Opinion ID: 2993897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants’ Motion to Amend

Text: Defendants allege that they were timely in seeking leave to amend their invalidity contentions, because both Shire and third parties delayed in producing documents relevant to an on-sale bar defense and because defendants had to sift through more than two million pages of documents to find the relevant evidence. Relatedly, defendants argue there was good cause for their delay because they were diligent in their search for evidence. Finally, defendants argue that there is no undue prejudice to Shire because Shire itself was responsible for the delay. Shire responds that the district court properly evaluated all the factors. Defendants have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to amend. In their opening brief, defendants have not persuasively explained why their motion to assert an onsale bar defense was not filed earlier and have failed to even challenge the magistrate judge’s finding that docu- ments produced by Shire on May 21, 2012, contained information “that should have led” defendants to raise an on-sale bar argument. Moreover, defendants did not ask Shire for permission to supplement their invalidity contentions until August of 2013—more than a year later. 14 SHIRE LLC v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC Accordingly, we find no reason to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to amend as untimely and lacking good cause. The decision to deny defendants’ motion to amend is therefore affirmed.