MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "Cisco") Motion to Compel Patent Rule 3-1 Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Docket No. 40). Having considered the parties written submissions and oral arguments, the Court now memorializes its ruling from the bench,
ConnecTel alleges that over 100 Cisco products infringe the 120 claims contained in the four patents-at-issue. Although ConnecTel provided Cisco with PICs, Cisco asserts that these PICs do not comply with Local Patent Rule 3-1(c)
"The Patent Rules demonstrate high expectations as to plaintiffs' preparedness before bringing suit, requiring plaintiffs to disclose their preliminary infringement contentions before discovery has even begun." American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359 F.Supp.2d 558, 560 (E.D.Tex.2005)(Davis, J.). Patent Rule 3-1 requires the plaintiff to state "specific theories of infringement" in their PICs. STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 308 F.Supp.2d 754, 755 (E.D.Tex.2004)(Davis, J.). Specific theories create a specific trajectory for the case. When parties accuse hundreds of products of infringing hundreds of claims, and only narrow those accusations after discovery, the case staggers for months without clear direction. However, when parties formulate, test, and crystallize their infringement theories before stating their preliminary infringement contentions, as the Patent Rules require, the case takes a clear path, focusing discovery on building precise final infringement or invalidity contentions and narrowing issues for Markman, summary judgment, trial, and beyond.
Compliance with Patent Rule 3-1 therefore demands PICs that set forth
Contrary to ConnecTel's assertions, the Court has never condoned lower standards. Although the Court did note in STMicroelectronics "that the Patent Rules allow for an initial disclosure with additional detail supplemented in later disclosures because those rules allow parties to supplement their preliminary infringement contentions [with] technical information  produced during discovery," vague disclosures that threaten the orderly progression of discovery were never at issue in that case. 308 F.Supp.2d at 756. The PICs in STMicroelectronics provided sufficient detail to apprise the counter-defendants of its specific theories of infringement. Here, in contrast, ConnecTel has made shotgun accusations of hundreds of products infringing hundreds of claims.
Similarly, the Court in American Video Graphics ordered the plaintiff to serve supplemental PICs after conducting discovery and reviewing source code. See 359 F.Supp.2d at 560-61. However, the initially-served PICs in that case — which dealt with the infringement of graphic processes in video games — were replete with details and specific theories of infringement. The plaintiff in that case did not just allege infringement of hundreds of video games, submit those games' user manuals as evidence, and expect to narrow its claims upon the receipt of source code. Before serving PICs, and indeed even before bringing suit, the plaintiff's experts played hundreds of video games to identify infringing graphic processes, and more importantly, to rule out many non-infringing processes. Because the initially-served PICs were detailed, discovery was circumscribed, with plaintiff only wanting to view precise pieces of source code to build its case. The Court viewed plaintiff's pre-suit diligence with favor and when facing a motion to compel compliance with Patent Rule 3-1, ordered the plaintiff to submit supplemental PICs only after reviewing source code, reasoning that the source code was necessary to fill the gaps expected when one alleges infringement of software products without access to confidential information. See id.
The Court concludes that ConnecTel has not met the standards articulated in STMicroelectronics and American Video Graphics, and therefore is not in compliance with Patent Rule 3-1. The charts in ConnecTel's PICs do not refer in their text to a single structure, process, algorithm, feature or function of any accused product. ConnecTel provides no explanation of how Cisco's accused infringing products read on the asserted claim language. Because of these deficiencies, Cisco is unable to crystallize its non-infringement and invalidity theories, and the parties are hindered in identifying what claim terms need construction. Quite simply, ConnecTel needs to provide much greater detail in its PICs in order to comply with Patent Rule 3-1.
In their supplemental PICs, the Court