ATX Networks (Toronto) Corp. v. Technetix, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS
ATX NETWORKS (TORONTO) CORP.
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNETIX, INC.
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Supplement 	its 	Infringement 	Contentions 	[#47] 	(the 	“Motion”). 	Plaintiff 	filed 	a
Response [#49] in opposition to the Motion [#47], and no reply briefs were permitted. On
January 27, 2025, the Court held a discovery dispute hearing at which Defendant
presented a slide deck of demonstratives. The Motion [#47] has been referred to the
undersigned, see [#48]. The Court has reviewed the briefing, the parties’ pre-discovery
dispute hearing emails and submissions, the January 27, 2025 hearing transcript [#60]1,
the entire case file, and the applicable law. For the following reasons, the Motion [#47] is
GRANTED.
1 Two versions of the January 27, 2025 hearing transcript have been filed on the docket, one by
Patterson Transcription Company and one by AB Litigation Services, and both under restriction.
See Patterson Hearing Tr. [#59]; AB Hearing Tr. [#60]. For consistency, in this Order, the Court
will cite to the AB Hearing Transcript [#60].
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 15

2
I. Background
In this matter, Plaintiff sues Defendant for allegedly infringing its patent for a
“Chockless Power Coupler”, as described in U.S. Patent No. 8,149,070 (the ‘070 Patent).
See Am. Compl. [#20] at 2, ¶ 8. The patent relates to “a multi tap device used in cable
television systems to deliver audio, video, and data through a coaxial cable network to
and from cable television subscribers.” Id. at 3, ¶ 11. It does so “via multi tap boxes
connected along a main coaxial line that redirect and route a small portion of the radio
frequency signal—i.e., ‘tap’—to a cable television subscriber, while simultaneously
allowing most of the radio frequency signal to continue along the main coaxial line to other
multi tap boxes and subscribers.” Id., ¶ 12. However, use of more multi-tap boxes along
a main line causes increased loss of signal, degrading the service quality of the signal
delivered to subscribers. Id., ¶ 13. As Plaintiff’s counsel explained at the hearing, “what
these devices generally do is . . . send a signal to your home in a way that doesn’t flatten
or reduce the signal so that we can have signal down the way.” See AB Hearing Tr. [#60]
at 5:23-6:1. Plaintiff contends that the OTTZ 1.8 GHz outdoor multitap product (the
“Accused Product”), which Defendant allegedly makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or
imports, infringes the ‘070 patent. Am. Compl. [#20] at 3, ¶ 15. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports other multitap products such
as the XFO Faceplate-Only 1.8 GHz Upgrade Motorola Multitap product. Id. at 4, ¶ 18.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 of the ‘070 Patent cover a BALUN (as Defendant puts it, “a
conventional adapter for converting signals that are ‘balanced’ to signals that are
‘unbalanced’”)2 and the “method for tapping part of an RF signal from a combined RF and
2 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has defined the term “balun”
similarly: “A passive device having distributed electrical constants to couple a balanced system
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 15

3
AC signal” using a BALUN. See ‘070 Patent [#20-1] at 26-28; Motion [#47] at 23. As
relevant here, the three claims recite two signals—a “first signal” with a frequency range
of “up to 15 A and 50 to 60 Hz AC signal” and a “second signal” with a frequency range
of “at least 5 MHz to 3000 MHz RF”—and define the length of the BALUN relative to the
wavelength of those signals: “wherein the length of said BALUN is about ½ wavelength
of the highest frequency of the frequency range of said second signal[.]” ‘070 Patent at
26-27 (Claim 1), 27 (Claim 13), 28 (Claim 21).
On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff disclosed infringement contentions. See Motion
[#47] at 2; Infringement Contentions [#47-1]. Relative to these three claims, Plaintiff
asserts that “upon information and belief” the Accused Product “includes a BALUN with
a length that is about ½ wavelength of the highest frequency of the frequency range of
said second signal” and provides a general equation for calculating wavelength before
asserting that “the balun is a ferrite material, which will impact the values in this equation.”
Infringement Contentions [#47-1] at 10; see also id. at 24, 47. However, the Infringement
Contentions [#47-1] do not specifically describe the length of the BALUN in the accused
device. Instead, they say that “upon information and belief, [the length] may be [or “is”]
between approximately 0.5 cm to 2.0 cm.” Id. at 12, 26, 48. Plaintiff does not explain how
the ferrite material affects the wavelength calculation. Cf. AB Hearing Tr. [#60] at 25:18-
or device to an unbalanced system or device. Note: the term is derived from balance to unbalance
transformer.” United States v. RMS Elecs., Inc., 624 F.2d 1081, n.1 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (quoting
IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical & Electronics Terms (2d ed.)).
3 Page number citations refer to the numbering used by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing system
and not to the document’s original numbering.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 15

