ImageSails, LLC v. North Sails Group LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IMAGESAILS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH SAILS GROUP LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-07155-NW (SVK)
ORDER FINDING MOTION TO
STRIKE NOT MOOT AND STRIKING
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THE
THIRD AMENDED INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 81
Before the Court is Defendant North Sails Group LLC’s (“North Sails”) Motion to Strike
Plaintiff ImageSails, LLC’s (“ImageSails”) Infringement Contentions and Dismiss the case as a
sanction, referred to the undersigned on September 29, 2025. Dkt. 63 (“Motion to Strike”); Dkt.
67. On October 22, 2025, the Parties submitted a joint stipulation requesting that this Court accept
ImageSails’ fourth infringement claim chart (Dkt. 73-1) and the declaration of Daniel Gohstand,
ImageSails’ CEO, explaining the reason for the submission (Dkt. 73-2). Dkt. 73. The Court
granted the stipulation but directed the Parties to submit a joint statement as to whether the Motion
to Strike was moot, in whole or in part, based on the amended infringement contentions. Dkt. 79.
Having considered the Parties’ submissions, including the operative third amended infringement
contentions (Dkt. 80-1, “Third Amend. Inf. Cont.” or “Operative Contentions), the Court finds the
motion is not moot and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to Strike.
I. 	BACKGROUND AND RULING ON MOOTNESS
On October 15, 2024, ImageSails filed this action against North Sails alleging
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,618,618 (the “‘618 Patent”). Dkt. 1. The ‘618 Patent relates
to “[a] process of printing an image or images on the sails of a watercraft … without altering or
compromising the efficacy of the sails[.]” ‘618 Patent at Abstract. ImageSails filed an amended
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 11

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
complaint on December 2, 2024. Dkt. 15 (“FAC”). The Honorable Noël Wise denied North
Sails’ motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions and motion for attorneys’ fees on May 30, 2025,
(Dkt. 55), after which Defendant answered the complaint on June 13, 2025, (Dkt. 58 (“Answer”)).
A. 	Initial Infringement Contentions
Thereafter, on July 14, 2025, ImageSails served its initial infringement contentions. Dkts.
65 at 5; Dkt. 63-2 (“Initial Infringement Contentions”). The Initial Infringement Contentions
consisted of a basic claim chart, with no cover pleading, mapping screenshots from North Sails’
website onto the 13 elements of claim 1 of the ‘618 Patent. See Initial Inf. Cont. For example,
next to the claim preamble, “A method for printing high-resolution images to wind-catching
fabrics without compromising the performance of the wind-catching fabrics,” ImageSails charted
the below image:
Initial Inf. Cont. at 6.
B. 	First Amended Infringement Contentions and the Motion to Strike
North Sails sent ImageSails a letter on July 16, 2025 asserting certain deficiencies. Dkt. 63
at 6; Dkt. 63-3. ImageSails then provided a set of amended infringement contentions on August
1, 2025. Dkt. 65 at 5; Dkts. 63-4–5 (the amended claim chart and cover page, respectively)
(together, “First Amend. Inf. Cont.”). These amended contentions included a cover page, (Dkt.
63-4), certain information about the ‘618 Patent’s file history and a revised claim chart, (Dkt. 63-5
(“First Amend. Claim Chart”). The amendments to the claim chart consisted of adding over 100
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 11

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
pages of screenshots of North Sails’ sails to the mapping for the preamble element. Compare First
Amend. Claim Chart at 5-193 with Initial Inf. Cont. at 4-7. The other claim elements, which
previously stated that “Discovery will be needed to confirm that North Sails practices this
element,” remained essentially1 unchanged.
North Sails moved to strike the initial and first amended contentions on August 28, 2025,
arguing that they should be dismissed without leave to amend, that the case should thus be
dismissed and that North Sails should be awarded attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 63 at 7.
C. 	The Opposition, Second Amended Infringement Contentions and Reply
At the same time as filing its opposition, on September 11, 2025 ImageSails again served a
revised set of infringement contentions. Dkt. 65 at 5; Dkt. 65-3 (“Second Amended Infringement
Contentions”). These contentions include a similar cover page with an additional allegation of
willful infringement. Second Amend. Inf. Cont. at 3. They also include a revised claim chart,
which increases the number of screenshots of sails adds the following statement to each:
This [or these] image[(s)] indicates that a method for printing high-
resolution images to wind catching fabrics without compromising the
performance 	of 	the 	wind-catching 	fabrics 	was 	utilized. 	In 	the
alternative, an equivalent method was utilized because there are high
resolution images on a sail (which is a wind-catching fabric), and the
performance has not been compromised because there is a man sailing
on the boat.
Second Amend. Inf. Cont. at 236-484 (all mapping to the preamble element). Similar screenshots
and statements are added to the subsequent elements. Id. at 484-3522 (the “identifying,”
“selecting,” “using image editing software,” “exporting a two-dimensional copy,” “importing a
three-dimensional image file,” etc., elements).
In its reply, North Sails added a request to strike these second amended infringement
contentions both as substantively deficient and because Plaintiff failed to show good cause under
the Patent Local Rules. See Dkt. 66 at 5-6.
1 For other claim elements, ImageSails initially either charted a subset of the images included for
the preamble or explained why it could draw an inference of infringement based on the end result.
E.g., Initial Inf. Cont. at 8-9. In its First Amended Infringement Contentions, this approach was
effectively unchanged as ImageSails incorporated, “[u]pon information and belief, all screenshots
and websites as shown above” and stated that “[d]iscovery may be needed to confirm infringement
of element.” First Amend. Claim Chart at 194-195.
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 11

