Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 89

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byMobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 67 ) (Budwin, Joshua) (Filed on 7/1/2014)

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:13-cv-00900-JRG Document 69 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4231

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, AND
MOBILESTAR TECHOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et
al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00894-JRG
LEAD CASE
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00900-JRG
MEMBER CASE

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
(Dkt. No. 45), filed March 10, 2014. Plaintiff seek to amend their First Amended Complaint
(Dkt. No. 19) to reflect additional claims against Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”). In their
first amendment, Plaintiffs added allegations that Google infringed three of seven of the patentsin-suit. Plaintiffs now seek to add claims alleging infringement of all seven patents.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that the Court “should freely give leave
[to amend a complaint] when justice so requires.” The Rule “evinces a bias in favor of granting
leave to amend.” Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading U.S. of Am. Co.,
195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 597
(5th Cir. Nov. 1981)). “‘[U]nless there is a substantial reason,’ such as an undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, ‘the discretion of the district court is
not broad enough to permit denial.’” Id. (quoting Dussuoy, 660 F.2d at 597).
1

Case 2:13-cv-00900-JRG Document 69 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4232

No such substantial reason appears here. Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint
early, before the scheduling conference in this case. Such timely amendment does not ordinarily
qualify as undue delay. See, e.g., Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Bionics
Corp., No. 4:04-cv-131-RAS, Dkt. No. 48 (E.D. Tex. Jan 28, 2005); Tender Cellular of Tex.,
LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 6:11-cv-178-LED-JDL, Dkt. No. 96 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3,
2012). Google argues that Plaintiffs knew of the facts and circumstances alleged in its proposed
amendment at the time that it filed its original complaint (Dkt. No. 56, at 4-5). This is pure
speculation, however; Plaintiffs assert to the contrary that the timing of its amendments proceeds
from their diligent investigation of the accused products. No undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
motive is evident.
.

Neither is there undue prejudice to the defendants in allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend.

Discovery in this case has barely begun, and Google has long been on notice that this suit
involves seven patents. Indeed, Google has filed a related action in California addressing all
seven of the patents-in-suit, so Google’s litigation team is already preparing for action on these
patents.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (Dkt.
No. 45) should be and hereby is GRANTED.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st day of July, 2014.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2