Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited v. Qualcomm Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a dispute regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs' amended patent infringement contentions during a case management conference. It ordered the parties to meet and confer, directed them to seek a hearing for a motion to strike if unresolved, and stayed all written discovery pending the ruling on that motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering parties to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of amended infringement contentions“By not later than September 4, 2026, the parties must meet and confer pursuant to [JUSTICE]’s Chambers Rules regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ amended infringement contentions.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the sufficiency of infringement contentions is a threshold issue that shapes discovery. Requiring a meet and confer before addressing the dispute is a standard and appropriate procedural step to encourage resolution without judicial intervention. |
Directing parties to seek a hearing for a motion to strike if meet and confer fails“If the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ amended infringement contentions, the parties must jointly contact Judge [JUSTICE]’s chambers to seek a hearing date for defendant’s forthcoming motion to strike the contentions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.” | agree with court The court properly set a procedural path for resolving the dispute. By requiring a joint request for a hearing on a motion to strike, the court ensures that the issue is formally briefed and heard, rather than being resolved informally or ignored. |
Staying written discovery and subpoenas pending ruling on motion to strike“No party shall serve written discovery or Subpoenas pending further order of the Court.” | agree with court The court reasoned that prompt resolution of the sufficiency of contentions is necessary because they 'shape the conduct of discovery.' Staying discovery until the scope of the case is defined by valid contentions is a logical and efficient use of judicial resources, preventing potentially wasted discovery efforts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural case management decision. It correctly identifies the legal significance of infringement contentions in patent litigation and uses its inherent case management powers to stay discovery until the scope of the case is clarified. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONGITUDE LICENSING LTD. AND CASE NO.: 26-CV-4220-AGS-DDL MARLIN SEMICONDUCTOR 12 LIMITED, ORDER FOLLOWING CASE 13 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 QUALCOMM INC., 16 Defendants. 17 18 At the case management conference on August 26, 2026, the Court asked 19 the parties to address whether discovery should proceed in light of the parties’ 20 apparent dispute regarding the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ infringement contentions as 21 set forth in the Joint Discovery Plan (Dkt. No. 121). Plaintiffs advised that they 22 served amended infringement contentions on August 24, and defendant 23 responded it was reviewing the amended contentions but believed them to be 24 insufficient. Resolution of the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ infringement contentions is 25 an important threshold issue because “[i]n patent cases, infringement contentions 26 shape the conduct of discovery and trial preparation.” CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Feit 27 Elec. Co., Inc., No. CV 20-4926-AB (SPX), 2021 WL 3376649, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 28 June 2, 2021). “They act as forms of pleading that disclose the parties’ theories of 1 ||their case and thereby shape discovery and the issues to be determined at 2 trial.” /d. (citation omitted). After considering the parties’ respective positions, the 3 || Court concludes that prompt resolution of any issues concerning the sufficiency of 4 || plaintiffs’ infringement contentions prior to discovery will promote the just and 5 ||speedy determination of the case. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 7 1. By not later than September 4, 2026, the parties must meet and confer 8 ||pursuant to Judge Schopler’s Chambers Rules regarding the sufficiency of 9 || plaintiffs’ amended infringement contentions. 10 2. If the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the sufficiency of 11 || plaintiffs’ amended infringement contentions, the parties must jointly contact Judge 12 || Schopler’s chambers to seek a hearing date for defendant’s forthcoming motion to 13 || strike the contentions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1. 14 3. The Court will issue a Case Management Order following a ruling on 15 ||defendant’s forthcoming motion to strike. No party shall serve written discovery or 16 || Subpoenas pending further order of the Court. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: August 31, 2026 ait 19 Tb hohe 20 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 71 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28