Longitude Licensing Limited v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00515 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2024)

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 Defendant BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd.’s Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Invalidity Contentions. Dkt. No. 98. BOE seeks to add two projectors—the 5550c and the 810p—as system prior art. Id. at 3, 4. Plaintiff Longitude Licensing Limited opposes the Motion. Dkt. No. 102. After consideration, the Court DENIES BOE’s Motion for the reasons discussed below. I. Diligence The Parties dispute BOE ’s diligence in discovering and disclosing new prior art. BOE claims that it acted diligently but was hampered by several c ircumstances. Dkt.