Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLERA CORPORATION-APPLIED

BIOSYSTEMS GROUP, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ILLUMINA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

SOLEXA INC., a Delaware corporation,

and STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ, an

individual

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02845 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND VACATING HEARING

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED. The hearing

on this motion is hereby VACATED. Before this action was filed, the parties entered into a

release agreement where plaintiff Applied Biosystems Group and defendant Illumina, Inc.,

agreed that they would not seek any monetary damages from defendant Macevicz “based on any

claims arising out of or related to the application for or prosecution of the Patents” (Dkt. 72

Exh. 2). The “Patents” referred to the three patents involved in this action. In exchange,

Macevicz agreed to speak “truthfully” to Applied and Illumina about the patents. The

agreement had a provision which provided that the parties could terminate the agreement if

Macevicz was “willfully untruthful” in his discussions with Applied and Illumina. Macevicz

then moved to dismiss all claims against him on the ground that Applied was only seeking

equitable relief against him. The motion was denied. Applied then terminated the release

agreement with Macevicz based in part on Macevicz’s attempt to get out the suit and his alleged

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 196 Filed 05/05/08 Page 1 of 3
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

untruthfulness during the initial discussions with Applied. Applied now moves for leave to

filed a second amended complaint that includes: (i) claims for monetary damages against

Macevicz and (ii) additional allegations supporting Applied’s inequitable conduct defense.

Under Rule 16(b), once a court has entered a scheduling order, subsequent pleading

amendments are not allowed without a request to first modify the scheduling order. At that

point, any modification must be based on a showing of good cause. See Coleman v. Quaker

Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). If the party seeking modification was not

diligent, then leave to amend should be denied. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Here, leave to amend is inappropriate. The deadline for amending pleadings under the

operating case management order was October 25, 2007 (Dkt. 32). The fact discovery cutoff

date is imminent — May 30, 2008. Applied argues that it only knew of the facts giving rise to

the instant motion after the deadline for amending pleadings had passed. Even so, however, this

does not explain Applied’s prolonged delay in filing this motion. The very documents that

Applied relies on to show Macevicz’s untruthfulness were in Applied’s possession in November

2007. Macevicz filed his motion to dismiss on November 21, 2007. Over four months passed

before Applied noticed the instant motion. Applied’s response that it needed additional time to

evaluate the basis for its added claims is unconvincing. Four months is unjustifiably too long in

light of the case scheduling order known to all sides at all relevant times. Applied had ample

time and opportunity to request leave to amend much earlier in this case. It waited too long. 

Too much prejudice would flow from this last-minute manipulation of the pleadings.

More fundamentally, even if it is true that Macevicz was “willfully untruthful” in his

conversations with Applied, the fact remains that it was Applied that created this obstacle to

suing him in the first place. Applied has nobody but itself to blame for entering into such a

bizarre arrangement. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to sympathize with Applied’s

position.

The same goes for Applied’s additional allegations of inequitable conduct. Applied has

not shown good cause why it could not have discovered its additional grounds for inequitable

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 196 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 3
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

conduct earlier in the discovery period, which ends in less than a month. It is simply too little

too late. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 196 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 3