Published on:

Judge Andrews denies attempt to assert different claims than those selected earlier during narrowing process.

In a recent order, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied a plaintiff’s attempt to introduce new asserted claims that the plaintiff did not include in its earlier preliminary list of asserted claims.  Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2017).  The Court explained, “‘Preliminary’ refers to time.  It does not mean ‘subject to change at whim.’  As Defendants point out, the goal is to narrow the case into something that could be triable.  When one side or the other seeks to replace newly-identified weaklings with more robust claims, that side is going in the wrong direction.”  However, Judge Andrews explained that such substitution could potentially be permitted following a showing of good cause, which neither addressed during the dispute.  Therefore, the Court explained, “while Plaintiff is not permitted to substitute on this record, I make this ruling without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking, now or at a later time, to demonstrate good cause.”

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2017)

Contact Information