4
21 (arguing that the relevant infringement contention “doesn’t state . . . what’s the length
of a particular structure, and why does that length meet the claim”).
On December 10, 2024, in an email to the undersigned’s Chambers, Defendant
counsel raised a discovery dispute over the sufficiency of these infringement contentions.
See Minute Order [#43] at 1. The Court set a discovery hearing and a briefing schedule
in advance of the hearing. Id. In its opening brief, which was docketed as the current
Motion [#47], Defendant argued that the Court should compel Plaintiff to supplement
these infringement contentions because they are not specific and do not identify the
structures alleged to infringe or otherwise articulate any basis for the alleged infringement.
See Motion [#47] at 3-5. The Court heard oral argument from both sides at the January
27, 2025 hearing. See AB Hearing Tr. [#60] at 22:9-56:18.
II. Legal Standard
Under D.C.COLO.LPtR 4(a),4 a party claiming patent infringement “shall serve
Infringement Contentions identifying with specificity each accused product or process (the
‘Accused Instrumentality’).” The party must also serve a claim chart for each Accused
Instrumentality, which “shall be specific and shall contain . . . [i]dentification of the specific
location 	of 	each 	limitation 	of 	the 	claim 	within 	the 	Accused 	Instrumentality[.]”
D.C.COLO.LPtR 4(b)(2).
While “the Local Patent Rules governing patent contentions operate somewhat like
initial disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the two sets of
rules serve distinct purposes.” Well Master Corp. v. Flowco Prod. Sols., LLC, No. 21-cv-
4 Because few written decisions regarding the requirements of D.C.COLO.LPtR 4 exist, the Court
accepts the parties’ invitation to consider case law from other jurisdictions with similar rules. See
Motion [#47] at 3-4; Response [#49] at 3.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 15

5
02145-CMA-KAS, 2024 WL 1281450, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 26, 2024). Both sets of rules
are intended to “equip a litigant with the information it needs to develop and support its
claim(s),” but the Local Patent Rules go further: they “also force the parties to ‘pin down’
their litigation theories, thereby ‘confining discovery and trial preparation to information
that is pertinent to th[ose] theories of the case.’” Id. (quoting O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v.
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (emphasis and
modifications in Well Master).
Preliminary contentions “supplement the notice pleading required of the complaint
to focus the issues for discovery and trial.” Golden v. United States, 156 Fed. Cl. 623,
627 (Fed. Cl. 2021) (citing Iris Corp. Berhad v. United States, No. 15-175C, 2019 WL
2317143, at *2 (Fed. Cl. May 8, 2019)). Thus, unlike with a complaint, “[a] plaintiff cannot
satisfy its [claim chart] obligations with ‘nothing more than a conclusion based “on
information and belief” that something exists or occurs.’” Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., 114 F. Supp. 3d 842, 845 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “References to
components merely ‘capable of operating in a manner that infringes’ do not suffice to
identify which component meets the claim limitation and functions as claimed.” Power
Density Sols, LLC v. U.S., No. 21-911C, 2023 WL 2624386, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 24, 2023)
(citing Golden, 156 Fed Cl. at 623). Preliminary infringement contentions “serve, and must
be specific enough, to put the opposing party and the court on notice of [the] plaintiff’s
position as to ‘where each element of each infringed claim is found within the accused
device.’” Golden, 156 Fed. Cl. at 627 (quoting Iris Corp. Berhad v. United States, 84 Fed.
Cl. 12, 16 (2008)).
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 15

