ELCO's Early Summary Judgment Motion Against Nora Lighting Is Denied Under Rule 56(d), and the Court Orders Infringement Contentions Within Seven Days.

The case

AMP Plus, Inc. v. Nora Lighting, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-08460-MWC (C.D. Cal.), is before Judge Michelle Williams Court. ELCO sued on October 1, 2024 on U.S. Patent No. 11,092,326, titled Integrated Lighting Module, issued August 17, 2021. The original complaint asserted claim 1. The court stayed the case on June 30, 2025 pending the USPTO's reexamination of the patent, and on March 23, 2026 the USPTO issued a reexamination certificate concluding that claim 1 is patentable as amended and that new claims 21 through 42, which ELCO added during the reexamination, are patentable. After the court granted Nora's motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 25, 2026 and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, ELCO filed a first amended complaint on July 16, 2026 alleging that Nora's Pearl module directly infringes claims 15 and 19, and moved for summary judgment the next day.

Nora's amended answer

Nora's amended answer, filed September 28, 2026, raises six affirmative defenses and three counterclaims: noninfringement of claims 15 and 19, invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101 through 103 and 112, including obviousness over CN102853295A in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,605,812, and a counterclaim that ELCO infringes U.S. Design Patent No. D939,755, titled Recessed Lighting Fixture With A Flexible Driver Assembly, which the answer alleges Nora owns.

Why the court granted Rule 56(d) relief

The court gave four reasons. First, the amended complaint changed the theory of the case: claims 15 and 19 add limitations to claim 1, including the positions of the driver housing and holder at the top and bottom of the module and the diameter of the heat sink's upper portion relative to the driver housing, and ELCO moved one day after amending and two months before the fact discovery cutoff. Second, Nora's amended answer superseded the original, so ELCO's motion targeted defenses, counterclaims, and prior art that no longer exist, and the court, citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., said it could not decide infringement and the new invalidity theories together. Third, Nora was diligent: the court found that ELCO's interrogatory answer did not list the accused products or meet the other disclosure requirements of Section 3-1 of the judge's Standing Order Re Patent Cases, and it rejected ELCO's argument that Nora should have taken discovery during the stay, noting that the stay halted the proceedings and that the court had vacated all deadlines. Fourth, the court excused Nora's failure to file the declaration Rule 56(d) calls for, because the motion was premature.

What the court ordered

The court denied ELCO's motion, overruled its evidentiary objections as moot, and ordered ELCO to serve its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions within seven days. It reset the fact discovery cutoff to December 4, 2026, initial and rebuttal expert disclosures to December 10 and December 24, 2026, the expert discovery cutoff to January 8, 2027, and the last day to hear motions to February 26, 2027, and denied Nora's motion to enter a case schedule as moot. The final pretrial conference and trial date are unchanged.