PORTLAND (LN) — U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut granted in part American Wood Dryers' motion to strike USNR's infringement contentions and granted in full USNR's motion to strike American Wood Dryers' non-infringement and invalidity contentions, ordering both sides to file amended disclosures within 28 days.
USNR, which makes and sells wood processing equipment, accuses American Wood Dryers of infringing six patents by making, selling, and constructing single-pass continuous lumber kilns. USNR served its infringement contentions in July 2025; American Wood Dryers responded with its non-infringement and invalidity contentions in August 2025.
On the infringement side, Immergut held that USNR's indirect infringement allegations did little more than assert that American Wood Dryers induced customers to infringe by providing the accused kilns, instructing customers in their use, or causing others to do so — exactly the kind of boilerplate the rules prohibit. The court held that USNR must point to the specific acts or statements by American Wood Dryers that support indirect infringement, and that it cannot rely on broad, unspecified allegations if it lacks supporting evidence. The court also struck USNR's priority date contentions, which disclosed end dates and date ranges rather than specific patent application dates, but declined to strike USNR's doctrine of equivalents contentions, finding that USNR's claim-specific language about hinged and overhead insulating members was sufficiently particular.
American Wood Dryers fared worse. Immergut struck all three categories of contentions USNR challenged. On obviousness, the court held that American Wood Dryers had listed roughly 19 prior art references for every claim of every patent without clearly specifying which combinations it intended to assert or the theory behind each. USNR calculated that the approach generated millions or tens of millions of possible combinations per asserted claim. Immergut distinguished the case from Avago Techs. Gen. IP PTE Ltd. v. Elan Microelecs. Corp., on which American Wood Dryers relied, where a defendant had divided all its references into just two groups and articulated a single theory covering every combination. Here, the court held, American Wood Dryers had grouped only nine of its 34 references and had not clearly tied any theory of obviousness to the resulting combinations.
The court also struck American Wood Dryers' non-infringement contentions, rejecting the argument that because USNR bears the burden of proof on infringement, American Wood Dryers need only note that USNR had failed to identify an infringing feature. Local Patent Rule 121(a) requires a party contending that a claim element is absent to set forth in detail the basis for that contention, and American Wood Dryers had not done so. Its prior art identification charts fared no better: Immergut held that string citations repeated across most or all claim limitations, without explanation of how each excerpt disclosed each element, failed to identify where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found, as required by Local Patent Rule 121(d).
Despite granting USNR's motion in full, Immergut declined to deny American Wood Dryers leave to amend as a sanction for what USNR characterized as willful noncompliance. The court noted the case remains in early stages and that USNR would not suffer undue prejudice from amendment.
USNR's amended infringement contentions are due no later than June 5, 2026. American Wood Dryers' amended invalidity and non-infringement contentions are due within 28 days of receiving them. The parties must also submit a joint status report within 14 days addressing whether any case deadlines should be extended.