Published on:

Judge Andrews grants accused component manufacturer’s motion to intervene.

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently granted a motion by Samsung Display Company (“SDC”) to intervene in two cases where SDC-manufactured components formed the basis of a number of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants (claims that, if successful, would require indemnification by SDC).  MiiCs & Partners America, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., C.A. No. 14-803-RGA and v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd., 14-804-RGA (D. Del. June 15, 2016).  In considering the two elements of Rule 24 that were disputed, the Court found that SDC’s and the defendants’ interests diverged enough that SDC’s interests might not be adequately represented at trial absent intervention, in part because “SDC ‘is uniquely situated to understand and defend its own product.’”  Id. at 3 (quoting Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Audiovox Commc’ns Corp., 2005 WL 2465898, at *4 (D. Del. May 18, 2005)).  With respect to the timeliness of SDC’s motion, the plaintiff complained that nearly two years had passed before SDC sought to intervene, warranting a denial of the motion under Rule 24.  The Court rejected that argument, explaining that “for nearly eighteen of the twenty-one months after Plaintiffs filed their initial complaints, these cases progressed slowly or not at all.  Most importantly, almost no ‘proceedings of substance on the merits have occurred’ in these cases.”  Id. at 5 (quoting Mountain Top Condo. Ass’n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361, 369 (3d Cir. 1995)).

Contact Information