You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00828-RGA Document 670 Filed 10/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20964

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 08-828-RGA ASKO APPLIANCES, INC. f!k/a AM APPLIANCE GROUP, INC.; ASKO APPLIANCES AB; DAEWOO ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and DIGITAL SYMPHONY CORP., Defendants.

ORDER
Having reviewed Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Answers (D.I. 535) and related briefing (D.I. 536, 537, 543, 544, 546, 547), it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion (D.I. 535) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons that follow: 1. As Defendants describe their proposed amendments, "Defendants have pared down their inequitable conduct claims, clarified their antitrust counterclaims, and added a defense of intervening rights." (D.I. 546 at 6). Defendants' requested amendments regarding inequitable conduct- the deletion of over 100 paragraphs- are DENIED. This narrowing of the inequitable conduct issues can be achieved by stipulation or other understanding among the parties. Defendants' requested antitrust amendments are also DENIED. Defendants state these amendments only "clarify their previous and well-known assertions," simply "reframe" the issues, and "do not add new theories, factual disputes or issues to the case." Id at 2. Justice does not require providing leave to make these inconsequential amendments. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). 2. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to the requested amendments pertaining to intervening rights. Plaintiffs were subject to an Order to limit their asserted claims to no more

Case 1:08-cv-00828-RGA Document 670 Filed 10/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20965

than three from each alleged complaint. (D.I. 409). Plaintiffs first asserted claims that had been altered by reexamination in April, 2011, (D.I. 417), sought leave to amend their infringement contentions to include those claims in May, 2011, (D.I. 419), and were granted that leave in July, 2011 (D.I. 524). Defendants requested to amend their answer to include an intervening rights defense responsive to the reexamined claims in August, 2011. 1 (D.I. 535). Defendants' request to amend was not unduly delayed. 3. While the intervening rights defense will require technical and legal analyses of the extent to which the reexamined claims have changed, Defendants assert their defense is germane to the as-yet-unscheduled damages portion of the case, and not to the pending liability phase. (D.I. 546 at 3, 5); e.g., BIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1220-22 (Fed. Cir. 1993). So limited, Defendants' proposed intervening rights amendments do not unduly burden or prejudice the Court or LG, and do not require altering the scheduling order governing the liability phase. (D.I. 186, 416).

Entered this

day of October, 2012.

I I
I

~~-~'JUnited States District Judge

Defendants' Motion was resurrected when the case restarted in the wake of the parties' attempt to settle and the Court's denial ofLG's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (D.I. 656, 666, 669). 2

I I
!