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
D. 	The Operative Third Amended Contentions
On October 22, 2025, the Parties submitted a stipulation requesting that this Court accept
ImageSails’ fourth infringement claim chart (Dkt. 73-1), i.e., third amended infringement
contentions, as well as the declaration of Daniel Gohstand, ImageSails’ CEO, explaining the
reason for the submission (Dkt. 73-2). Dkt. 73. The Court granted the stipulation but directed the
Parties to submit a joint statement as to whether the Motion to Strike was moot, in whole or in
part, based on the many-times-over2 amended infringement contentions. Dkt. 79.
The operative, third amended contentions have the same one-page cover pleading as the
second amended contentions but remove the thousands of pages of screenshots. Compare Second
Amend. Inf. Cont. at 236-484 (preamble) and 484-3522 (other claim elements) with Third Amend.
Inf. Cont. at 235-43 (preamble) and 244-48 (other claim elements). In their place, the third
amended contentions return to the basic screenshots for the preamble as included in the initial
infringement contentions and proffer reasons why, in ImageSails’ view, evidence is likely to show
infringement of other claim elements. Compare Initial Inf. Cont. at 4-7 with Third Amend. Cont.
at 240-43 (preamble); Compare Initial Inf. Cont. at 8-11 with Third Amend. Cont. at 240-43
(preamble) at 244-48 (other claim elements).
On November 19, 2025, the Parties submitted the statement setting forth their respective
positions as to mootness. Dkt. 81.
E. 	In Light of the Record in this Action and for Judicial Efficiency, the Court
Finds that the Motion to Strike is Not Moot
For its part, ImageSails contends that the motion is moot or, in the alternative, that it
should be treated as a motion to compel further supplementation (and requests leave to further
amend its contentions as necessary). Dkt. 81 at 2-4. Meanwhile, North Sails contends that, aside
from background facts about the non-operative contentions, the arguments remain broadly
2 The Court also admonished ImageSails that it must comply with the Patent Local Rules,
including Patent L.R. 3-6, which permit amendment of contentions “only by order of the Court
upon a timely showing of good cause.” As evident by ImageSails repeated amendment without
leave of court (see First Amend Inf. Cont., Second Amend Inf. Cont.), this admonishment is
appropriate thrice over.
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 11

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
applicable. Id. at 4-6 (arguing that Section I, “Introduction” remains thematically applicable;
Section II “Background Facts” is not strictly applicable “but the issues discussed [therein]
remain;” Section III “Argument” remains fully applicable as to subsection A, “remains in
concept” as to subsection B, and remains fully applicable as to subsections C-G because
“[n]othing has been done to correct these deficiencies.”).
The Court determines that the Motion is not moot for two reasons. First, the particular
record of amendment in this action supports this outcome. The third amended infringement
contentions—while certainly a massive change from the second amended infringement
contentions—are highly similar to ImageSails’ initial infringement contentions. Thus, the Court
agrees with North Sails that many, if not all, of the arguments made in its Motion are applicable
with equal force to the third amended infringement contentions (which the Court now refers to as
the “Operative Contentions”). Second, judicial economy supports reaching the merits of the issues
raised by North Sails; if the Court denied the motion as moot, North Sails could file substantially
the same motion (and ImageSails substantially the same opposition), and the Court would turn to
this issue down the road, leading to inefficiencies and delay for the Parties and the Court.3
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. 	Patent Local Rule 3.1 – Infringement Contentions
“This District’s Patent Local Rules aim to make the parties more efficient, to streamline
the litigation process, and to articulate with specificity the claims and theory of a plaintiff’s
infringement claims.” Unicorn Energy AG v. Tesla Inc., No. 21-cv-07476-BLF (SVK), 2023 WL
4670294, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2023) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Under Patent
Local Rule 3-1, the party alleging patent infringement must serve infringement contentions.
Patent L.R. 3-1. Among other things, the contentions must identify each claim of a patent that is
allegedly infringed and, for each asserted claim, “each accused apparatus, product, device,
3 This outcome is also implicitly recognized by ImageSails’ request, in the alternative, that the
Court treat the motion to strike as a motion to compel amendment. See Dkt. 81 at 4. Such
motions are two sides of the same coin and, “[w]here appropriate, the Court will treat a motion to
strike as a motion to compel amendment.” Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-
HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (collecting cases).
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 11

