GREE, Inc v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00161 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2020)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Amend P.R. 3- 3 Invalidity Contentions (“Motion”), filed by Defendant Supercell Oy (“Supercell”). Dkt. No. 116. Within the Motion, Supercell asks for either an order holding that its amended invalidity contentions were properly served under Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Discovery Order or, in the alternative, for leave to amend pursuant to Patent Rule 3-6.