Untimely amendment allowed to assert prosecution laches defense, but not inequitable conduct
Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., Nos. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Aug. 23, 2006.
Thynge, M.J. The court granted defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to assert prosecution laches defenses and counterclaims, and denied the motion with respect to three additional inequitable conduct allegations.
The deadline for amending pleadings was April 18, 2003. On that date, Inline moved to add a newly-issued patent. Defendants thereafter answered, asserting defenses which included inequitable conduct and prosecution laches. Fact discovery closed June 27, 2003. After rulings on claim construction, summary judgment and reconsideration, on February 9, 2006, defendants served supplemental interrogatory responses containing factual information supporting the proposed amended pleadings. The court found ample notice in the prior pleading of the laches defense and notes that plaintiff has not identified any additional discovery it would need. With respect to inequitable conduct defenses, the court reached a different conclusion. The amendment was not allowed because it was untimely. Newly produced evidence merely augments what defendants knew in 2003 and defendants could have properly pled the defenses with requisite particularly in 2003.
Thynge, M.J. The court granted defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to assert prosecution laches defenses and counterclaims, and denied the motion with respect to three additional inequitable conduct allegations.
The deadline for amending pleadings was April 18, 2003. On that date, Inline moved to add a newly-issued patent. Defendants thereafter answered, asserting defenses which included inequitable conduct and prosecution laches. Fact discovery closed June 27, 2003. After rulings on claim construction, summary judgment and reconsideration, on February 9, 2006, defendants served supplemental interrogatory responses containing factual information supporting the proposed amended pleadings. The court found ample notice in the prior pleading of the laches defense and notes that plaintiff has not identified any additional discovery it would need. With respect to inequitable conduct defenses, the court reached a different conclusion. The amendment was not allowed because it was untimely. Newly produced evidence merely augments what defendants knew in 2003 and defendants could have properly pled the defenses with requisite particularly in 2003.