6
III. Analysis
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions [#47-1] are deficient in
two key respects: (1) the contentions for Claims 1, 13, and 21 are not specific and do not
identify the structures alleged to infringe; and (2) the contentions for other claims, such
as claims 3 and 14, do not articulate the basis for the alleged infringement. Motion [#47]
at 4-6; see also AB Hearing Tr. [#60] at 23:19-23 (arguing that “there’s an issue with
respect to certain claims where the physical structure has been identified as infringing,
but there’s not an explanation of how that physical structure allegedly matches up to the
claim language”), 29:13-30:11 (regarding Plaintiff’s purported failure to explain why and
how the Accused Product infringes Claim 3), 31:13-33:4 (regarding Plaintiff’s purported
failure “to say why [the Accused Product] infringes” Claim 14). Defendant cites two district
court cases, Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D.
Cal. 2010) and ZitoVault, LLC v. IBM Corp., No. 3:16-cv-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971179 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 29, 2018), for the proposition that infringement contentions must explain the
basis for Plaintiff’s allegation of infringement. Motion [#47] at 3-4.
Plaintiff argues that it has met its obligations under Local Patent Rule 4(b) by
identifying the structure alleged to infringe the ‘070 Patent, i.e., the BALUN and the ferrite
element. See Response [#49] at 2-4. It argues that its infringement contentions need not
explain how the specific claim limitation is met because that is an issue for expert
discovery. Id. at 2 (citing Linex Techs., Inc. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 703, 713
(E.D. Tex. 2008)).
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 15

7
A. 	Claims 1[f], 13[g], and 21[f]
Plaintiff’s infringement contentions discuss the BALUN first by reciting the relevant
claim language. The Court will cite Claim 1[f] here, but the instrumentalities accused of
infringing Claims 13[g] and 21[f] are identical. Compare Infringement Contentions [#47-1]
at 10-12 (Claim 1[f]) with id. at 24-26 (Claim 13[g]), 47-49 (Claim 21[f]). All three claims
refer to “wherein the length of said BALUN is about ½ wavelength of the highest frequency
of the frequency range of said second signal and wherein said first signal is an up to 15A
and 50 to 60 Hz AC signal and said frequency range of said second signal is at least 5
MHz to 3000 MHz RF.” Id. at 10, 24 (same but omitting the numerical details of the two
signals), 47 (same as 24). As for the Accused Instrumentalities, Plaintiff asserts as
follows:
Upon information and belief, including without limitation, the Accused
Instrumentality includes a BALUN with a length that is about ½ wavelength
of the highest frequency of the frequency range of said second signal and
wherein said first signal is an up to 15A and 50 to 60 Hz AC signal and said
frequency range of said second signal of the Accused Instrumentality (i.e.,
5 MHz to 1,800 MHz) is within the at least 5 MHz to 3000 MHz RF frequency
range. Additionally, the general formula for wavelength in a non-free space
medium 	is 	𝜆𝜆 = c
�𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑓𝑓, 	c=speed 	of 	light, 	f 	= 	Frequency, 	e r = 	relative
permittivity, 	u r 	= 	relative 	permeability 	(see 	e.g.,
https://sibersci.com/wavelength-calculator/). 	In 	free 	space, 	�𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟 	= 	1;
however, upon information and belief, the balun is a ferrite material, which
will impact the values in this equation. Technetix has acknowledged this fact
for the Accused Instrumentality in stating that the “relative permeability is
not the same for all frequencies, as it can be much higher at low frequencies
and much lower at high frequencies,” thereby supporting the belief that the
elements herein are satisfied. Additionally, upon information and belief, the
electrical length of the BALUN depicted below is about 1/2 wavelength in
accordance with causing the reflected part of said second signal to be at
substantially 180 degrees phase shift with respect to said first signal.
[Technetix Traditional Outdoor Multitaps 8-way 1.8 GHz chart]
[Image of cylindrical ferrite element]
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 15

