1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LARGAN PRECISION CO, LTD, Case No. 21-cv-09138-JSW (DMR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND TO REOPEN 10 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC., DISCOVERY; ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 292, 313, 317 12 13

14 Plaintiff Largan Precision Co., Ltd. moves to amend its infringement contentions to add 15 another product, the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025), as well as “any other new Motorola products using 16 the same main lens assembly as the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025)” (collectively, the “New Products”), 17 that allegedly infringe

(the “’767 patent”). [Docket No. 292 (Mot.).] 18 Largan further seeks to amend the scheduling order in two respects: first, to reopen fact discovery 19 for 90 days for the limited purpose of taking discovery regarding the New Products; second, to allow 20 Largan to supplement its expert reports to add opinions regarding the New Products. Defendant 21 Motorola Mobility LLC filed an opposition (Docket No. 314 (Opp’n)), and Largan filed a reply 22 (Docket No. 318 (Reply)). 23 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition 24 without oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the court denies Largan’s motion. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Prior orders set forth the factual and procedural history of this action. [Docket Nos. 267, 27 286.] The court limits its discussion to what is relevant to this motion. 1 A. Procedural Background 2 Largan initiated this action on November 1, 2021. [See Docket No. 1.] At the time, Largan 3 accused Motorola of infringing a total of 75 claims over six patents, including the ’767 patent and 4

(“the ’948 patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”).

On March 11, 5 2022, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-2, Largan served its initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 6 Infringement Contentions. [Docket No. 227 at 1; Docket No. 237 at 3; see Docket No. 34 7 (Scheduling Order).] 8 Between July 2022 and May 2023, the case was stayed pending inter partes review (“IPR”). 9 [Docket Nos. 70, 74, 82.] In moving to lift the stay, Largan proposed narrowing its infringement 10 contentions to the nine claims remaining from the Asserted Patents. [Docket No. 74 at 1.] Largan 11 served its Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on July 7, 2023. 12 [Docket No. 227 at 2; Docket No. 237 at 4.] 13 Fact discovery closed on February 20, 2025. [Docket No. 158.] However, on March 18, 14 2025, the parties stipulated to a limited extension of the fact discovery deadline, to April 16, 2025, 15 for the purpose of conducting discovery on certain “Motorola products sold in the United States that 16 incorporate one or more of the three accused lens assemblies at issue.” [Docket No. 217 at 1.] 17 Expert discovery closed on July 9, 2025. [Docket No. 239.] 18 On July 30, 2025, the parties filed two motions for summary judgment and three Daubert 19 motions. [Docket Nos. 250, 255, 256, 258, 261.] All motions have been fully briefed, and a hearing 20 is scheduled for November 21, 2025 before the presiding judge in this matter, the Honorable Jeffrey 21 S. White.1 [Docket No. 321.] 22 On August 11, 2025, the court granted Largan’s motion to amend its infringement 23 contentions to add two additional Motorola products, Guam+ and Titan, as Motorola did not oppose 24 such amendment. [Docket No. 267 at 12; Docket No. 237 at 1 n.2.] The court otherwise denied 25 Largan’s motion to add eight of its own products, as well as Motorola’s Guam product. [Docket 26

27 1 The parties agree that this motion “does not necessitate delaying the . . . Daubert and summary 1 No. 267 at 8–9, 12–16.] Largan currently accuses 29 Motorola products of infringing the Asserted 2 Patents. [Docket No. 294 at 5.] 3 B. Facts Relevant to This Motion 4 On April 17, 2025, Motorola launched the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025). [Docket No. 292-4.] 5 Largan purchased the U.S. version of the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) on July 3, 2025 and began 6 conducting precision testing of the lens assembly at Largan’s facilities in Taiwan on July 16, 2025. 7 [Docket No. 292-7 (Chen Decl.) ¶¶ 2, 4.] 8 In an August 19, 2025 email, Largan informed Motorola that “[i]t has recently come to 9 Largan’s attention that at least one new Motorola product, the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) . . . appears 10 to be using accused lens assembly Sunny 39449A or its equivalent” and that “Largan intends to seek 11 leave to amend its infringement contentions and expert reports to add this product, as well as all 12 appropriate ancillary relief.” [Docket No. 292-5 at 2–3.] 13 In response, Motorola cited its “April 4, 2025 amended interrogatory responses [which] 14 unambiguously state [that Motorola] is no longer purchasing the accused lens assemblies and ceased 15 procurement of camera modules containing the accused Sunny lens assemblies no later than May 16 2024.” [Docket No. 292-6.] Motorola further asserted that “[m]ere comparison of purported CT 17 scan images and speculation based on alleged superficial similarities does not establish that 18 Motorola is using any lens assembly subject to Largan’s infringement contentions in the Moto G 19 Stylus 5G (2025) or any other 2025 model” and that “[t]he lens in the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) is 20 not the accused Sunny 39449A assembly and is not the same as that lens assembly.”

