Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere System LLC (collectively, “LSI” or “Complainants”) filed a motion for leave to amend their amended complaint in order to clarify the scope of the accused products of Respondent Funai Electric Company (“Funai”). LSI sought to clarify that the scope of the accused products were not limited to Funai products that contain an integrated circuited component supplied by either Realtek or MediaTek.
In support of its motion, LSI argued that their would be no prejudice to Funai because LSI had consistently maintained that the scope of the accused products was not limited to Funai products incorporating solely MediaTek and Realtek components. Funai opposed the motion, asserting that LSI had not shown any new information that would justify the proposed amendment and that it would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments because LSI would be able to expand the scope of the accused Funai products at a late stage of the investigation.
The Administrative Law Judge granted the motion, reasoning: “As indicated in Order No. 15, in their first amended complaint, complainants identified only co-respondents as Funai’s component suppliers. Yet, as seen in Order No. 15 and the other related orders cited above, complainants have sought discovery as to other possible suppliers. Complainants now seek leave to amend their complaint to clarify that the scope of accused products includes Funai products that contain chips from other suppliers. The undersigned finds that complainants have shown the requisite good cause for the proposed amendment, and the amendment will not prejudice the public interest or the rights of any party to the investigation.”
Further explaining the reasoning, the Administrative Law Judge determined that “[t]he proposed amendment has been brought on a timely basis, will promote judicial economy and efficiency, and will not change the relief requested or add any parties to the investigation. The proposed amendment will help the Commission develop a complete record, allow the Commission more easily to carry out its enforcement function after the investigation if complainants prevail, and will permit adjudication of matters pertaining to Funai and complainants in a single investigation as opposed to separate investigations. It is in the public interest to adjudicate all matters relating to Funai and complainants with respect to the asserted patents in a single investigation. Respondents will suffer no prejudice because complainants have consistently maintained that the scope of accused products is not limited to Funai products incorporating solely MediaTek and Realtek IC components.”
In the Matter of Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-837 (Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw Dec. 27, 2012)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.