8
Technetix confirmed in a March 27, 2024 communication that the relative
permeability of the cylindrical ferrite element in the Accused Instrumentality
can be “much higher [than 4000] at low frequencies” and “much lower [than
4000] at higher frequencies.” Therefore, the cylindrical ferrite element of the
Accused Instrumentality (depicted above) has magnetic properties that can
vary significantly with frequency. As such, upon information and belief, the
cylindrical ferrite element of the Accused Instrumentality (depicted above)
has magnetic properties resulting in a length of the BALUN (also depicted
above) being 	about 	1/2 	wavelength 	of 	the 	highest 	frequency 	of 	the
frequency range of said second signal, which upon information and belief,
may be between approximately 0.5 cm to 2.0 cm. Accordingly, upon
information and belief in combination with Technetix’s acknowledgement
that the relative permeability of the cylindrical ferrite element depicted above
varies and can be much lower at higher frequencies, such as 1.8 GHz, the
Accused Instrumentality includes the feature whereby the electrical length
of the BALUN is about 1/2 wavelength at the highest frequency.
This claim element is believed to be literally present in the Accused
Instrumentality. To the extent that this element is found not to be literally
present in the Accused Instrumentality, ATX asserts that this claim is
satisfied by the Accused Instrumentality under the doctrine of equivalents
for those elements for with equivalents is permitted.
Id. at 10-12, 24-26 (Claim 13[g]), 47-49 (Claim 21[f]).
While the infringement contentions include a photograph of a cylindrical ferrite
element, they do not point to any specific components or explain why their length meets
the claim. Id. at 11; cf. Motion [#47] at 4 (arguing that the contentions “do not identify a
component that allegedly meets the recited length or, more importantly, explain why the
length of any component meets the claim”). The contentions render unclear which
element is alleged to be “between approximately 0.5 cm to 2.0 cm” and even the assertion
that the cylindrical ferrite element’s magnetic properties “can vary significantly with
frequency” is vague because it does not explain the basis for believing that those
variations potentially fall within the claim. Infringement Contentions [#47-1] at 10-12; see
also Power Density Sols, LLC, 2023 WL 2624386, at *7 (“References to components
merely ‘capable of operating in a manner that infringes’ do not suffice to identify which
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 15

9
component meets the claim limitation and functions as claimed.”). Finally, many of
Plaintiff’s contentions are made “upon information and belief,” which may be permissible
in the pleading stage but is insufficient at the contentions stage. Cf. Tech. Props. Ltd.
LLC, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 845 (stating that “on information and belief” cannot satisfy claim
chart obligations).
Defendant’s cited cases illustrate these problems. In Shared Memory Graphics
LLC, the plaintiff’s claim charts “fail[ed] to specifically identify the display data distribution
bus limitation[] in Defendants’ products.” 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1025 (footnote omitted). The
contentions did not indicate which structures constituted the bus, rendering it unclear
whether a particular “Memory IF” component was part of the bus. Id. at 1026. The charts
failed to clearly indicate where data would flow among the identified structures. Id. The
court concluded that the at-issue infringement contentions were “too vague to provide fair
notice as to what components and circuitry of the accused products infringe their patents.”
Id. at 1025. In ZitoVault, LLC, the court noted that “[m]imicking the language of the claims
when charting infringement is insufficient,” as is “[i]ncorporating screenshots in lieu of
some explanation” because it forces the accused infringer to “guess how [the] [p]laintiff
claims the accused instrumentalities allegedly infringe.” 2018 WL 2971179, at *3 (citing
Connectel, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 526, 528 (E.D. Tex. 2005)).
In Power Density Solutions, which concerned patents related to electronic cooling
technologies, 	the 	United 	States 	Court 	of 	Federal 	Claims 	deemed 	insufficient
supplemental infringement contention claim charts which did not disclose “the claimed
means for adjusting the cooling fluid flow rate.” 2023 WL 2624386, at *7. The court found
insufficiency because the failure “to identify any corresponding structure” or a mere
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 15

