NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Background

Cisco asked for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request for a ruling without a trial when the moving party contends that the undisputed facts require judgment in its favor. The proposed second motion would address NetFuel’s infringement theory based on the software feature EPFT.

The court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases limited the parties to one summary-judgment motion. Cisco had earlier asked the court to modify the pretrial schedule so it could file an early motion for summary judgment on noninfringement. NetFuel had represented that it intended to amend its infringement contentions, and the court warned Cisco that it proceeded at its own risk. The court modified the schedule, and Cisco filed its first summary-judgment motion on June 21, 2019. That motion did not address EPFT.

NetFuel served amended infringement contentions adding the EPFT theory on April 19, 2019, and later moved for permission to amend its contentions. Three days after Cisco filed its first summary-judgment motion, a magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part NetFuel’s motion for leave to amend, allowing the EPFT theory. The court later denied Cisco’s first summary-judgment motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that successive summary-judgment motions are generally disfavored, although a court may allow one in appropriate circumstances, such as when new evidence or an expanded factual record becomes available. Courts may apply a good-cause standard when deciding whether to consider an additional motion.

The court rejected Cisco’s argument that it could not have included EPFT in its first motion. Cisco had known since at least February 21, 2019, that NetFuel intended to amend its infringement contentions, and Cisco learned on April 19, 2019, that NetFuel sought to add EPFT. Although the court did not approve the amendment until three days after Cisco filed its first motion, the court concluded that Cisco had accepted the risk created by the timing of its filing. Cisco did not show good cause for a second motion.

The court also concluded that allowing another summary-judgment motion would unfairly prejudice NetFuel because NetFuel represented that it had already spent considerable resources defending against the first motion.

Disposition

The court denied Cisco’s administrative motion for leave to file a second summary-judgment motion. The opinion addresses permission to file the second motion; it does not decide the merits of the EPFT infringement theory.