531

BARE ESCENTIALS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-532

BIOSCRIP INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-533

3CRABTREE & EVELYN § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-534

CURVES INTERNATIONAL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-535

GOLD’S GYM INTERNATIONAL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-536

GREAT CLIPS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-537

L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-538 LIFE TIME FITNESS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-539

M.A.C. COSMETICS INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-540 MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-541

VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, §

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-542

INC. §

REGIS CORPORATION § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-543

SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-544

SEPHORA USA INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-545

ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-547

VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES, INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-548

EYEMART EXPRESS, LTD. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-549

LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-550

NATIONAL VISION INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-551

U.S. VISION INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-552 BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE INC. § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-555

PSP GROUP, LLC § CASE NO. 2:12-CV-556

WHERE 2 GET IT INC.

V. CASE NO. 2:12-CV-149

GEOTAG, INC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions, filed November 27, 2012.¹ The Court having considered the same finds that the4 motion should be DENIED.

I. Applicable Law

A party’s invalidity contentions are deemed to be the party’s final invalidity contentions unless amendment or supplementation is permitted by the Local Patent Rules. P.R. 3-6. In limited circumstances, amendment of invalidity contentions is permitted as of right. P.R. 3-6(a). Otherwise, amendment “may be made only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” P.R. 3-6(b). When determining whether a party has demonstrated good cause, the Court considers: (1) the explanation for the party’s failure to meet the deadline; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice from allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).

II. Discussion

Defendants served their invalidity contentions on August 17, 2012. By the present motion, Defendants seek leave pursuant to Patent Rule 3-6(b) to supplement their invalidity contentions to include 36 additional prior art references describing the following five prior art

Dkt. No. 55; Case No. 2:12-cv-460, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-461, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-462, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-464, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-465, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-466, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-467, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-468, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-469, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-470, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-471, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-472, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-473, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-474, Dkt. No. 62; Case No. 2:12-cv-475, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-476, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-477, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-480, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-481, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-482, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-483, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-486, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-487, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-520, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-521, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-522, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-523, Dkt. No. 51; Case No. 2:12-cv-524, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-525, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-526, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-527, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-528, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-530, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-531, Dkt. No. 42; Case No. 2:12-cv-532, Dkt. No. 43; Case No. 2:12-cv-533, Dkt. No. 43; Case No. 2:12-cv-534, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-535, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-536, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-537, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-538, Dkt. No. 46; Case No. 2:12-cv-539, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-540, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-541, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-542, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-543, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-544, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-545, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-547, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-548, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-549, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-550, Dkt. No. 45; Case No. 2:12-cv-551, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-552, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-555, Dkt. No. 44; Case No. 2:12-cv-556, Dkt. No. 44. For brevity, the Court cites only to the briefing filed in Case No. 2:10-cv-265.

5systems: (1) EAAsy Sabre; (2) Prodigy; (3) America On Line (“AOL”); (4) CompuServe; and (5) Delphi (collectively “the Supplemental References”). According to Defendants, their “first inkling” of the relevance of the Supplemental References came on September 5, 2012, when Defendants’ counsel received an email from co-counsel stating that “he had gone through some old boxes of books while cleaning out his garage and came across [an early AOL User Guide].” (Dkt. No. 353 at 5, Ex. 1 ¶ 4.) Defendants thereafter searched for earlier versions of the AOL User Guide, as well as additional similar references relating to online Internet service providers. On November 12, 2012, Defendants disclosed the Supplemental References to Plaintiff GeoTag, Inc. (“GeoTag”).

The Court is not persuaded that Defendants have acted diligently in discovering such Supplemental References. The Defendants should have, at the least, timely uncovered the AOL User Guide that triggered Defendants’ search into the Supplemental References because it had been in the possession of Defendants’ counsel. While Defendants argue that “it is often more difficult to identify web-based prior art” (Dkt. No. 353 at 8), the Supplemental References here are not obscure internet references but include what might well be described as the largest and most popular internet systems of the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, Defendants did not appear to encounter any difficulty in finding and attaining the references once the discovery of the AOL User Guide prompted the search. (See Dkt. No. 353 Ex. 1 ¶¶ 4-7.) Moreover, the patent-in-suit itself discloses both AOL and Compuserve, and Defendants’ original invalidity contentions cited a system that explicitly ran on Prodigy. Ultimately, Defendants’ only explanation for its untimely invalidity contentions is that counsel happened upon a reference while cleaning out his garage. Such happenstance discovery in these circumstances does not demonstrate the diligence necessary to support the late supplementation now requested. In the Court’s view, to hold6 otherwise would render “the explanation for the party’s failure to meet the deadline” a non-factor.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions should be and is hereby DENIED.

Footnotes

↩ ¹ Defendants’ have filed the motion in multiple cases as follows: Case No. 2:10-cv-265, Dkt. No. 353; Case No. 2:10-cv-272, Dkt. No. 141; Case No. 2:10-cv-569, Dkt. No. 186; Case No. 2:10-cv-570, Dkt. No. 554; Case No. 2:10-cv-571, Dkt. No. 466; Case No. 2:10-cv-573, Dkt. No. 362; Case No. 2:10-cv-575, Dkt. No. 572; Case No. 2:10-cv-587, Dkt. No. 379; Case No. 2:11-cv-175, Dkt. No. 358; Case No. 2:11-cv-404, Dkt. No. 435; Case No. 2:11-cv-421, Dkt. No. 82; Case No. 2:11-cv-424, Dkt. No. 85; Case No. 2:11-cv-425, Dkt. No. 75; Case No. 2:12-cv-43, Dkt. No. 95; Case No. 2:12-cv-149, Dkt. No. 83; Case No. 2:12-cv-436, Dkt. No. 52; Case No. 2:12-cv-437, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-438, Dkt. No. 46; Case No. 2:12-cv-439, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-441, Dkt. No. 51; Case No. 2:12-cv-442, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-443, Dkt. No. 52; Case No. 2:12-cv-444, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-445, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-446, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-447, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-448, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-449, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-450, Dkt. No. 48; Case No. 2:12-cv-451, Dkt. No. 52; Case No. 2:12-cv-452, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-454, Dkt. No. 47; Case No. 2:12-cv-456, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-457, Dkt. No. 49; Case No. 2:12-cv-458, Dkt. No. 50; Case No. 2:12-cv-459,

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.