Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2026

Concurrent Ventures, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., et al.

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:25-cv-09567
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Counsel13 of record
PLAINTIFF
Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLPLLP5 attorneys
Adam Adler, Ariane Salone Mann, Christine E. Lehman
—
Scott L. Cole
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPLLP
Amy L. Ruhland
DEFENDANT
Christopher S. Ponder — Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP
Jeffrey Liang — Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP
Jonathan R. Defosse — Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP
Lai L. Yip — Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP
Harper S. Batts — Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP - Palo Alto
Mengmeng Du — BOE Technology Group Co., LTD.

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.

Intellectual PropertyDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Concurrent Ventures v. Advanced Micro Devices, Judge Tigar deemed the motion to strike moot, denied supplemental briefing as moot, and treated amended contentions as operative.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the patent-infringement action, particularly regarding the operative infringement contentions for the ’596 Patent.

What happened

Concurrent Ventures, LLC, and other plaintiffs brought a patent-infringement case against Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and other defendants, including claims involving the ’596 Patent. Defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ infringement contentions were too unclear and violated local rules.

After the motion to strike was fully briefed, the plaintiffs served amended infringement contentions. The plaintiffs said these added detail to their existing theories, while the defendants argued that they introduced new components and theories and would prejudice the defense.

Judge Jon S. Tigar deemed the motion to strike moot, denied the motion for supplemental briefing as moot, and treated the amended infringement contentions as operative. The defendants may file a new motion to strike addressing those contentions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Concurrent Ventures, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., et al. · No. 4:25-cv-09567
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Sept. 8, 2026

Background

This patent-infringement action involves several patents, including U.S. Patent 8,924,596, referred to as the ’596 Patent. Defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ operative infringement contentions. They argued that the contentions were prejudicial and failed to comply with the Northern District of California’s local rules because they allegedly created too many possible combinations, identified accused components with open-ended terms, failed to provide one theory connecting the components in the way claimed, and combined different products.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that they had agreed to supplement their infringement contentions before defendants filed the motion, making the dispute premature and not ready for decision.

Later Amendments and Supplemental Briefing

After the motion to strike was fully briefed, plaintiffs served amended infringement contentions titled “FINAL Amended Claim Chart for U.S. Patent 8,924,596.” Defendants then sought permission to file supplemental briefing. Defendants argued that the amended contentions would not fix the alleged defects, would add new components and theories at the end of fact discovery, and lacked the required good cause for amendment because they relied on information and documents plaintiffs had possessed for years.

Plaintiffs opposed supplemental briefing. They characterized the amended contentions as a draft that added evidence supporting existing theories, including citations to technical documents and source code. Plaintiffs said the amended contentions were not intended to be operative or binding and would not affect the motion to strike.

Ruling

Judge Jon S. Tigar deemed the motion to strike, ECF No. 216, moot. The Court also denied the motion for supplemental briefing, ECF No. 271, as moot. The Court considered the amended infringement contentions, ECF No. 270-2, operative. The order states that defendants may file a motion to strike addressing those infringement claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.