ChriMar Systems Inc. et al v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al

Filing 361

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE 338 339 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and Third Amended Counterclaims and Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and Second Amended Counterclaims. Supplemental brief from Plaintiffs due by 4/13/2016 at 12:00 p.m. Supplemental Response from Defendants due by 4/15/2016 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 7, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW
NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING
AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING IN ADVANCE OF HEARING
Re: Docket. Nos. 338-339,

Defendants.

12
13

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

14

OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING on Defendants’ motion for leave to amend,

15

which is scheduled for a hearing on April 22, 2016. The Court issues this tentative ruling in the

16

hopes that the parties might be able to meet and confer and resolve this issue without further Court

17

involvement. If they are able to do so, they shall file a stipulation and order to that effect by April

18

20, 2016. If they cannot, the Court shall resolve the motion in advance of the deadline to file

19

motions for summary judgment.

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend its pleading once as a

21

matter of right any time before a responsive pleading has been served. Once a responsive pleading

22

has been served, however, the amendment requires written consent of the adverse party or leave of

23

the court, and leave “shall be freely given when justice requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The

24

Court considers five factors to determine whether a motion for leave to file an amended complaint

25

should be granted: “‘(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility

26

of amendment[,]’” and (5) whether the moving party previously amended a pleading. In re

27

Western States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9thc Cir. 2013) (quoting

28

Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990).

1

Each factor is not given equal weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d

2

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). “Absent

3

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining … factors, there exists a presumption under

4

Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Captial, 316 F.3d at 1052 (emphasis

5

in original).

6

In brief, the Court tentatively finds that each of these factors would support granting leave

7

to amend. The Court tentatively concludes there has been no bad faith and, to the extent there has

8

been some delay, that, on its own would not justify denying the motion. With respect to futility,

9

the Court’s tentative view is that Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to show that amendment
would not be futile and that, on this record, the Court could not rule as a matter of law the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

allegations fail to satisfy the standards required to show specific intent to deceive and materiality.

12

See Therasense v. Becton , Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1290-93 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, it

13

appears to the Court that the arguments presented in opposition to the motion are better addressed

14

in the context of the impending motions for summary judgment.

15

Plaintiffs argue that if the Court grants the motion, it “may” warrant reopening discovery

16

and the exchange of additional expert reports “to the extent” an expert in patent office practice is

17

warranted. (See Opp. Br. at 4:16-19.) The Court tentatively finds that, on the current record,

18

Plaintiffs have not made a strong showing of prejudice. The Court also tentatively concludes that

19

Plaintiffs have not shown that any potential prejudice could not be cured by permitting some

20

limited and targeted discovery on an expedited basis. Because prejudice is the factor that, in

21

general, carries the greatest weight, the Court concludes supplemental briefing would be useful.

22

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief, not to

23

exceed five (5) pages, that outlines in detail the discovery they would need to obtain to adequately

24

respond to a claim or defense of inequitable conduct by 12:00 p.m. on April 13, 2016. By this

25

Order, the Court is not inviting Plaintiffs to submit a “wish list” of any and all possible discovery

26

they might need to respond to a claim for inequitable conduct. Rather, the Court expects Plaintiffs

27

to respond to this request in good faith and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

28

26(b)(1). Plaintiffs should also provide an estimate of how much time they expect would be
2

1

req
quired to com
mplete any additional dis
scovery. De
efendants ma file a thre (3) page re
ay
ee
esponse by

2

3:0 p.m. on April 15, 201
00
A
16.

3
4
5
6
7
8

If, after considering the parties’ supplemen briefs, th Court concludes that t motion
r
g
’
ntal
he
the
can be resolved without ora argument, it will notif the parties in advance of the heari date.
n
d
al
,
fy
s
e
ing
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: April 7, 2016
,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3