Largan Precision Co, Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC.

Background

Largan alleged that Motorola infringed several imaging-system patents. By the time of this order, two patents remained at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,310,767 and 9,784,948. Largan had served three rounds of infringement contentions but did not identify eight of its own products that it later claimed practiced the invention covered by the ’767 patent. It also did not identify Motorola’s Guam, Guam+, or Titan products as accused products in its Second Amended Infringement Contentions.

After reviewing Motorola’s expert report, Largan sought leave under Patent Local Rule 3-6 to amend its contentions. Largan argued that it had inadvertently omitted its eight products and that Motorola’s discovery responses and investigation delayed its ability to identify Guam. Motorola opposed adding the eight Largan products and Guam but did not oppose adding Guam+ and Titan.

Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions

The court explained that amendment required a timely showing of good cause, which depends primarily on diligence and whether the opposing party would suffer prejudice. The court held that Largan had not shown diligence in discovering the basis for adding its eight products. Because Largan owned and sold the products and had the relevant information before and during the litigation, the court found it not credible that the omission was merely inadvertent. The court also noted that Largan had reviewed and amended its contentions three times without identifying the products.

The court therefore denied Largan’s motion to amend as to the eight Largan products. It did not reach whether Largan acted diligently in filing the motion after discovering the omission or whether Motorola would suffer prejudice.

The court granted Largan’s motion as to Guam+ and Titan because Motorola did not dispute those additions.

As to Guam, the court found that Largan had not diligently pursued discovery. Documents identifying Guam had been produced before Largan’s February 2025 deposition of Motorola’s witness, and the parties later agreed to limited discovery concerning additional Motorola products. The court found that Largan did not meaningfully follow up about Guam during that extended discovery period. It also found no evidence that Motorola blocked discovery or prevented Largan from investigating the issue. The court therefore denied Largan’s motion to add Guam and did not reach the separate questions of later diligence or prejudice.

Expert Reports

Motorola asked the court to strike portions of Largan’s expert reports concerning the eight Largan products and Guam because those products were not included in Largan’s Second Amended Infringement Contentions. Because the court denied Largan’s motion to add those products, it granted Motorola’s request to strike those portions of the reports.

Sealing Motions

The court applied the less demanding “good cause” standard because the sealing requests concerned nondispositive discovery issues only tangentially related to the merits of the patent case.

The court granted Largan’s motion to seal at Docket No. 246. It granted in part and denied in part Largan’s motion at Docket No. 228, Largan’s motion at Docket No. 229 concerning another party’s material, and Motorola’s motion at Docket No. 236 concerning another party’s material. It denied without prejudice several requests to seal entire documents or broad excerpts because the proposed redactions were not narrowly tailored and the moving parties had not shown that less restrictive alternatives would be insufficient.

The court granted Motorola’s motion at Docket No. 242 to seal highlighted portions of the joint discovery letter concerning Largan’s expert reports. The parties were allowed seven days to file renewed sealing motions and were directed to meet and confer about what, if anything, warranted continued sealing. The order stated that it would be unsealed if the parties did not timely file renewed motions.

Disposition

The court denied Largan’s motion to amend overall, while granting it as to Guam+ and Titan and denying it as to Guam and the eight Largan products. It granted Motorola’s request to strike the specified expert-report portions. The sealing motions were granted, granted in part and denied in part, or denied without prejudice as specified above.