Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06613/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06613-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUJITSU LIMITED, a Japanese

corporation, and FUJITSU

MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP., a Taiwanese

corporation, and NANYA TECHNOLOGY

CORP., U.S.A., a California

corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-6613 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART NANYA’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

ITS ANSWER

Defendants Nanya Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp.,

U.S.A. (collectively, Nanya) move for leave to amend their answer. 

Plaintiffs Fujitsu Ltd. and Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc.

(collectively, Fujitsu) oppose Nanya’s motion. The matter was

heard on April 3, 2008. Having considered oral argument and all of

the papers filed by the parties, the Court grants Nanya’s motion in

part and denies it in part.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a case management order, the deadline for adding

new claims or parties in this action was February 2, 2007. See

Docket No. 73. The Court subsequently gave Fujitsu leave to file

an amended complaint, see Docket No. 108, which Fujitsu filed on

Case 4:06-cv-06613-CW Document 292 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

June 11, 2007. Nanya filed its answer on June 28, 2007. Nanya now

seeks leave to amend that answer in order to alter its affirmative

defenses in various respects.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling

order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

consent.” Where a schedule has been filed, a party’s ability to

amend its pleading is governed by the good cause standard of Rule

16(b)(4), not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a)(2). Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In order to determine whether good cause exists, courts primarily

consider the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Id.

at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

(9th Cir. 2000). “[N]ot only must parties participate from the

outset in creating a workable Rule 16 scheduling order but they

must also diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout

the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

DISCUSSION

I. Revisions to the Inequitable Conduct Defense

Nanya’s original inequitable conduct defense states that five

of Fujitsu’s patents are unenforceable “as a result of material

misrepresentations made by the applicants, including Fujitsu Ltd.,

during the prosecution of their corresponding applications in the

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, combined with the requisite

intent to deceive.” Docket No. 112 at 10-11. The answer goes on

to list specific examples of this conduct, consisting of Fujitsu’s

failure to disclose material prior art references when prosecuting

Case 4:06-cv-06613-CW Document 292 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

its patents.

The proposed amended answer withdraws the claim of inequitable

conduct with respect to one of the Fujitsu patents. It also

provides examples of undisclosed prior art references that are

different from those contained in the original answer. Nanya has

submitted a declaration stating that these new references came to

light as a result of discovery produced during this case.

The Court finds that good cause exists to permit amendment of

Nanya’s inequitable conduct defense because the new allegations are

based at least in part on information that was obtained through

recently completed discovery.

II. Revisions to the Failure to State a Claim Defense

Nanya also seeks to elaborate on its defense that Fujitsu has

failed to state a claim against it. Specifically, Nanya seeks to

amend this defense by stating that Fujitsu’s claims under § 17200

of the California Business and Professions Code are barred both

because Fujitsu lacks standing to sue and because it has not

identified a misrepresentation on Nanya’s part. Nanya’s original

answer, however, is sufficient to preserve its defense of failure

to state a claim. The new specific assertions in support of this

defense need not be included in the answer; they may be raised on a

future motion or at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2).

Nanya also seeks to amend the same defense to assert that

Fujitsu’s claims under § 17200 of the California Business and

Professions Code are barred by the litigation privilege. Unlike

the other proposed amendments to this defense, however, the

litigation privilege is an independent affirmative defense, not a

way of failing to state a claim. See Edwards v. Centex Real Estate

Case 4:06-cv-06613-CW Document 292 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 15, 37 (1997). Nanya has not shown good

cause for permitting it to add such an affirmative defense at this

late date.

III. Revisions to the Waiver Defense

Nanya also seeks to amend its twelfth affirmative defense that

Fujitsu waived its state law claims. Nanya’s proposed amendment,

however, appears not to relate exclusively to its waiver defense or

to Fujitsu’s state law claims.

Paragraph 116 of the proposed amended answer, which is

organized within the twelfth affirmative defense, actually appears

to provide additional factual allegations regarding Nanya’s ninth

affirmative defense that Fujitsu’s misuse of its patents renders

them unenforceable. Specifically, this paragraph details Nanya’s

assertion on page 14 of the original answer that Fujitsu encouraged

various standards-setting organizations to adopt its patented

technology and then failed to issue licenses to its patents on a

reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. While the addition of

¶ 116 is not strictly necessary, Fujitsu will not be prejudiced by

the amendment because it merely adds factual details to an existing

defense rather than adding an entirely new defense. Therefore, the

Court will permit the amendment.

The remainder of Nanya’s proposed amendment to its waiver

defense is contained in ¶ 115 of the proposed amended answer. This

paragraph discusses Fujitsu’s alleged non-disclosure of its patents

and patent applications to the JDEC Solid State Technology

Association. Nanya claims that this violated the JDEC Patent

Policy, and that Fujitsu thereby waived its right to enforce the

undisclosed patents. These allegations represent a new factual

Case 4:06-cv-06613-CW Document 292 Filed 04/08/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

The twelfth affirmative defense previously gave no indication

of its basis in fact.

5

basis for an affirmative defense of patent unenforceability,

despite being listed under Nanya’s pre-existing twelfth affirmative

defense, which previously related only to Fujitsu’s waiver of its

state law claims.1 Nanya has represented that the new allegations

are based on information contained in documents produced by Fujitsu

in October and November, 2007. This information was previously

inaccessible to Nanya. The Court finds that Nanya has acted

diligently in seeking to amend its answer to add these allegations

as a new affirmative defense. The Court also finds that Fujitsu

will not be prejudiced by the amendment because fact discovery does

not conclude until October 17, 2008, giving Fujitsu an adequate

opportunity to obtain information relevant to its rebuttal of the

new defense. Therefore, good cause exists to permit Nanya to amend

its answer to add the allegations contained in ¶ 115 of the

proposed amended answer.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Nanya’s motion to amend its answer is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Nanya may file an amended

answer containing: 1) the revised version of its inequitable

conduct defense, as set forth in the proposed amended answer; and

2) the text set forth in ¶¶ 115 and 116 of its proposed amended

answer. Nanya may not amend its answer in any other way.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/8/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06613-CW Document 292 Filed 04/08/08 Page 5 of 5