Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL PENDING 

DISCOVERY MOTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 148, 175

Now before the Court are two pending matters: (1) defendant’s motion for leave to amend 

its answer and counterclaims, and (2) a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute. 

Defendant seeks leave to amend its answers and counterclaims to allege that MLC and its 

representatives, Dr. Gerald Banks (the inventor) and Jason Angell (MLC’s former counsel),

engaged in inequitable conduct by making misleading statements to the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board (“PTAB”) and withholding evidence (the inventor notebook and deposition testimony) from 

the PTAB in connection with Micron’s unsuccessful request for inter partes review (“IPR”). 

Micron’s request for an IPR was based on prior art, the Kitamura reference. 

Since the motion to amend was briefed and argued, the USPTO granted Micron’s request 

for an ex parte reexamination based on, inter alia, the Kitamura reference. Micron states that it 

provided the inventor notebook and the deposition testimony to the USPTO in support of its 

request for the ex parte reexamination. See Dkt. No. 160 at 3 (citing Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 159-5), 

“Appendix A to Micron’s Ex Parte Reexam. Req. of U.S. Pat. 5,764,571”).) 

The Court has granted defendant’s motion to stay this case due to the ex parte 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 177 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

reexamination. In light of the stay, and also due to the fact that the USPTO has granted 

reexamination based on Kitamura on a record that includes the inventor notebook and deposition 

testimony, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to amend its answer and counterclaims to assert 

a claim of inequitable conduct before the PTAB. 

On October 31, 2017, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court regarding a discovery 

dispute. In light of the stay, the Court DENIES the relief sought without prejudice to the parties 

refiling the discovery motion after the stay is lifted, if appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 177 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2