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
process, method, act, or other instrumentality (‘Accused Instrumentality’) of each opposing party
of which the party is aware.” Patent L.R. 3-1(a), (b). “This identification shall be as specific as
possible” and must include “[a] chart identifying specifically where and how each limitation of
each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” Patent L.R. 3-1(c).
Infringement contentions “must be sufficient to provide reasonable notice to the defendant
why the plaintiff believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement and to raise a
reasonable inference that all accused products infringe.” SAGE Electrochromics Inc v. View Inc,
No. 12-cv-06441-JST (DMR), 2013 WL 4777164, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013) (citing, inter
alia, Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
and Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 275 F.3d 1066, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The Rules
do “not require the disclosure of specific evidence or require a plaintiff to prove its infringement
case but[,] to the extent appropriate information is reasonably available to it, a patentee must
nevertheless disclose the elements in each accused instrumentality that it contends practices each
and every limitation of each asserted claim.” Unicorn Energy, 2023 WL 4670294, at *2 (cleaned
up) (citing SAGE Electrochromics, 2013 WL 4777164, at *2)).
B. 	Patent Local Rule 3.6 – Amendment of Contentions
“Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the Invalidity Contentions may be made
only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” Patent L.R. 3-6. In the context
of a motion to strike, “[w]here appropriate, the Court will treat a motion to strike as a motion to
compel amendment.” Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL
1517920, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (collecting cases). In such cases, “[s]triking a patentee’s
infringement contentions is a severe sanction that should be used sparingly and only for good
cause.” Id. For example, courts in this District have explained that patentees may be denied leave
to amend where they “fail[] to respond to an argument therefore concede[] it through silence” or
“steadfastly maintain[] that [they] should not be required to incur the time and expense required to
cure the deficiencies.” Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. v. HP, Inc., No. 24-cv-04097-
NW (SVK), Dkt. 160 at 19-20 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (cleaned up) (citing, respectively, Blue
Spike, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 14-cv-01647-YGR (JSC), 2015 WL 335842, at *6 (N.D. Cal.
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 11

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Jan. 26, 2015); Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 10-cv-02475-MMC (JSC), 2011
WL 3878388, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011)).
III. 	DISCUSSION
North Sails’ Motion to Strike asks the Court to strike the Operative Contentions, dismiss
the complaint with prejudice and award attorneys’ fees under 25 U.S.C. § 285. See Dkts. 63, 81.
The Court first addresses the merits (i.e., whether the Operative Contentions are deficient) and
then determines whether North Sails’ proposed remedies are appropriate.
A. 	ImageSails’ Operative Contentions Are Deficient in Several Respects
North Sails’ challenges to ImageSails’ infringement contentions fall into several
categories. First, North Sails argues that ImageSails’ contentions are deficient as to the preamble
element, because charting “[numerous] pages of screenshots with no analysis is clearly insufficient
under” the Patent Local Rules. E.g., Dkt. 63 at 12. Second, North Sails argues that the other
claim elements are insufficiently charted because assertions of infringement “[u]pon information
and belief” with statements that “discovery [is or may be] needed” are insufficient. Id. at 11-12.
Third, North Sails argues that ImageSails cannot assert that claim elements are infringed under the
doctrine of equivalents using mere boilerplate placeholders. Id. at 14. Fourth, North Sails argues
that ImageSails’ assertion of willful infringement is insufficient. Id. Fifth and finally, North Sails
notes in its mootness statement that portions of the Operative Contentions are directed to Quantum
Sails, a sister company of North Sails (“the same holding company ultimately owns both
companies”) but who is not a party to this case and over whom Defendant “has no control or
influence.” Dkt. 81 at 5. The Court addresses each issue in turn.
1. 	ImageSails Operative Contentions are Deficient as to the Preamble
As to the preamble element, the Court finds the Operative Contentions are deficient.
Under the Patent Local Rules, infringement contentions may not consist solely of screenshots
without any analysis as the Operative Contentions do. See Third. Amend. Inf. Cont. at 240-43.
Infringement contentions “must be sufficient to provide reasonable notice to the defendant why
the plaintiff believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement and to raise a reasonable
inference that all accused products infringe.” SAGE Electrochromics Inc, 2013 WL 4777164, at
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 11

