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

Background

The court’s Case Management Order set October 20, 2023, as the deadline for exchanging expert reports for claim construction under Patent Local Rule 4-3. The order stated that its deadlines could be changed only by written court order after a showing of very good cause, and that any motion to extend a deadline had to be filed before the deadline expired.

Largan served its report on October 20. Motorola served James Shanley’s expert report on October 24, four days late. Motorola had not moved to change the deadline. Motorola stated that the parties had previously extended an expert-report deadline without court approval and that it had apparently believed the local rule’s deadline still applied. Motorola also provided a redline showing no significant changes during the four-day delay and stated that Shanley’s report was less than 10 pages and could be covered in a deposition lasting less than two hours.

Parties’ Arguments

Largan moved to strike Shanley’s report as untimely. Largan also asked the court to adopt its proposed construction of the “convex/concave . . . surface” term because Motorola had not proposed a competing construction. Largan argued that even a minimal violation of the scheduling order warranted sanctions and contended that Motorola had used Dr. Bentley’s report to strengthen Shanley’s report.

Motorola argued that the delay was harmless and that the parties’ prior course of conduct supported its interpretation of the scheduling order.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it has discretion to impose sanctions for violations of scheduling orders. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), information that should have been disclosed under Rule 26 generally may not be used unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court described striking an expert report as an extreme remedy.

The court found the delay harmless. Motorola served the report only four days late, no major case deadlines passed during that period, the report was short, and Largan had enough time to depose Shanley before the close of claim-construction discovery. Because Largan had a sufficient opportunity to respond, it had not shown prejudice. The court also cautioned that the parties’ prior conduct did not change the court’s scheduling orders and stated that the Case Management Order controlled the expert-report deadline.

Disposition

The court DENIED Largan’s Motion to Strike. The opinion’s conclusion does not separately state a disposition for Largan’s request concerning the proposed construction of the “convex/concave . . . surface” term.