21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “The local patent rules in the Northern District of California . . . requir[e] both the plaintiff 23 and the defendant in patent cases to provide early notice of their infringement and invalidity 24 contentions, and to proceed with diligence in amending those contentions when new information 25 comes to light in the course of discovery.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467

, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 27 Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires a patentee to “serve on all parties a ‘Disclosure of Asserted 1 things, “each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality . . . 2 of each opposing party of which the party is aware” and, “[i]f a party claiming patent infringement 3 wishes to preserve the right to rely . . . on the assertion that its own . . . apparatus, product, [or] 4 device . . . practices the claimed invention, the party shall identify, separately for each asserted 5 claim, each such apparatus, product, [or] device . . . that incorporates or reflects that particular 6 claim.” Patent L.R. 3-1(b), (g). “The purpose of the infringement and invalidity contentions 7 required under the Patent Local Rules is to require the parties to crystallize their theories of the case 8 early in the litigation in order to further the goal of full, timely discovery and provide all parties with 9 adequate notice of an information with which to litigate their claims.” Unicorn Energy AG v. Tesla 10 Inc., No. 21-cv-07476-BLF (SVK),

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2023) (cleaned 11 up). 12 A party may amend its infringement contentions “only by order of the Court upon a timely 13 showing of good cause.” Patent L.R. 3-6. The existence of good cause depends on “whether (1) 14 the moving party was diligent in amending its contentions, and (2) the non-moving party would 15 suffer prejudice if leave to amend were granted.” Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 19-CV-03161- 16 YGR,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022) (citations omitted). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 A. Motion for Leave to Amend 19 1. The Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) 20 The court denies Largan’s motion as the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) because it is a late attempt 21 to expand the litigation. This case has been pending for four years, including a 10-month stay 22 pending IPRs. [Docket Nos. 70, 74.] With a limited exception, fact discovery closed 8 months ago. 23 At the time Largan filed this motion, the parties had already submitted motions for summary 24 judgment and Daubert motions, all of which are now fully briefed and set to be heard on 25 November 21, 2025. [Docket Nos. 250, 255, 256, 258, 261, 321.] If any claims survive summary 26 judgment, the parties will soon be preparing for trial. 27 Discovery must conclude at some point. See Rembrandt Pat. Innovations LLC v. Apple Inc., 1 for the trial of the already-accused products, which trial will begin on July 11, 2016. There must be 2 some reasonable cut-off date after which Rembrandt cannot further expand the case simply because 3 Apple’s product cycle has outpaced the resolution of this case.”). At this point, Largan cannot seek 4 to amend its infringement contentions and reopen discovery every time it suspects Motorola has 5 launched a new product that infringes the Asserted Patents; otherwise, parties could conceivably 6 litigate a patent case indefinitely. See also Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 14-CV-01379- 7 PSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015), opinion clarified, No. 14-CV-01379- 8 PSG,

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) (noting that “[n]ew products are now released 9 not every few years, but every few months, weeks or even days.”). 10 Moreover, Largan already accuses 29 Motorola products of infringement. [Docket No. 294 11 at 5.] To permit Largan to increase the number of accused products and expand the scope of the 12 case at this late stage would be counterproductive in an already sprawling case. See Richtek Tech. 13 Corp. v. uPi Semiconductor Corp., No. C 09-05659 WHA,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 14 Apr. 29, 2016) (“[W]ith trial scheduled in December, it is time for the case to narrow, not expand.”); 15 CyWee Grp. Ltd v. Apple Inc., No. 14-cv-01853-HSG (HRL),

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 16 Dec. 14, 2016) (denying motion to amend infringement contentions to accuse two products released 17 after service of operative contentions; “CyWee already accuses, by this court’s count, 20 models of 18 several types of Apple products. Fact discovery closes two weeks after the date of the hearing on 19 this motion to amend, and trial is set to occur in August 2017.”); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 20 No. 11-CV-01846-LHK,

, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (denying motion to 21 amend infringement contentions because “[t]he Court has reservations about adding a new product 22 at this late date . . . . Moreover, in light of the significant discovery disputes that have already arisen, 23 the Court is concerned that adding a new device at this point will disrupt the current case schedule.”). 24 Although trial has not yet been scheduled, and Largan claims that it “is not seeking to delay 25 any future Court-ordered dates” (Mot. at 12), this does not alter the court’s analysis. Permitting 26 amendment and reopening discovery for 90 days would inevitably delay trial, particularly if the 27 parties were to seek summary judgment of infringement/noninfringement as to the Moto G Stylus 1 5G (2025).2 Where, as here, a case is late in the proceedings, the better mechanism to address newly 2 released, allegedly infringing products is through a new lawsuit. See Richtek,