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
*1 (citing, inter alia, Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1025
(N.D. Cal. 2010) and Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 275 F.3d 1066, 1075 (Fed. Cir.
2002)). ImageSails must include sufficient analysis to explain how the screenshots support its
assertion that “[a] method for printing high resolution images to wind catching fabrics without
compromising the performance of the wind-catching fabrics” was used. ‘618 Patent, Claim 1.4
2. 	ImageSails Operative Contentions are Deficient as to Several of the
Claim Elements
As to the other elements, the Court agrees with North Sails in part.
With regard to claim element 1[a],5 ImageSails’ contentions include a screenshot of North
Sails’ “request for quote” page and a comment explaining that “initially for [a] quote request of
sails art, the size and dimensions related to [the] boat and rig are required” such that ImageSails
infers that the printing process requires identifying the size and shape of fabric. Third Amend. Inf.
Cont. at 244. To be sure, ImageSails also states that “[d]iscovery will be needed to confirm these
inferences,” but that is permitted within the Patent Local Rules. The Rules do “not require the
disclosure of specific evidence or require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case but[,] to the
extent appropriate information is reasonably available to it, a patentee must nevertheless disclose
the elements in each accused instrumentality that it contends practices each and every limitation of
each asserted claim.” Unicorn Energy, 2023 WL 4670294, at *2 (cleaned up) (citing SAGE
Electrochromics, 2013 WL 4777164, at *2)). The Rules thus leave ample space for discovery to
confirm inferences that the patentee might reasonably draw from certain facts.
For similar reasons, the Court finds that claim elements 1[b] 1[d], 1[i], 1[l] and 1[m] are
sufficiently charted at this juncture, while the Operative Contentions are deficient with respect to
claim elements 1[e]–1[h] and 1[j]–[k]. See Third Amend. Inf. Cont. at 244-48. Specifically, claim
4 For example, ImageSails’ Second Amended Infringement Contentions contained at least some
explanation (that “the performance has not been compromised because there is a man sailing on
the boat.”). E.g., Second Amend. Inf. Cont. at 241. This is not to suggest that ImageSails needs
to return to the 3,000-page chart of its Second Contentions; rather, to the extent that its analysis or
explanation applies to any screenshots equally, it may include such analysis either before or after
all of the screenshots to which the analysis applies.
5 For simplicity, the Court will refer to the 13 claim steps as claim elements 1[a] – 1[m].
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 11

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
elements 1[e]–1[h] and 1[j]–[k] are insufficiently charted because they include no explanation of a
factual basis upon which ImageSails draws its inferences of infringing activity or why ImageSails
believes that discovery is likely to confirm such inferences. See id. In other words, even in the
absence of discovery, North Sails is entitled to know the facts upon which ImageSails asserts
infringement and, importantly, how those facts demonstrate infringement. See, e.g., SAGE
Electrochromics Inc, 2013 WL 4777164, at *1 (infringement contentions must set forth “why the
plaintiff believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement.” (Emphasis added)).
3. 	ImageSails’ Does Not Disclose any Doctrine of Equivalents Theory
Next, the Court finds the Operative Contentions do not assert any theories of infringement
under the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”). Specifically, while prior infringement contentions
included occasional invocations of the doctrine, (e.g., Second Amend. Inf. Cont. at 236-484),
ImageSails has removed all such references in its Operative Contentions, (see Third Amend. Inf.
Cont. at 241-48).
4. 	ImageSails’ Willfulness Disclosure is Insufficient
Finally, ImageSails’ assertion of willful infringement consists of the assertion that
“Defendant’s infringement was willful because Defendant was aware of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
invention … and so likely was aware of the patent as well.” Third Amend. Inf. Cont. at 2. As
support, ImageSails relies on the declaration of Mr. Gohstand and his recollection of a February
16, 2015 conversation with John Gladstone, “who was head of graphics for North Sails” at the
time, at the “Sail Strictly Miami” event as well as ImageSails’ general efforts to approach large
sailmakers with “with royalty and/or licensing proposals.” Id. (citing Dkt. 1-2).
Under the Patent Local Rules, a “bare recitation of the required elements for willful
infringement is insufficient as is a mere allegation of actual knowledge, without more.” Blue
Spike, 2015 WL 335842, at *8 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rather, “[i]n this
District, willful infringement requires a patentee to make out the barest factual assertion of
knowledge of an issued patent[.]” Id. At a minimum, there must be a factual assertion of pre-suit
knowledge of the asserted patent itself – not merely of the invention. See id. Here, even assuming
that the conversation testified to by Mr. Gohstand tends to show North Sails’ knowledge of
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 9 of 11

