MiiCs & Partners America Inc. et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM And Case Management Order. The motions for leave to file first amended complaint are GRANTED (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/31/2015. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-00803-RGA, 1:14-cv-00804-RGA, 1:14-cv-00805-RGA(nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MIICS & PARTNERS AMERICA INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 14-803-RGA

v.
TOSHIBA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

MIICS & PARTNERS AMERICA INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-804-RGA

FUNANI ELECTRIC CO. LTD, et al.,
Defendants.

MIICS & PARTNERS AMERICA INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-805-RGA

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

In each of these cases, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint,
each motion having been filed within the time set forth in the scheduling order. (No. 14-803,
D.I. 29; No. 14-804, D.I. 29; No. 14-805, D.I. 36). Defendants oppose.
The principal bases for opposition are (1) Plaintiffs could have amended earlier, (2) the
schedule will need to be adjusted, and (3) an already difficult and complex trial will be made
more so.
My view is that the first argument is probably correct, but given that amendment is sought
within the time set forth in the scheduling order, the preference for "freely giv[ing] leave [to
amend] when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), controls, and the better way to handle
any unfairness to Defendants would be through adjustment to the schedule, which, given the
relatively early stage of the cases, does not seem like a great imposition on the Court or the
parties. The scheduling conference was only held in mid-November 2014.
As for the third argument, initial technical discovery was due February 16, 2015, that is,
more than five weeks ago. Thus, if Plaintiffs are asserting more than thirty-two (32) claims in
any case, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to reduce the number of asserted claims to thirty-two (32) by
no later than April 10, 2015. 1 As was discussed at the scheduling conference, each case is set to
be tried in five days, which acts as an outside limit on how much complexity either side is able to
actually try.
Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file first amended complaint (No. 14-803, D.I. 29; No. 14804, D.I. 29; No. 14-805, D.I. 36) are GRANTED. The parties SHALL MEET AND

1

Upon a showing of diligence, and with due consideration for prejudice, Plaintiffs may
seek to modify this order for good cause. Plaintiffs and Defendants are DIRECTED to meet and
confer about appropriately limiting the amount of asserted prior art in view of the limitations
placed upon Plaintiffs.

CONFER about the need for modifications to the scheduling order, and, by April 10, 2015,

either (1) report that no modifications are needed; (2) submit a joint proposed order without any
disputes; or (3) submit one proposed order with any disputed matters easily identifiable,
accompanied by separate letters of no more than three pages per side arguing the side's position.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

3f

5i/day of March 2015.