10
“reference [to] a general structural component” did not “address[ ] the specific restrictions
built into the claim limitation,” and “[r]eference[] to components merely ‘capable of
operating in a manner that infringes’ do not suffice to identify which component meets the
claim limitation[.]” Id. In other words, the “supplemental infringement contentions fail[ed]
to articulate any infringement theory with the specificity necessary to provide reasonable
notice to the defendant” and, thus, were stricken. Id.
Finally, in Golden, which concerned patents related to sensor technology for
chemical, biological, or radiological compounds and a locking mechanism, the Court of
Federal Claims deemed preliminary infringement contentions deficient for two reasons.
2021 WL 3238860, at *3-5. First, the contentions failed to “identify a component in the
accused products which meets [the] claims limitations of a biological, chemical, or
radiological sensor.” Id. at *4. Second, the narrative provided for a locking feature did not
actually “identif[y] a locking feature or explain[] how it operates in a way that infringes.”
2021 WL 3238860, at *3, 6.
Because the Court of Federal Claims’ Patent Rules are similar to the District of
Colorado’s, the Court finds Power Density Solutions and Golden persuasive and
instructive.5 Here, Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, at least as to Claims 1[f], 13[g], and
5 PRCFC 4 requires Preliminary Disclosure of Infringement Contentions to contain: (a) the claim
in each product, process, or method that is allegedly infringement; (b) each product, process, or
method that allegedly infringes the identified claim; (c) identification of where each element of
each asserted claim is found within each accused product, process, or method; (d) whether each
element of each identified claim is alleged to be literally present or present under the doctrine of
equivalents; and (e) the priority date to which each asserted claim is allegedly entitled.
Analogously, D.C.COLO.LPtR 4(b) requires: (a) identification of each claim that the accused
instrumentality allegedly infringes; (b) identification of the specific location of each limitation of the
claim within accused instrumentality; (c) a statement of whether each limitation of each asserted
claim is literally present in the accused instrumentality; and (d) where direct infringement by
multiple parties is alleged, a description of each party’s role in the direct infringement.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 15

11
21[f], 	suffer 	from 	similar 	deficiencies. 	They 	largely 	mimic 	the 	claim 	language, 	in
conclusory fashion and “upon information and belief,” without explaining the basis for their
belief that the Accused Product infringes. Cf. Zitovault, LLC, 2018 WL 2971179, at *3
(“Mimicking the language of the claims when charting infringement is insufficient.”); Tech
Props. Ltd. LLC, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 845 (noting insufficiency of “a conclusion based ‘on
information and belief’”). Although the infringement contentions include an image of a
cylindrical ferrite element and a chart with various specifications, they do not specifically
identify any component that allegedly infringes the claims. Given Plaintiff’s vague
description of length (“between approximately 0.5 and 2.0 cm”) and their threadbare
assertion that the cylindrical ferrite element “has magnetic properties that can vary
significantly with frequency,” Plaintiff suggests, at most, that the Accused Product is
capable of operating in a manner that infringes these three claims, which is insufficient at
this stage. Infringement Contentions [#47-1] at 11, 12; but cf. Power Density Sols., 2023
WL 2624386, at *7 (noting insufficiency of “[r]eferences to components merely ‘capable
of operating in a manner that infringes’”).
Plaintiff’s cited case, Linex Technologies, does not persuade the Court otherwise.
There, the court acknowledged the Eastern District of Texas Patent Rule requirement that
a plaintiff “provide ‘particular theories of infringement with sufficient specificity to provide
defendants with notice of infringement beyond that which is provided by the mere
language of the patent rules themselves.’” 628 F. Supp. 2d at 713 (citations omitted). The
court 	distinguished 	a 	plaintiff’s 	duty 	to 	“outline 	in 	detail 	its 	specific 	Infringement
Contentions regarding particularly Accused Products” from the plaintiff’s duty to prove
infringement following discovery. Id. at 713-14. Thus, the Court reads Linex Technologies
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 15

