Amendment of pleadings after the scheduling deadline is not permitted
Asahi Glass Co., LTD., et al. v. Guardian Industries Corp., Civ. No. 09-515-SLR, August 8, 2011.
Robinson, J. Guardian’s motion to amend its affirmative defenses to allege inequitable conduct is denied.
The disputed technology relates to target and process for production and method for forming a film with a highly refractive index. The inequitable conduct alleged involves concealing or misrepresenting true inventorship to the PTO during prosecution. The motion was filed six months after the deadline to amend pleadings, thus certain prejudice to Asahi is inherent. Guardian argues that the delay was caused by the need to translate Japanese documents, and the fact that key depositions did not take place until four months after the deadline. Asahi added 12 new claims four months after the deadline, and the motion was filed shortly after the claim construction process was completed. The court notes that inventor declarations were publicly available as part of the file wrappers, and Guardian does not adequately explain why it waited to bring its claim based on priority. Guardian’s delay is found to be largely unexplained.
