Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Techonologies Inc et al

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING 59 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS Progressives Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. However, to the extent that Progressive seeks a modification of this Courts Scheduling Order, the Motion is DENIED.Progressive shall file the Third Amended Complaint within 48 hours of this Order. (lc). Modified on 6/16/2014 .(lc).

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR

12

SOLUTIONS LLC,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

Case No. 8:13-cv-01535-ODW(JEMx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

AMENDED PLEADING [59]

Defendant.

16
17

Before the Court is Plaintiff Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC’s

18

Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 59.) A nearly

19

identical motion has been filed in the related case Progressive Semiconductor

20

Solutions LLC v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00330-ODW(JEMx).

21

Progressive seeks leave to add allegations of indirect patent infringement. For the

22

reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1

23

Leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given when justice so requires.”

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The decision whether to permit leave to amend rests in the

25

sound discretion of the trial court. California v. Neville Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673

26

(9th Cir. 2004). In determining whether leave to amend should be granted, at least

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

1

four factors are considered: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive;

2

(3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of amendment. Ditto v. McCurdy,

3

510 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

4

Defendant Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (“QTI”) opposes the Motion, arguing

5

that the indirect-infringement allegations are premised on the same information

6

available to Progressive at the outset of the litigation.

7

Progressive’s proposed amendment is not based on new facts since Progressive has

8

not received any discovery. Also, QTI claims that Progressive delayed amendment,

9

and allowing amendment would prejudice QTI by expanding the scope of discovery.

10

Amendment would also be futile since the indirect-infringement allegations require

11

international discovery, which QTI claims cannot be completed by the discovery

12

deadline already set in this case.

According to QTI,

13

The Court is unpersuaded by QTI’s arguments and finds that the lenient

14

standard for amendment favors Progressive. First, there is no evidence of undue

15

delay. While, Progressive was late in seeking leave to amend from this Court, the

16

close of fact discovery in this case is more than six months away. Moreover, even

17

QTI admits that discovery has only just begun. Likewise, the record lacks evidence of

18

bad faith or dilatory motive.

19

regarding the facts and circumstances of its case before seeking leave to add

20

allegations of indirect infringement. While QTI contends that it will be prejudiced by

21

amendment, the prejudice it asserts—more expansive discovery—is an incident of any

22

litigation. As long as Progressive’s allegations are brought in good faith, the burden

23

of expanded discovery is not a proper basis for finding prejudice. Finally, at this stage

24

of the litigation, this Court cannot say whether amendment is futile and accepts

25

Progressive’s allegations as true. But this Court notes that it is generally not amenable

26

to extending deadlines, so if Progressive requires additional time to conduct

27

discovery, Progressive will be required to demonstrate good cause unrelated to

28

amendment of the pleadings.

Progressive indicates that it sought expert advice

2

1

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Progressive’s Motion for Leave to File

2

Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 59.) However, to the extent that Progressive

3

seeks a modification of this Court’s Scheduling Order, the Motion is DENIED.

4

Progressive shall file the Third Amended Complaint within 48 hours of this Order.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

June 16, 2014

8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3