12
to stand for the proposition that a plaintiff’s infringement contentions need not be specific
enough to establish a prima facie case of infringement; rather, a plaintiff must provide
sufficient information “to streamline the discovery process.” Id. at 713.
Because the objected-to infringement contentions do not meet that standard, the
Motion [#47] is granted as to Claims 1[f], 13[g], and 21[f]. Plaintiff must supplement its
infringement contentions as to those claims so that they sufficiently identify and describe
the accused instrumentalities.
B. 	Other Contentions
Defendant briefly argues that Plaintiff’s other claims “simply recite the claim
language with no explanation of the basis for the infringement.” Motion [#47] at 5. They
assert that these contentions “do not include sufficient detail to satisfy the pleading
standard 	for 	patent 	infringement, 	much 	less 	the 	detail 	required 	for 	infringement
contentions.” Id. at 5-6 (footnote citation omitted). They offer two examples: (1) claim 3,
which recites a BALUN “wherein said first cylindrical ferrite element to remain unsaturated
[sic] with said first signal”; and (2) claim 14, which recites that “RF signals reflected on
said BALUN outer conductor from an upstream signal are substantially in the same phase
as the RF signals sampled by said first circuitry from said upstream signal such that they
are substantially canceled by said third circuitry.” Id. at 6 (citing Infringement Contentions
[#47-1] at 13, 34).
Again, the Court agrees with Defendant. In both instances, Plaintiff’s description
of the Accused Instrumentality is conclusory and offers no theory of infringement.
Regarding claim 3, Plaintiff states, “Upon information and belief, as shown in the figures
below, the Accused Instrumentality includes the BALUN of claim 1, wherein said first
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 12 of 15

13
cylindrical ferrite element is configured to remain unsaturated with said first signal, as
depicted below.” Infringement Contentions [#47-1] at 13. The depictions include the same
photograph of the cylindrical ferrite element, with an arrow pointing to “First Cylindrical
Ferrite Element,” as well as the Technetics Traditional Outdoor Multitaps 8-way 1.8 GHz
table. Id. at 13-14. Plaintiff fails to explain the basis of its belief that the depicted cylindrical
ferrite element “is configured to remain unsaturated with said first signal,” which is a
conclusory recitation of the claim elements, and neither the picture nor the chart speaks
for itself. Id. at 13; cf. Tech Props. Ltd. LLC, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 845 (commenting on the
insufficiency of “on information and belief” to satisfy claim chart obligations). Similarly,
Plaintiff does not explain how the data in the table demonstrates or suggests that the
accused instrumentality infringes claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Plaintiff states:
As shown in the figure below, the Accused Instrumentality includes the
power coupler of claim 13, wherein RF signals reflected on said BALUN
outer conductor from an upstream signal are substantially in the same
phase as the RF signals sampled by said first circuitry from said upstream
signal such that they are substantially canceled by said third circuitry.6 The
“Out/Tap” Isolation data below indicates that the RF signals reflected on
said BALUN outer conductor from an upstream signal are substantially in
the same phase as the RF signals sampled by said first circuitry from said
upstream signal such that they are substantially canceled:
[Technetix Traditional Outdoor Multitaps 8-way 1.8 GHz chart]
This claim element is believed to be literally present in the Accused
Instrumentality. To the extent that this element is found not to be literally
present in the Accused Instrumentality, [Plaintiff] asserts that this claim is
satisfied by the Accused Instrumentality under the doctrine of equivalents.
6 The Court has highlighted the portions of Plaintiff’s infringement contention directly copied from
the language of claim 14.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 13 of 15

14
Id. at 34 (emphasis added). The Court has underlined each portion of the infringement
contention that copies claim 14’s language and notes that this comprises almost the entire
contention. Simply copy-pasting the claim language and asserting infringement in
conclusory fashion, as Plaintiff does here, is insufficient. Cf. Zitovault, LLC, 2018 WL
2971179, at *3 (noting the insufficiency of “[m]imicking the language of the claims when
charting infringement”).
The Motion [#47] is granted as to Claims 3 and 14. Plaintiff must supplement its
infringement contentions so that they sufficiently identify and describe the accused
instrumentalities. To the extent Defendant takes issue with other infringement contentions
relating to other claims, it did not identify or discuss those other contentions in any detail,
so the Court deems those objections as undeveloped. Moreover, to the extent Defendant
avers that Plaintiff has broadly failed to meet even pleading standards for patent
infringement, the Court finds that such arguments are better resolved through its pending
Motion to Dismiss [#22], which has not been referred to the undersigned.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Supplement its Infringement Contentions [#47] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is ordered to supplement its invalidity
contentions relating to Claims 1[f], 3, 13[g], 14, and 21[f], on or before May 13, 2025.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 14 of 15

15
Dated: April 21, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
Kathryn A. Starnella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-01391-SKC-KAS Document 66 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 15 of 15