Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dane Technologies, Inc. v. Gatekeeper Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

March 2, 2015

Dane Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Gatekeeper Systems, Inc., Defendant.

Paul J. Robbennolt, Esq., Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.

Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen, Esq., Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA; David R. Fairbairn, Esq., Kinney & Lange, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff Dane Technologies, Inc.'s ("Dane") Objection [Docket No. 279] to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes' January 20, 2015 Order [Docket No. 274]. Judge Keyes' Order granted in part and denied in part Dane's Motion to Strike Defendant's Supplemental Prior Art Statements and Expert Opinions [Docket No. 246] and granted in part and denied in part Gatekeeper Systems, Inc.'s ("Gatekeeper") Motion to Strike Previously Undisclosed Portions of Dane's Expert Report on Infringement and Quash Dane's Subpoena of a Non-testifying Expert [Docket No. 252]. For the reasons stated below, Dane's Objections are overruled and the Order is affirmed.

II. BACKGROUND

Dane owns by assignment the three patents at issue in this case. In basic terms, the Patents cover "shopping cart retrievers with motor controllers that have features designed to protect the motor." Compl. [Docket No. 1] ΒΆ 11.

The Amended Scheduling Order [Docket No. 30] required Gatekeeper to provide "a list of all of the prior art on which it relies, and a complete and detailed explanation of what it alleges the prior art shows and how that prior art invalidates the claim(s) asserted by [Dane]." Am. Scheduling Order 5. The Amended Scheduling Order further states "If [Gatekeeper] alleges that a combination of prior art terms render a claim obvious, [Gatekeeper] shall identify each combination of prior art and the motivation to combine the items." Id . Gatekeeper complied with the Amended Scheduling Order's deadline and served its Prior Art Statements on August 9, 2013. See Robbennholt Decl. [Docket No. 250] Attach. 1.

Gatekeeper's Prior Art Statement for U.S. Patent No. 6, 220, 379 ("Prior Art Statement") spans 81 pages and provides detailed references to support its basis for asserting invalidity. See id. Attach. 2. The Prior Art Statement also includes 18 examples of prior art combinations that Gatekeeper alleges invalidates portions of the 379 Patent.

On November 18, 2014, Gatekeeper served its Expert Report on validity ("Expert Report"). See Robbennolt Decl. Attach. 10 (excerpted copy of Gatekeeper's Initial Expert Report). According to Dane, Gatekeeper's Expert Report does not include any of the 18 combinations previously disclosed in its Prior Art Statement; instead, the Expert Report cites 14 new combinations of prior art.

Dane moved the Magistrate Judge to strike the 14 previously undisclosed prior art combinations [Docket No. 246]. Dane argued that the 14 combinations relied on by Gatekeeper's expert were not disclosed in the Prior Art Statement. Thus, Dane argues, the undisclosed combinations of prior art are in contravention of the Amended Scheduling Order's deadline and are prejudicial to Dane by forcing them to contemplate a significant number of prior art combinations that were not identified in Gatekeeper's Prior Art Statement. Judge Keyes disagreed, and denied this portion of Dane's motion. Dane now objects.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive issue is extremely deferential. See Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). The district court must affirm a decision by a magistrate judge on a nondispositive issue unless the decision is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A decision is "clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Chakales v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996). "A decision is contrary to the law' when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.