throbber
CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 219 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Hutchinson Technology Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Suncall Corp.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM
`
`
`ORDER ON DEFENDANT
`SUNCALL’S MOTION TO
`SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
`
`
`
`Alan G. Carlson, Erik G. Swenson, Mitchell R. Williams, and Tara C. Norgard, Carlson
`Caspers Vandenburgh Lindquist & Schuman PA, 225 S 6th Street, Suite 4200,
`Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Plaintiff
`
`Abigail Teresa Reardon, Erik R. Fuehrer, Erin Larson, Jon Ikegami, Mary Catherine
`Dahl, Michael L. Burns IV (pro hac vice), Nathan Carpenter (pro hac vice), Robert
`Buergi (pro hac vice), Sangwon Sung (pro hac vice), and Soumitra Deka (pro hac vice),
`DLA Piper LLP (US), 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, also for
`Plaintiff
`
`Faris Rashid, Jeanette M. Bazis, and Jeya Paul, Greene Espel PLLP, 222 S. Ninth Street,
`Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant and Counterclaimant
`
`Benjamin J Bradford (pro hac vice), Erica Sedler (pro hac vice), Kaiwen Luan (pro hac
`vice), Mitchell Denti (pro hac vice), Miwa Shoda (pro hac vice), Nick G Saros (pro hac
`vice), Nicole Keenan (pro hac vice), and Paaras Modi (pro hac vice), Jenner & Block
`353 N. Clark St Chicago, IL 60654-3456, also for Defendant and Counterclaimant
`
`
`
`SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
`
`This matter is before the Court on Defendant Suncall Corp.’s (“Suncall”) informal
`
`Motion to Supplement the Court’s record on the parties’ Markman claim construction
`
`briefing (See Doc. Nos. 88-90; 93-94, 133-134). Suncall seeks to supplement the record
`
`with excerpts from the deposition testimony of several of Plaintiff Hutchinson Technology
`
`1
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 219 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 5
`
`Inc.’s (“HTI”) witnesses—including named inventors on HTI’s asserted patents—and an
`
`identification of the patents for which the deposition testimony is relevant.
`
`Based on a review of the files and submissions herein, and for the reasons below,
`
`the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This case concerns patents for hard disk drive (“HDD”) suspension assemblies,
`
`manufactured by both HTI and Suncall. Both parties have alleged that the other has
`
`infringed on its patents in manufacturing HDD suspension assemblies and components sold
`
`to third parties.
`
`The Court held a Markman claim construction hearing on October 18, 2023. (Doc.
`
`No. 152.) According to Suncall, it took the at-issue depositions after this hearing. On
`
`December 13, 2023, Suncall filed this motion, and on the same day, HTI opposed it.1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Suncall argues that good cause exists for Suncall to supplement the Court’s record,
`
`as the relevant testimony was taken after the Court’s October 18, 2023 Markman hearing.
`
`Suncall argues that it could not have elicited this testimony prior to the hearing due to
`
`HTI’s alleged delay in disclosing documents relating to the patents-in-suit, as well as an
`
`ongoing dispute concerning HTI’s alleged withholding of “documents related to the
`
`
`1 Suncall did not submit a formal motion, but rather sought leave to supplement the
`record via an email to the Court and opposing counsel. As HTI had the opportunity to
`oppose Suncall’s motion in an email of its own, the Court will construe Suncall’s email as
`an informal motion, and will accordingly rule on the merits.
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 219 Filed 12/14/23 Page 3 of 5
`
`conception and reduction to practice of its asserted patents, which are typically used in the
`
`examination of a named inventor.”2
`
`HTI argues that Suncall has long since passed the April 27, 2023 deadline for the
`
`parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement, which required the parties to identify any
`
`extrinsic evidence “on which it intends to rely either in support of its proposed construction
`
`of the claim or to oppose any other party’s proposed construction of the claim.” (Pretrial
`
`Scheduling Order at 4-5.) It argues that Suncall opted not to seek inventor testimony until
`
`after the parties had completed briefing for the Markman hearing, did not take any of the
`
`at-issue depositions until after the hearing itself, and did not seek to amend the Pretrial
`
`Scheduling Order to push back the Markman hearing. Moreover, HTI argues that courts
`
`treat inventor testimony, submitted in connection with a Markman hearing, as less
`
`significant and reliable as compared with the intrinsic record.
