Wiremold Co v. Thomas & Betts Corp

Filing 108

ORDER denying 92 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 93 Motion to Seal in light of the 6 protective order; granting 96 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 6/28/2019. (Mattessich, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

WIREMOLD CO.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CORP.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:16-CV-2133 (VLB)

June 28, 2019

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
[DKT. 92]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Wiremold Co.’s Motion to Amend the [Dkt. 55]
Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 92]. Wiremold seeks to amend its complaint to include
an allegation that Thomas & Betts’ “RPT6 poke-through” indirectly infringes on
Wiremold patents No. 7,183,503 and 8,063,317. [Dkt. 92-1, at 1].
Plaintiffs may amend a complaint only once as a matter of course, within 15
days of serving the original complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Further amendment
requires the opposing party’s written consent or the Court’s leave. Id. at Rule
15(a)(2). Leave to amend may be denied if it would cause undue delay. See Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint would cause undo delay. Plaintiff
has not shown why it could not include the allegations of direct infringement in its
original complaint, stating only that it did not discover the indirect infringement
until viewing Defendant’s interrogatory responses.

[Dkt. 92-1, at 4]. However,

Plaintiff had access to the “RPT6 poke-through” well before filing the first
1

complaint, yet waited to assert the claim of indirect infringement until seven
months after claim construction briefing had concluded. See [Dkts. 73-76, 82-85]
Plaintiff acknowledges that the proposed amendment will create some additional
discovery expense and delay. [Dkt. 92-1, at 2] (stating that such delay would not
be “significant”). In light of the age of this case and the extensions already granted,
the Court cannot allow Wiremold to further amend its complaint.

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s [Dkt. 92] Motion to Amend is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED
__________/s/____________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: June 28, 2019

2