Magistrate Judge Burke Compels More Detail in Infringement Contentions
August 18, 2016
Publication| Intellectual Property
In Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc., C.A. No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2016), Magistrate Judge Burke compelled the plaintiff, Princeton Digital Image Corp. (“Princeton Digital”), to supplement its initial infringement contentions to provide greater specificity. Judge Burke ordered Princeton Digital to serve separate infringement contentions for each of the mobile games accused of infringement and to supplement its initial infringement contentions to “more clearly set out what aspects of the accused products are said to relate to which elements of the referenced portion of the claim that is at issue” within two weeks. The Court further ordered Princeton Digital to serve supplemental objections and responses to requests for production that would clarify “whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of” Rule 34(b)(2)(C).
Key Points: Worthy of note is the “sufficient format” for infringement contentions that Judge Burke suggested. According to Judge Burke, for any particular limitation, the format of the contentions could read, e.g., that “the means for prerecording consists of [X elements of accused game].”