Untimely prior art references were precluded due to lack of diligence
Bridgestone Sports Co. Ltd. v. Acushnet Co., No. 05-132-JJF, Feb. 15, 2007.
Farnan, J. A motion to preclude untimely disclosed prior art references was granted.
The plaintiff alleged infringement of ten patents relating to golf ball technology. Defendant added six new prior art references four months after the deadline. Three references were mooted, and the remaining three were either patents issued to Plaintiff or a product manufactured by Plaintiff. Defendant claimed Plaintiff would therefore not be prejudiced. The parties had agreed to supplement contentions by Dec. 18, 2006, and therefore defendant argued disclosure on Dec. 14, 2006 was timely. The Court noted that extension, albeit modest, of the schedule would be required to permit discovery relating to the new references, and Defendant’s explanation for failing to disclose timely was untenable. The references were available prior to the deadline and defendant’s lack of diligence warranted preclusion.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
