Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01988/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01988-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

AZUL SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-01988 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant-Counterclaimant

Sun Microsystems, Inc. (“Sun”). In both motions, Sun seeks to amend to its prior pleadings--

in the first, Sun seeks leave to amend its counterclaims to add causes of action for the alleged

infringement of three additional patents; in the second, Sun seeks to amend its Section 2019

Statement to add claims for the alleged misappropriation of two additional trade secrets.

Notwithstanding the “prompt and enthusiastic technical assistance” provided by

Plaintiff Azul Systems, Inc. (“Azul”) in this matter, the Court finds good cause to grant both

of Sun’s motions. While the Court is mindful that Sun could have made a more vigilant

effort to identify possible counterclaims and to overcome the technical obstacles that delayed

it from doing so, the Court is nonetheless persuaded that Sun made a good-faith effort to

comply with the deadlines set forth in the case management schedule and to communicate

with Azul about the problems it experienced in reviewing the production materials. For a

variety of reasons, including the multiple rounds of disclosures involved in the discovery

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 105 Filed 01/22/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\1988\motions to amend.wpd 2

process, as well as the technical difficulties involved in reviewing the disclosed documents,

the Court finds good cause to permit Sun to amend its responsive pleadings, notwithstanding

the expiration of the deadline set forth in the case management schedule. To hold otherwise

would punish Sun for taking steps to ensure that a good-faith basis exists for its claims and

would frustrate the comprehensive resolution of the controversy between Sun and Azul--a

controversy that, as Azul’s own initial complaint suggests, encompasses the patents and trade

secrets at issue in the current motion.

The Court further rejects Azul’s suggestion that bifurcation of the case is necessary

due to the pending motions. Azul cannot claim surprise or demonstrate undue prejudice as a

result of Sun’s decision to incorporate the patents and trade secrets in question into this

lawsuit, given that Azul itself identified these or related items in its original complaint for

declaratory relief. Nor does the Court agree with Azul’s suggestion that the incorporation of

these additional patents and trade secrets into the lawsuit would require a six-month

postponement of the trial, which is currently scheduled to take place nearly a year from now. 

The revised claim construction schedule, as set forth in Sun’s unopposed motion for

modification, will “delay” the claim construction hearing by only one month. Whether that

“delay” will require the postponement or prolongation of these proceedings is a question that

cannot be determined now, though the Court fails to see at this point why the eight months

between a March claim construction hearing and a December trial would be insufficient time

for Azul to prepare its case.

For these reasons, Sun’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Section 2019 Statement and

Sun’s Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaims are hereby GRANTED. Azul’s motion to

bifurcate the proceedings is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01988-CRB Document 105 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2