Case 1:11-cv-00770-RGA Document 426 Filed 08/20/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8374

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HSM PORTFOLIO LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.
FUJITSU LIMITED, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-770-RGA

ORDER The deadline for filing motions "to amend or supplement the pleadings" was June 30, 2013. (D.I. 326, p.l). On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed such a motion. (D.I. 344). There are twelve active defendants. The main thrust of the amended pleadings would be to assert some of the four asserted patents, previously unasserted against some of seven of the defendants, against those defendants. Those defendants oppose. (D.I. 357, 360, 361, 364, 365, 366, 367). Briefing was completed August 1, 2013. The defendants make various arguments in opposition, including undue delay, unfair prejudice, and futility. While there are indeed issues concerning delay and unfair prejudice, I believe that the case is still at a fairly early stage, and any issues of prejudice can be dealt with by extending the schedule. Indeed, some of the defendants request (D.I. 360, 361, 367) a new schedule if the motion is granted. The various defendants also make arguments specific to their own cases. I I address them While the defendants are joined together, the only reason that this is so is that at the time this suit was filed, there was some authority that they could be joined together. While the Court would like to have one Markman hearing in this case, the defendants are not under any obligation to otherwise schedule matters such as case dispositive motions, pretrial conferences and trials at the same time.
I

I
I

l I

I l

ii

r ;

Case 1:11-cv-00770-RGA Document 426 Filed 08/20/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8375

briefly. Micron argues that the two patents newly asserted against it are subject to laches defenses and will not generate much in the way of damages. (D.I. 360). The first argument is better suited to resolution at a later stage of the case, and the second does not demonstrate futility. 2 On futility, AMD has an argument that Plaintiff has insufficiently pleaded that AMD directly infringed based on actions ofSpansion. I do not believe that Plaintiffhas pleaded facts sufficient to support the argument that Spansion is an agent of AMD. Thus, while I will allow the amendment, I expect that AMD will file the motion to dismiss that it has proffered. (See D.I. 357, p.12 n.4). Thus,

this~ay of August 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion

for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (D.I. 344) is GRANTED. Any scheduling deadlines relating to the defendants who opposed the motion to amend (unless set by the Special Master) during the next six weeks (or until there is an agreed-upon schedule, whichever occurs later) WILL NOT BE ENFORCED. The parties should meet and confer and submit a status

report on scheduling no later than four weeks from the date of this order.

Some of the other defendants make similar arguments to Micron's.