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

Background

Largan sued Motorola in 2021, alleging infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,310,767. The case was stayed for about 10 months while inter partes review proceedings were pending. Largan later narrowed its contentions, and fact discovery—with a limited extension for certain products—closed before this motion. Expert discovery also closed. The parties had already filed fully briefed motions for summary judgment and motions concerning expert testimony.

Motorola launched the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) on April 17, 2025. Largan purchased the United States version on July 3, 2025, tested its lens assembly beginning July 16, and notified Motorola in August that the phone appeared to use an accused lens assembly or an equivalent. Largan sought to add that phone and “any other new Motorola products using the same main lens assembly.” Motorola opposed the request, stating that it had stopped procuring the accused lens assemblies by May 2024 and that the new phone did not use the accused Sunny 39449A lens assembly.

Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions

Under Patent Local Rule 3-6, infringement contentions may be amended only with a court order after a timely showing of good cause. Good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence and the prejudice to the opposing party.

The court denied Largan’s request to add the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025). It characterized the request as a late attempt to expand a four-year-old case. Fact discovery had closed eight months earlier, the parties had completed briefing on summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions, and the case could soon be preparing for trial if claims survived summary judgment. The court reasoned that allowing Largan to reopen discovery for 90 days would delay the case and could lead to additional motions concerning infringement or noninfringement of the new phone. The court stated that newly released products could instead be addressed in a new lawsuit.

The court also denied the request to add other new Motorola products using the same main lens assembly. It found that request impermissibly vague because Largan did not identify specific products, provide evidence that additional products used the accused lens assembly, or define what would qualify as a “new” product.

Because the court denied the motion to amend, it denied Largan’s motion to reopen discovery as moot. The opinion did not decide whether Largan could introduce the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) at trial for impeachment or other purposes; it stated that issue was outside the scope of the discovery referral.

Sealing Motions

The court ruled on two motions concerning sealing material in Motorola’s opposition, Largan’s reply, and exhibits to a declaration. For Docket No. 313, it granted sealing for specified highlighted portions of Motorola’s opposition. It denied without prejudice the requests to seal Exhibits A and C in their entirety because the proposed redactions were not narrowly tailored; the court found that some portions did not contain confidential information.

For Docket No. 317, the court granted the request to seal the highlighted portion of Largan’s reply. The court permitted Motorola to file a renewed motion within seven days proposing narrower redactions and stated that it would not consider requests to seal documents wholesale.

Disposition

The order denied Largan’s motion to amend its infringement contentions, denied its motion to reopen discovery as moot, granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning Motorola’s material, and granted the motion concerning Largan’s material.