Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-109/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 

MEDIATEK, INC,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD., et al.

Counterclaim Defendants /

No. 05-3148 MMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MEDIATEK, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO AMEND ANSWER AND

COUNTERCLAIMS AND FOR LIMITED

EXPEDITED FACTUAL DISCOVERY

Before the Court is defendant/counterclaimant Mediatek, Inc.’s (“Mediatek”) “Motion

for Leave to Amend its Answer and Counterclaims and Motion for Limited Expedited

Factual Discovery,” filed April 19, 2007. Plaintiff/counterclaimant Matsushita Electric

Industrial Co. (“Matsushita”) has filed opposition, to which Mediatek has replied. Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1186 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

By order filed May 22, 2007, the Court vacated the scheduled May 25, 2007 hearing

on the motion.

2

The proposed amendment is Attachment A to Mediatek’s motion for leave to

amend.

3

Matsushita does not assert Mediatek is acting in bad faith.

4

Matsushita does not assert it needs to take discovery from Mediatek or any thirdparty with respect to the inequitable conduct claim.

2

follows.1

“Leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ and this policy is to

be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F. 2d

1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 

The factors to be considered in determining whether leave to amend is proper are “bad

faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” See DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F. 3d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

In its motion, Mediatek seeks leave to allege an affirmative defense and a

counterclaim based on inequitable conduct, specifically, Matsushita’s asserted failure to

disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office “material prior art - Matsushita’s 3D0 console

with adaptor and C-Cube video decoder chips - during the prosecution of the ‘475 Patent

application and its parent application with the intent to deceive.” (See Mediatek’s Proposed

Amended Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim ¶ 50; see also id. ¶¶ 65-70.)2

The Court finds Mediatek has not acted with undue delay in moving to amend, in

light of its having obtained discovery relevant to the asserted new claim in early April 2007,

within a few weeks of its filing the instant motion.3 The Court further finds Matsushita would

not be prejudiced by the amendment, because sufficient time exists before trial for

Mediatek to complete the limited discovery it seeks with respect to the new claim.4 Lastly,

the Court finds Matsushita has not shown the proposed amendment would be futile;

Matsushita neither challenges the manner in which the proposed amendment is pleaded,

see Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F. 2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding proposed

amendment “futile” if proposed claim insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6)), nor makes a

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1186 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

sufficient showing that Mediatek, upon completion of discovery, will be unable to establish

the claim on its merits, see Johnson v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. 2d 721, 724 (9th Cir.

1987) (holding “futility,” for purposes of leave to amend, “includes the inevitability of a

claim’s defeat on summary judgment”).

Accordingly, the motion to amend will be granted.

Additionally, Mediatek’s request for limited, expedited discovery will, for the reasons

stated by Mediatek, be granted. In particular, Mediatek will be afforded leave to conduct

limited discovery, as set forth below, to be completed by July 27, 2007.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed, Mediatek’s motion is hereby GRANTED, as follows:

1. Mediatek is afforded leave to file, no later than June 18, 2007, its proposed

Amended Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim.

2. Mediatek is afforded leave to conduct the following discovery, to be completed by

July 27, 2007: (1) ten requests for admission relating to the new claim of inequitable

conduct; (2) a deposition of each named inventor, specifically, Nobuo Setoguchi and

Akihiro Watabe, limited in scope to the new claim of inequitable conduct; and (3) a

Matsushita corporate deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), limited in scope to the new

claim of inequitable conduct. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1186 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3