In Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, C.A. No. 10-1045 (RBK-JS) (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2012, Magistrate Judge Schneider, sitting by designation, recently granted defendant’s motion to supplement its contentions. Defendant moved to supplement its contentions one week after the parties exchanged their claim construction positions. Defendant wanted to add detail to its previously pled defenses and add additional defenses in light of plaintiff’s proposed constructions. Id. at 2. Judge Schneider found that good cause existed to grant defendant’s motion because “defendant did not recognize the amendments were necessary and appropriate until it received [plaintiff’s] proposed constructions[,]” and that the proposed amendments “flow from’ the constructions the parties exchanged . . . .” Id. at 4. Plaintiff argued that it would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments because it filed an early motion for partial summary judgment based on defendant’s one invalidity contention. Id. at 6. The court was not persuaded, however, because plaintiff’s motion would still be decided on the merits. “The fact that [plaintiff] decided to file its dispositive motion early was the result of its strategic decision. Surely, [plaintiff] could not have anticipated that its motion for summary judgment would automatically ‘lock’ [defendant’ into its contentions.” Id.
Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, C.A. No. 10-1045 (RBK-JS) (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2012)
Delaware IP Law Blog 