Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 1 Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-13,this order shall notbe cited except as provided by Civ.

L. R. 3-4(e).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff, No. C 04-0634 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MONSANTO COMPANY, SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND

COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before this court is defendant’s motion for leave to file a second amended answer and

counterclaims in this action, filed after the court granted leave to amend the case

management order to permit the late filing of this motion. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. 

Having read the papers and carefully considered the relevant legal authority, the court hereby

DENIES defendant’s motion, for the reasons that follow.1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) requires that Monsanto obtain either consent or leave of court to

amend its pleadings after the Regents have responded, but “leave shall be freely given when

justice so requires.” See, e.g., Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074,

1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to amend granted with “extreme liberality”). Leave to amend is

thus ordinarily permitted unless the amendment is futile, untimely, would cause undue

prejudice to the defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. 

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

178, 182 (1962). 

The most significant factor to consider on a motion to amend is the prejudice that the

proposed amendment might cause to the non-moving party. Eminence Capital, LLC v.

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 478 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

under Rule 15(a).”). Non-expert discovery in this matter closed on August 12, 2005; expert

discovery closed on all issues on September 9, 2005; all dispositive motions will be heard on

October 12, 2005; and trial is scheduled to begin on February 13, 2006. 

Now that the court has had the opportunity to review the merits of Monsanto’s request, it

is apparent that Monsanto is proposing a completely new theory of liability. Accordingly, the

Regents would require extensive discovery to adequately oppose the proposed patent misuse

claim, including but not limited to discovery as to third party Yeda, (which is not amenable to

process in the United States), and discovery on any anti-competitive effects that the behavior

at issue may have had in the market. The Regents would also require extensive consultation

with additional experts to develop their defense, and Monsanto would be entitled to depose

those experts as well. 

Discovery would thus need to be reopened if leave to amend were granted, which

would significantly delay the pretrial schedule in this matter and would also require the

February 2006 trial date to be vacated. This would severely prejudice the Regents, and is

thus sufficient in and of itself to warrant the denial of Monsanto’s motion. See Lockheed

Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (need to reopen

discovery and delay proceedings supports a finding of prejudice against the non-moving

party); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000) (attempt to amend

pleadings to assert new legal theory after the close of discovery considered prejudicial to nonmoving party under Rule 15(a)). 

Monsanto’s motion for leave to file a second amended answer and counterclaims in

this action is DENIED. This order fully adjudicates the matter listed at no. 404 on the clerk’s

docket for this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 478 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 2