MacroSolve, Inc. v. Antenna Software, Inc. et al, No. 6:11-cv-00287 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2013)

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 Defendants’ Motions for Leave to Supplement Invalidity Contentions (No. 6:11-cv-287, Doc. No. 396); (No. 6:12-cv-74, Doc. No. 54) (collectively “MOTION”).1 The matter has been fully briefed (No. 6:11-cv-287, Doc. Nos. 399, 401, & 405) ; (No. 6:12-cv-74, Doc. Nos. 56, 58, & 60). Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On January 30, 2012, MacroSolve, Inc. (“MacroSolve” or “Plaintiff”) brought suit against Newegg for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816 (“the ‘816 patent”). (No.