Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING 45 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS Progressives Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. However, to the extent that Progressive seeks a modification of this Courts Scheduling Order, the Motion is DENIED.Progressive shall file the First 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. 8:14-cv-00330-ODW(JEMx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

AMENDED PLEADING [45]

Defendant.

16

Before the Court is Plaintiff Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC’s

17
18

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

(ECF No. 45.)

A nearly

19

identical motion has been filed in the related case Progressive Semiconductor

20

Solutions LLC v. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-01535-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 Marvell Semiconductor Solutions, Inc. opposes the Motion

5

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

6

information available to Progressive at the outset of the litigation. According to

7

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

8

Progressive has not received any discovery. Also, Marvell claims that Progressive

9

delayed in seeking leave to amend, and allowing amendment would prejudice Marvell

10

by expanding the scope of discovery.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Marvell admits that discovery has only just begun.

16

evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive. Progressive indicates that it sought expert

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

this stage of the litigation and without the benefit of discovery, this Court cannot say

23

whether amendment is futile and accepts Progressive’s allegations as true. The Court

24

does note, however, that any additional time required to conduct discovery

25

internationally will require Progressive to demonstrate good cause unrelated to

26

amendment of the pleadings.

Likewise, the record lacks

27

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

28

First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 45.) However, to the extent that Progressive

2

1

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

2

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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

June 16, 2014

5
6
7

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3