`
`The Court may grant a motion to supplement the record at its discretion, as part of
`
`its inherent power to manage its own docket. See FRCP Rule 1; see also Cutsforth, Inc. v.
`
`LEMM Liquidating Co., LLC, No. CV 12-1200 (SRN/LIB), 2018 WL 847763, at *3 (D.
`
`Minn. Feb. 13, 2018); Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`
`Civil Action No. 07–753–RGA, 2014 WL 6871579 at *4 (D.De. Dec. 5, 2014) (citing
`
`
`2 This discovery dispute is the subject of separate motion practice. On November
`22, 2023, Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued an order [Doc. No. 170] clarifying
`his September 23, 2023 ruling from the bench granting in part and denying in part Suncall’s
`motion to compel discovery from HTI [Doc. No. 132]. On December 6, 2023, Suncall
`objected to Judge Micko’s ruling [Doc. No. 199]. Suncall’s objection is currently under
`review by this Court.
`
`3
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 219 Filed 12/14/23 Page 4 of 5
`
`Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Lifescan Inc., 452 Fed. Appx. 989, 997 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (“In patent cases, the Federal Circuit has ‘left it to the discretion of the district court
`
`whether and to what extent each party should be allowed to supplement the record with
`
`additional briefing and evidence[.]’”)
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 16.3 and this case’s current Pretrial Scheduling Order [Doc.
`
`No. 52], parties may not amend or supplement their submissions without good cause
`
`shown. “The primary measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in attempting to
`
`meet the order’s requirements.” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716 (8th
`
`Cir. 2008); see also Monec Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., Civil Action No. 11–
`
`798–LPS–SRF, 2013 WL 12218319 at *4 (D.De. Nov. 5, 2013) (denying a motion to
`
`supplement the record and holding that where the plaintiff located existing records after a
`
`Markman hearing, “the court [was] not inclined to permit post–Markman supplementation
`
`of the record to allow evidence that was previously available to counsel, but was
`
`overlooked.”)
`
`Suncall has not shown good cause to supplement the record. Suncall understood
`
`that its decision not to seek inventor deposition testimony until later this year would
`
`preclude that testimony from being submitted with the Markman briefing. Were this
`
`testimony as vital as Suncall now contends, it could have sought to modify the Pretrial
`
`Scheduling Order to change the date of the Markman hearing.
`
`Moreover, pursuant to well-established law, inventor testimony is extrinsic
`
`evidence, and is unlikely to meaningfully assist the Court with construction of the patent
`
`claims currently before it. See Unwired Planet LLC v. Google, Inc., 660 F. App’x. 974,
`
`4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 219 Filed 12/14/23 Page 5 of 5
`
`984 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the district court wrongly relied on the inventor’s testimony about
`
`his subjective understanding of the meaning of” the claim term at issue because “this
`
`testimony is irrelevant as a matter of law”); Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med.
`
`Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[I]nventor testimony as to the
`
`inventor’s subjective intent is irrelevant to the issue of claim construction.”); Oakley, Inc.
`
`v. Sunglass Hut Int’l., 316 F.3d 1331, 1342 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that an inventor’s
`
`deposition testimony that the terms “vivid” and “strong” were synonymous was “of little
`
`value in the definiteness analysis or claim construction.”). As such, even if provided to the
`
`Court, Suncall’s supplemental material is unlikely to meaningfully assist the Court in its
`
`claim construction.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
`
`HEREBY ORDERED that Suncall’s Motion to Supplement the Record is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2023
`
`
`
` /s/ Susan Richard Nelson _____.
`SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
`United States District Judge
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket