The question was whether the request was timely.
Judge Bennett denied the motions, concluding that the problem was that the defendant hadn’t produced the necessary discovery.
Judge Godbey found that the contentions were sufficient under M.O. 62.
The court noted the “unusually extensive and contentious discovery” in this case.
These orders are always worth studying.
Once again, the argument on the motion to strike was really that the plaintiff’s infringement theory is fatally flawed. Is that enough?
But was a motion required?
This interesting order deals with a defendant’s amendment after a claim construction ruling.
Judge Gilstrap found that the factors weighed favor of granting leave to amend.
The issue was whether the plaintiff would be required to supplement its infringement contentions.