Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. Hunter's Manufacturing Company, Inc.
5:23-cv-00598
N.D. OhioJul 1, 2024Background
- Ravin Crossbows, LLC sued Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc., d/b/a TenPoint Crossbow Technologies, over patent claims, initially filed in the District of Nevada and later transferred to the Northern District of Ohio.
- Early disagreements arose between the parties regarding scheduling and disclosure requirements; specifically, whether initial contentions could be amended.
- Ravin served its infringement contentions in May 2022; TenPoint responded with invalidity contentions challenging only 6 of 103 claims, primarily based on a single prior art patent.
- Fifteen months after the initial exchange, and during claim construction, TenPoint served supplemental contentions adding 33 new invalidity theories and allegations of inequitable conduct, which Ravin moved to strike.
- The court granted Ravin’s motion to strike most of TenPoint’s supplemental contentions, finding them untimely and improper under the applicable rules, and TenPoint sought reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 26(e) timeliness applies to patent contentions | Rule 26(e) timely supplementation required | Timeliness not required by local rule 3.10 | Timeliness under Rule 26(e) does apply |
| Whether TenPoint's supplemental contentions were timely | TenPoint delayed despite knowing prior art | Diligence shown over 15 months; workload excuse | Supplemental contentions were untimely |
| Whether untimely submission was justified or harmless | Delayed disclosures prejudiced Ravin | No harm; supplemental evidence important | Not substantially justified or harmless |
| Whether court's prior reasoning involved the wrong standard | Rule 26(e) is distinct from "good cause" | Court impliedly required "good cause" diligence | Court correctly used timeliness, not "good cause" |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 931 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1991) (explains treatment of Rule 59(e) motions for reconsideration)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (1989) (purpose of motion to alter or amend judgment)
- White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (describes scope of reconsideration motions)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) ("good cause" standard for scheduling order amendments)
- Abrahamsen v. Trans-State Exp., Inc., 92 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 1996) (discourages gamesmanship in litigation)
- Bunn v. Navistar, Inc., 797 F. App’x 247 (6th Cir. 2020) (Rule 59(e) standards for altering judgments)
- Howe v. City of Akron, 810 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015) (factors to consider under Rule 37 for late disclosures)