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
1

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 PropertyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Concurrent Ventures v. Advanced Micro Devices, Judge Tiga granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to amend infringement contentions for the ’767 patent.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in this patent litigation; the ruling permits the plaintiffs to amend their infringement contentions concerning the ’767 Patent.

What happened

In Concurrent Ventures, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., et al., the plaintiffs asked to amend their infringement contentions concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,529,767.

The court found good cause because the plaintiffs made the amendments at the defendants’ request, and the defendants confirmed that they did not oppose the motion.

Judge Tiga granted the motion to amend the infringement 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

The plaintiffs moved to amend their infringement contentions concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,529,767, referred to as the ’767 Patent. The motion was unopposed.

Legal standard

Patent Local Rule 3-6 permits amendment of infringement or invalidity contentions only by court order or upon a timely showing of good cause. The court described good cause as requiring consideration of whether the moving party acted diligently and whether amendment would prejudice the opposing party.

Ruling

The court found good cause. The plaintiffs amended their infringement contentions at the defendants’ request, and the defendants confirmed that they did not oppose the proposed amendments. The court therefore granted the motion to amend the infringement contentions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.