Free
Message: Re: PACER
14
Feb 12, 2010 12:24PM
3
Feb 12, 2010 12:31PM
6
Feb 12, 2010 12:36PM
3
Feb 12, 2010 12:40PM
11
Feb 12, 2010 12:42PM
5
Feb 12, 2010 12:46PM
2
Feb 12, 2010 12:47PM

Feb 12, 2010 02:11PM
2
Feb 12, 2010 02:15PM
4
Feb 12, 2010 03:31PM
14
Feb 12, 2010 04:16PM

Feb 12, 2010 04:22PM
2
Feb 12, 2010 04:38PM
3
Feb 12, 2010 05:18PM
3
Feb 12, 2010 06:02PM
2
Feb 12, 2010 09:26PM

I pasted excerpts from Doc 178 which I uploaded to box.net. Not sure exactly what the correction to their 737 patent was without comparing the old to the new. Any takers with a few hours to spare? Pretty cool that DM now feels they can add it to their case against these CO defendants.

--------------

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2009, e.Digital filed its original Complaint for patent infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774, entitled “Handheld Record and Playback Device with Flash Memory”

(the ‘774 Patent). On or around January 19, 2010, counsel for Plaintiff e.Digital received a

Certificate of Correction from the USPTO for its related patent entitled “Method for Recording

Voice Messages on Flash Memory in a Hand Held Recorder” (the ‘737 Patent). e.Digital now

seeks leave to amend its Complaint to add a patent infringement claim related to the ‘737 Patent

and, therefore, bring claims for both patents against the Defendants in one action. e.Digital seeks

to assert this new patent infringement claims less than one month after receiving the correction

from the USPTO.

B. There Is No Undue Delay or Bad Faith.

e.Digital’s motion to amend is not untimely. With respect to the ‘737 Patent, e.Digital is

seeking to add a patent infringement claim related to the ‘737 Patent approximately three weeks

after receiving the Certificate of Correction of that patent from the USPTO, which is only three

months after the filing of the original Complaint and before most of the Defendants in this case

have answered. The additional requested amendments, including the increased detail about

e.Digital’s infringement allegations and the correction of party names, follows approximately

five weeks after the parties’ Rule 16 Conference, in which these issues were discussed and this

Court recommended that e.Digital amend its Complaint. (Reporter’s Transcript at 21:23–22:4).

Further, there is no bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of e.Digital’s decision to (i) add the

related Patent only after receiving the correction it sought from the Patent Office and (ii) provide

a more detailed and accurate Complaint. These amendments will facilitate the efficient

resolution of all related patent infringement claims by e.Digital against the Defendants.

18
Feb 13, 2010 01:17PM
4
Feb 13, 2010 05:23PM
2
Feb 13, 2010 07:26PM
2
Feb 15, 2010 04:16AM
7
Feb 15, 2010 02:30PM
5
Feb 15, 2010 02:34PM
7
Feb 15, 2010 04:15PM
3
Feb 15, 2010 04:25PM
1
Feb 15, 2010 05:04PM
5
Feb 15, 2010 07:49PM
3
Feb 15, 2010 10:17PM
2
Feb 16, 2010 08:09AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply