Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01403/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01403-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General Nanotechnology, LLC
Counter-defendant
KLA-Tencor Corporation
Counter-claimant
Toho Technology Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

GENERAL NANOTECHNOLOGY, LLC,

a California Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION, a Delaware

Corporation, and TOHO TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01403 WHA

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND

VACATING HEARING

In the action alleging copyright and patent infringement, the complaint accuses

defendants of infringing United States Patent Nos. 6,144,028; 6,281,491; 6,242,734; 6,229,138;

6,369,379 and 6,232,597. On September 30, 2005, plaintiff General Nanotechnology, LLC

sought leave to file a first amended complaint. Counsel was advised that the Court was treating

this motion as one for administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–11. An opposition

was timely filed.

Plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint to (1) add allegations regarding United States

Patent Nos. 6,396,054 and 6,515,277; and (2) withdraw its allegations regarding the ’138 patent

and the ’597 patent. Defendant KLA-Tencor Corporation opposes this motion, arguing that if

plaintiff wishes to withdraw any infringement claims, it should dismiss them with prejudice. 

Defendant further alleges that plaintiff’s failure to provide preliminary infringement contentions

concerning the ’138 patent and the ’597 patent amounts to an admission of non-infringement.

“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 39 Filed 10/06/05 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

2

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be

‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); FRCP 15(a). If, however, the

deadline for seeking leave to amend has passed, FRCP 16(b) allows a party to seek relief from

court-imposed deadlines only upon a showing of good cause. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232

F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). The liberal policy regarding amendment of pleadings no

longer applies; instead, the focus is on the diligence of the party seeking amendment. Ibid.

Because leave to amend was sought before the deadline set forth in the case

management order, FRCP 15(a) applies. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The

first amended complaint must be filed by October 11, 2005. Should it choose to continue

asserting infringement of the ’138 patent and the ’597 patent, however, plaintiff must serve its

preliminary infringement contentions by the same day. (Plaintiff is warned that litigation

strategy would not qualify as good cause under FRCP 16(b), should it attempt to re-introduce

such claims at a later date.) Defendant KLA-Tencor Corporation shall have ten days after the

first amended complaint is filed to file a responsive pleading thereto. The hearing currently

scheduled for NOVEMBER 10, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M., is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01403-WHA Document 39 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2