Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Defendant. /

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AEROFLEX, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

No. C 03-2289 MJJ

No. C 03-4669

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THEIR ANSWERS AND

COUNTERCLAIMS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Aeroflex Incorporated, AMI Semiconductor, Inc., Matrox Electronic

Systems, Ltd., Matrox Graphics, Inc., Matrox International Corp., Matrox Tech, Inc. and Aeroflex

Colorado Springs, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) motion for leave to amend their answers and

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 284 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 6
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

Motion for Leave to Amend Their Answers and Counterclaims, C 03-4669, Docket No. 341-1.

2

counterclaims.1 The motion is opposed by Ricoh Company, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”, “Ricoh”). For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case concerns the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Number 4,922,432 (“the ‘432

patent”) entitled “Knowledge Based Method and Apparatus for Designing Integrated Circuits Using

Functional Specifications.” Defendants seek to amend their answers and counterclaims.

Plaintiff commenced this action in the District of Delaware on January 21, 2003, and the case

was transferred to this court October 16, 2003. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this action

on April 12, 2004. Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2004. On

May 14, 2004 the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which, among other things, set the deadline for

amending the pleadings for July 19, 2004. (Docket No. 191). At the request of Defendants, the Court

stayed discovery in this case from May 2004 until July 2005. Discovery reopened on July 22, 2005

and is currently scheduled to close on January 27, 2006.

On October 25, 2005, Defendants requested Plaintiff’s written consent as to several proposed

changes to Defendants’ Answer. Plaintiff refused, citing prejudice as to Defendants’ proposed

amendments. Defendants then filed the instant motion seeking the Court’s permission to amend

their Answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

Once a responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend its pleadings only by leave

of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). If a court has set a deadline

for amending pleadings in a pre-trial scheduling order, and a party seeks leave to amend before that

deadline, leave should be "freely given" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). However, if a party seeks leave to amend after the

deadline for amendments, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) controls, and the moving party must demonstrate

“good cause” for the changes to the pleadings. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1291

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 284 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 6
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

(9th Cir. 2000). Absent a showing of good cause, a court must deny the post-deadline amendments.

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

"Unlike Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party

seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)'s ‘good

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Id. The

moving party must make a showing as to why they did not amend the pleadings prior to the

amendment deadline. Id. "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party's reasons for seeking modification...If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should

end." Id. The district court is given broad discretion in this area, and its decision regarding the

preclusive effect of a pretrial order will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

Id. at 607.

ANALYSIS

Defendants seek leave to amend their Answer to add new affirmative defenses of “estoppel”,

“prosecution history estoppel” and “authorization and consent under 28 U.S.C § 1498", and leave to

revise existing affirmative defenses of “laches” and “invalidity.” Defendants’ proposed amendments

come nearly a year and a half after the July 19, 2004 deadline for amending the pleadings set in the

Court’s scheduling order. Accordingly, Rule 16(b) controls, and the Court will address each change

in light of that rule’s “good cause” standard.

A. Authorization and Consent under 28 U.S.C. § 1498

Primarily a court will focus on the amending party’s diligence in evaluating proposed

amendments under 16(b)’s good cause standard. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. However, the court may

take into account other considerations, including prejudice against the opposing party. Id.

Defendants have demonstrated reasonable diligence and good cause for the addition of the § 1498

defense.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, “[w]henever an invention described in and covered by a patent of

the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 284 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 6
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

thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner's remedy shall be by action against

the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and

entire compensation for such use and manufacture.” Defendants assert that § 1498 will preclude

Plaintiff from recovering damages resulting from any sales of the accused products to or for the

United States government.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not identify which accused products were at issue in the

suit until June 2005, after the parties held a Joint Case Management Conference. As such,

Defendants contend, they were unable, until recently, to determine if § 1498 was applicable to the

products at issue, and it was only through discovery conducted in September and October 2005 that

Defendants learned of sales of the accused products to the United States government. The Court

finds that Defendants have shown diligence as to the § 1498 amendment. Defendants could not have

made this amendment prior to the July 19, 2004 scheduling order deadline, as the basis for the

defense arose from recently acquired discovery. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

request for leave to add the § 1498 affirmative defense.

B. Prosecution History Estoppel

Next, Defendants seek to add a “prosecution history estoppel” affirmative defense. 

Prosecution history estoppel arose as an issue during the claims construction briefing. The Court’s

claims construction order did not issue until April 7, 2005, nearly a year after the amendment

deadline. Given the late date at which this issue manifested itself, Defendants are justified in not

including it in any pre-deadline amendments. Moreover, Plaintiff did not object to the absence of a

prosecution history estoppel defense at the time the issue arose. Plaintiff is well aware that

prosecution history estoppel is at issue in the case, has responded to it in its papers, and will not be

prejudiced by Defendants’ addition. To not include this affirmative defense which has clearly been

at issue in the case since the claims construction hearing would only obscure the record.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for leave to add the prosecution history

estoppel affirmative defense.

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 284 Filed 12/12/05 Page 4 of 6
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

For example, the invalidity portion of Defendants’ existing answer reads as follows, “[t]he ‘432 Patent is invalid

for failure to meet the requirements specified in Title 35 of the United States Code including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C.

§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 for one or more of the following reasons...” The Answer continues, with an enumerated list

detailing the basis for invalidity. Defendants’ proposed amendment states, “[t]he ‘432 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable

because it fails to meet one or more of the conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.” This enlarges the

scope of Defendants’ defenses beyond that which is in the current answer. Similar logic applies to Defendants’ laches

defense.

5

C. Invalidity and Laches

Defendants also seek to amend the language of their existing invalidity and laches defenses. 

Defendants characterize their changes as clarifying language. The Court disagrees with that

characterization. Defendants’ proposed language changes are substantive and could serve to enlarge

the scope of Defendants’ claimed defenses.2 Additionally, Defendants have not submitted any

explanation as to why they did not include these revisions prior to the scheduling order deadline. 

The facts that form the basis for Defendants’ proposed changes were known to Defendants prior to

the deadline. As Defendants have failed to demonstrate diligence or good cause, the Court DENIES

Defendants’ request for leave to amend the invalidity and laches defenses.

D. Estoppel

Finally, Defendants request leave to add an estoppel defense to their Answer. Defendants

argue that the Court should grant leave because the estoppel defense is based upon facts already

stated under the original answer to the amended complaint. This argument undermines Defendants’

position. Defendants’ filed their Answer on April 26, 2004, well before the July 19, 2004 deadline. 

Therefore, Defendants had ample time to amend their claims to include the estoppel defense. If the

estoppel defense is based upon facts known to Defendants at a time prior to the amendment deadline,

then Defendants could have added it then. Defendants have not asserted any new facts or

circumstances that have justified their inaction. Defendants have not demonstrated diligence or

good cause, and accordingly the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for leave to add the estoppel

defense.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 284 Filed 12/12/05 Page 5 of 6
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

Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Amend their Answers and

Counterclaims(03-4669, Docket No. 341-1).

6

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Defendants’ Motion to Amend their Answers and Counterclaims3

. Defendants are hereby

ORDERED to submit amended answers conforming to the requirements of this order within ten

days of the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 _______________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 284 Filed 12/12/05 Page 6 of 6