LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC et al
Filing
169
ORDER granting 152 Motion for Leave to File; denying 154 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on December 5, 2012. (ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
LIFESCAN, INC. and LIFESCAN SCOTLAND, )
LTD.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
16
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND;
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS MOOT
[Re: Docket Nos. 152, 154]
Presently before the court are Plaintiffs LifeScan, Inc. and LifeScan Scotland, Ltd.’s
17
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, and Defendants
18
Shasta Technologies, LLC, Instacare Corp., Pharmatech Solutions, Inc., and Conductive
19
Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer.
20
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Plaintiffs oppose
21
Defendants’ motion, and two Defendants—Instacare Corp. and Pharamtech Solutions Inc.—oppose
22
Plaintiffs’ motion. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for
23
Leave, and DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Leave as moot.
24
25
I.
Background
This case is a patent infringement action concerning blood glucose test trips. Plaintiff
26
Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. filed this action on September 9, 2011, alleging that Defendants infringe its
27
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,241,862 (“the ’862 patent”) and 5,708,247 (“the ’247 patent”). Nearly a year
28
1
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
1
later, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add LifeScan, Inc. as an additional Plaintiff. Dkt. No.
2
134. At the time of filing, Defendants’ product had not received FDA approval and as of this date
3
still has not received approval. Thus, Defendants do not actually have any accused product on the
4
market. This wrinkle has caused a significant amount of uncertainty in this litigation.
5
Prior to the present motions, the parties sought changes to the court-ordered schedule on
numerous occasions. Plaintiffs have several times indicated to Defendants and this court that they
7
have in their possession sufficient information to show that FDA approval for Defendants’ product
8
is imminent, and have raised the spectre of a motion for a preliminary injunction, including at least
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
one request for a preliminary injunction hearing. See Dkt. Nos. 70, at 8-11; 87; 90; 124. As of this
10
date, more than ten months after Plaintiffs first alluded to this likelihood, FDA approval has not yet
11
been granted and Plaintiffs have not filed for a preliminary injunction.
12
With the possibility of a preliminary injunction motion looming over these proceedings, the
13
court and the parties proceeded with the litigation. After initial arguments over a possible stay of
14
discovery or stay of the case, on February 1, 2012, this court issued a scheduling order. Because of
15
a dispute as to whether Defendants complied with the Patent Local Rules relating to their invalidity
16
contentions, the court extended the deadlines of that initial scheduling order on May 9, 2012. Dkt.
17
No. 94. In the same order, this court ordered that Defendants produce to Plaintiffs, inter alia,
18
supplemental invalidity contentions and documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused
19
product. Id. Several months later, on July 19, 2012, this court denied Defendants’ Motion for
20
Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Stay (Dkt. No. 108) and ordered them to produce to
21
Plaintiffs samples of the accused product and its FDA file by August 10, 2012 (Dkt. No. 107).
22
Defendants failed to comply with the May 9, 2012 order, and were sanctioned by Magistrate Judge
23
Grewal on August 24, 2012. Dkt. No. 130. Defendants nominally complied with this court’s July
24
19, 2012 order, producing test strip samples by the August 10th deadline. However the samples
25
appear to have been expired. Therefore, under an agreement among counsel, Defendants produced
26
new samples on September 12, 2012 along with some additional documents.
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
1
Meanwhile, because of renewed disputes about the sufficiency of the parties’ infringement
and invalidity contentions and document productions, this court again re-set the case schedule on
3
August 28, 2012. See Dkt. No. 131. In that order, the court granted both parties a generous stretch
4
of time to prepare and serve adequate amended infringement and invalidity contentions. Pointing
5
to the late production of Defendants’ samples, Plaintiffs served their amended infringement
6
contentions fifteen days past the deadline set in the scheduling order. This court denied ex parte
7
motions from both parties relating to this incident, leaving the scheduling order intact. Dkt. No.
8
151.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
Complaint, seeking to add a claim of indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105 (“the ’105
Four days later, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a First Amended
10
patent,”) and Defendants filed their Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer, adding an
11
affirmative defense under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. The court now turns to the
12
subject of these motions.
13
II.
14
Legal Standard
Leave to amend is generally granted with liberality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court
15
should freely give leave when justice so requires”); Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
16
Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave need not be granted, however, where the
17
amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad
18
faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
19
(1962); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). Not all of the Rule 15
20
considerations are created equal; “it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that
21
carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th
22
Cir. 2003). “The party opposing the amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” In re
23
Fritz Cos. Sec. Litig., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1109 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27. 2003) (citing DCD
24
Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)).
25
26
III.
Discussion
Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC and Conductive Technologies, Inc. have not filed an
27
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, “Defendants,” as used in the proceeding sections,
28
3
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
1
shall refer only to Instacare Corp. and Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. Because the court grants
2
Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants’ motion is moot and the court will only address the parties’
3
arguments relating to Plaintiffs’ motion.