, 3 at *3 (“Accordingly, Richtek may not add new products to this case, although it remains free to 4 pursue claims based on those products (and any others it uncovers in discovery) in a subsequent 5 proceeding.”); Catch a Wave Techs., Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. C 12-05791 WHA, 2014

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2014) (“Plaintiff, of course, could file a new action alleging 7 infringement of the Onyx Plus, but this action cannot include the Onyx Plus at this late date before 8 trial” where “trial is set to begin in less than four months time[.]”); Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Rose 9 Elecs., No. C06-1711RSL,

, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 2012) (“Because plaintiff 10 could file a separate action asserting the new infringement contentions, the Court has also considered 11 issues of judicial efficiency and economy under Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. This action has been pending for 12 six years, and the expansion of the case to cover more products than can possibly be tried efficiently 13 is counterproductive. Resolution of the infringement and invalidity contentions in this case may 14 serve as a template for future actions. There is, however, no need to multiply and disrupt these 15 proceedings at the very end of discovery simply to avoid the possibility of a new lawsuit.”). 16 2. “Other New Motorola Products” 17 The court also denies Largan’s motion to “any other new Motorola products using the same 18 main lens assembly.” In addition to the reasons set forth above with respect to the Moto G Stylus 19 5G (2025), Largan’s request is impermissibly vague. Largan does not identify any specific products, 20 offer any evidence that suggests there are in fact additional Motorola products that use the accused 21 lens assembly, or even include any parameters as to what constitutes a “new” product. 22 B. Sealing Motions 23 Motorola seeks to file under seal portions of its opposition and Largan’s reply, as well as 24 exhibits A and C to the Declaration of Matthew J. Meyer. The court rules as follows: 25 26 27 Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling 1 be Sealed 2 Docket No. 313-3 Defendant Motorola Yellow highlighted Granted 3 Mobility LLC’s portions at page 1, Response to Largan’s lines 7–9; page 3, 4 Motion for Leave to lines 6–9; and page 9, Amend Its lines 16–17. 5 Infringement 6 Contentions and Amend the Court’s 7 Scheduling Order to Allow Largan to Take 8 Fact Discovery and Serve Supplemental 9 Expert Reports 10 Docket No. 313-4 Exhibit A - Defendant Entirety Denied without 11 Motorola Mobility prejudice. The LLC’s Fourth proposed redactions 12 Amended Objections are not “narrowly and Responses to tailored to seal only 13 Largan Precision Co. the sealable material.” 14 LTD’s Seventh Set of Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). Interrogatories, dated Portions of 15 April 9, 2025 Exhibit A—such as the introduction, 16 general statements, and general 17 objections—do not 18 contain confidential information and are 19 clearly not subject to sealing.3 20 Docket No. 313-5 Exhibit C - excerpts Entirety Denied without 21 from the Deposition prejudice. The of Matt Biggerstaff, proposed redactions 22 dated April 10, 2025 are not “narrowly 23 tailored to seal only the sealable material.” 24 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). A review of the 25 transcript shows that 26 not every portion of it 27 1 Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed contains confidential 3 information. 4 Docket No. 317-1; Largan’s Reply in Highlighted portion Granted see Docket No. 320 Support of its Motion | on page 7:12 5 (statement of non- for Leave to: (1) 6 opposition) Amend its Infringement 7 Contentions to Include New 8 Motorola Infringing Products; and (2) 9 Amend the Court’s 10 Scheduling Order to Allow Largan to Take 11 Fact Discovery and Serve Supplemental Expert Reports

v 14 || IV. CONCLUSION O 15 For the reasons stated above, Largan’s motion to amend its infringement contentions is Q 16 || denied, and its motion to reopen discovery is denied as moot.* The motion to consider whether

17 another party’s material should be sealed (Docket No. 313) is granted in part and denied in part.

18 || The motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed (Docket No. 317) is 19 || granted. Within 7 days of this order, Motorola may file a renewed motion to file under seal that 20 || proposes narrowly tailored redactions. The court will not entertain requests for wholesale sealing. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: November 13, 2025

onna M. Ryu 24 Chief Magistrate Judge 25 26 * Largan states that, “if the Court denies Largan’s Motion, Largan still intends—and should be permitted—to introduce the New Product at trial to impeach Motorola’s fact and expert witnesses’ 07 testimony and opinions regarding infringement, willful infringement, secondary considerations of nonobviousness (i.e., copying), and the lack of any non-infringing alternatives.” Mot. at 4. The 2g || undersigned makes no ruling as to whether Largan can and/or should be permitted to introduce the Moto G Stylus 5G (2025) at trial, as the issue exceeds the scope of the discovery referral.