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ImageSails’ sailmaking method, there is no suggestion that John Gladstone or anyone else at
North Sails had knowledge that Mr. Gohstand had patented the method. See Dkt. 1-2, ¶¶ 8-9.
Thus, the declaration of Mr. Gohstand and ImageSails’ willfulness contention are insufficient.
5. 	ImageSails’ Contentions Directed to Quantum Sails Are Irrelevant
Finally, the Court agrees with North Sails that, to the extent any of the infringement
contentions are directed to Quantum Sails rather than North Sails, without any explanation as to
the relevance of Quantum Sails to this action, such contentions are irrelevant.
B. 	Based Upon the Deficiencies Identified in Section III.A., the Court Will Strike
the Contentions with Leave to Amend in Part as Set Forth Herein
As to the remedy sought by North Sails, at this early stage of the case, striking contentions
with prejudice is inappropriate. “Striking a patentee’s infringement contentions is a severe
sanction that should be used sparingly and only for good cause.” Finjan, 2015 WL 1517920, at
*12. In the context of amending infringement contentions, “[t]he good cause inquiry is two-fold:
(1) whether the moving party was diligent in amending its contentions; and (2) whether the non-
moving party would suffer prejudice if the motion to amend were granted.” Synchronoss Techs.,
Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-CV-00119-HSG, 2018 WL 5619743, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018)
(citation omitted).
Here, this is the first motion to strike or to compel amendments, and the case is in a
relatively early stage such that prejudice is limited; in such cases, absent “‘egregious conduct’ [or]
‘bad faith,’” “[c]ourts in this District generally allow plaintiffs leave to amend.” See id. Contrary
to the arguments put forth by North Sails, the Court does not find ImageSails’ conduct to have
been in bad faith. Rather, the history as set forth shows a series of good faith, if misguided and
flawed, attempts at amendment by ImageSails. See, supra, §§ I.A-D.
However, ImageSails’ conduct raises serious concerns as to its diligence: Part of the
diligence inquiry is whether a patentee has been “diligen[t] in discovering the basis for
amendment.” See, e.g., Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, No. 20-CV-09341-EJD (NC),
2023 WL 12088683, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2023). While ImageSails was “diligent” in serving
amended contentions, the record raises substantial doubt that ImageSails was diligent in reviewing
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 10 of 11

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
the Patent Local Rules, understanding their import and seeking to serve conforming contentions
that would place North Sails on notice of its theories of infringement.
In consideration of all of the foregoing, the Court will provide ImageSails one more
opportunity to amend its contentions in accordance with the Court’s guidance. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS as follows.
ImageSails’ Operative Contentions are hereby STRICKEN for failure to comply with the
Patent Local Rules. While ImageSails’ contentions as to claim elements 1[b] 1[d], 1[i], 1[l] and
1[m] are sufficient, its remaining contentions are not.
ImageSails is granted leave to amend with regard to its chart for the preamble element of
claim 1, as well as claim elements 1[e]–1[h] and 1[j]–[k].
ImageSails is denied leave to amend with regard to its assertion of doctrine of
equivalents, willfulness and its contentions that appear to be directed to Quantum Sails. However,
ImageSails may move for leave to amend as to these contentions in the future, pursuant to Patent
L.R. 3-6, if supported by the requisite good cause. Importantly, ImageSails must take care to
comply with its duties under the Patent Local Rules, including timely supplementation of its
contentions as evidence in discovery becomes available.
Finally, because the Court has granted ImageSails leave to amend, it DENIES North Sails’
request for dismissal of this case and DENIES its request for attorneys’ fees.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, North Sails’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. ImageSails shall serve its fourth amended infringement contentions
addressing the deficiencies identified herein no later than January 30, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:24-cv-07155-NW Document 91 Filed 01/09/26 Page 11 of 11