4
A. Undue Prejudice
The court begins with an examination of prejudice because it is the critical factor in
6
deciding a motion for leave to amend. Defendants argue that a grant of leave to amend would be
7
unduly prejudicial because the amendment would make it impossible for them to comply with the
8
schedule set by this court. Defendants’ invalidity contentions were due November 22, 2012, before
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
the hearing on this motion, and the exchange of claim construction terms is set to occur on
10
December 6, 2012, the day after the hearing. Given that one of these deadlines has passed and the
11
other deadline is only one day away, Defendants are correct that they cannot possibly adequately
12
prepare their contentions and claim construction terms while still abiding by the court’s schedule.
13
Were the court powerless to re-examine and adjust its order, Defendants would certainly be
14
prejudiced.
15
court’s authority. The court can and will provide adequate time for Defendants to respond to the
16
newly added claim. Therefore, that Defendants would fail to meet previously set deadlines does
17
not constitute undue prejudice in this case.
18
However, amending the schedule to prevent prejudice to a party is well within the
The court notes that Defendants do face some prejudice by an amendment because it adds
19
complexity to an already impacted litigation schedule. However, much of this predicament is of
20
the parties’ own making. Each side has already caused significant delays in this case. That the
21
resulting schedule is an aggressive one is thus attributable only to the parties’ litigation conduct to
22
date. The court therefore declines to find that this tight timeframe constitutes prejudice.
23
Defendants also argue that a grant of leave to amend would be unfairly prejudicial because
24
it would “unfairly drive up the costs of litigation” by forcing them to defend against “yet another
25
untenable legal claim.” As will be discussed below, the amendment is not, on its face, futile.
26
Considering the high likelihood that Plaintiffs would simply file a separate lawsuit covering the
27
’105 patent in the event that the court denies this motion for leave, it appears likely that Defendants
28
4
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
1
will face the expense of defending against this claim whether or not leave to amend is granted. In
2
fact, the cost of defending an entirely new lawsuit would likely exceed the cost required to defend
3
against this amendment. Therefore, any additional litigation expenses incurred as a result of the
4
amendment do not constitute undue prejudice in this case.
5
B. Undue Delay
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs unduly delayed filing for leave to amend their complaint.
7
Pointing to Plaintiffs’ August 22, 2012 and August 24, 2012 statements to the court indicating that
8
Plaintiffs had obtained sufficient information to support a preliminary injunction motion
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
concerning the ’247 and the ’862 patents, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs must necessarily have
10
also obtained sufficient information regarding the possible infringement of the ’105 patent.
11
Plaintiffs argue that the August samples were out-of-date, and that they did not have satisfactory
12
samples to analyze until mid-September 2012. Plaintiffs filed this motion on October 26, 2012,
13
two months after Defendants contend Plaintiffs had notice of their ’105 patent claims, and six
14
weeks after Plaintiffs concede they had notice. While some delay is certainly present, it is not
15
necessarily an “undue” delay. As discussed in the previous section, any delay is of both parties’
16
making, and this court declines to find that this factor weighs against granting a leave to amend.
17
C. Futility
18
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment is futile, and thus must be denied.
19
To prevail on this theory, Defendants must show that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment is “legally
20
insufficient.” See Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 1984).
21
Plaintiffs’ claim relies exclusively on a theory of indirect infringement. Particularly, Plaintiffs
22
allege that Defendants induce Plaintiffs’ customers to infringe the ’105 patent by selling and
23
offering to sell Shasta Genstrips, which can be used with the LifeScan Ultra® family of meters and
24
have no substantial noninfringing use. To succeed on this claim, Plaintiffs must show at least one
25
instance of direct infringement. See Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 363 F.3d
26
1263, 1274-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs cannot make this showing, Defendants argue, because
27
28
5
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
1
customers have an implied license to use the glucose monitors in the manner claimed by Plaintiffs’
2
patents.
3
4
Plaintiffs respond that their glucose monitors are sold in packaging that contains the
following notice:
5
Use of the monitoring device included here is protected under one or more of the following
6
U.S. patents: 7,250,105…. Purchase of this device does not act to grant a use license under
7
these patents. Such a license is granted only when the device is used with OneTouch®
8
Ultra® Test strips.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
Defendants here bear the burden of establishing the existence of an implied license. See
10
Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Equip. Innovs., 72 F.3d 872, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1995). However,
11
Defendants failed to address the above express limitation to the license found on the packaging for
12
Plaintiffs’ product in their briefing. Defendants have failed to meet their burden because they have
13
not proven that Plaintiffs’ warning does not preclude the finding of an implied license.
14
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ amendment will not be found futile.
15
D. Bad Faith
16
Finally, Defendants argue that leave to amend should not be granted because the
17
amendment is brought in bad faith to perpetuate an “illegal monopoly.” Dkt. No. 160 at 8.
18
Defendants’ argument focuses primarily on Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in filing for this
19
amendment. As discussed in previous sections, the court does not find this argument compelling
20
given the circumstances of this case.
21
22
23
IV.
Order
Based on the foregoing:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
24
Plaintiffs shall file the First Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry on
25
PACER/ECF no later than December 10, 2012.
26
27
28
2. By December 14, 2012, the parties shall submit a joint proposal stipulating to dates for
the following deadlines:
6
Case No.: 5:11-CV-04494-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?