Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CREO, INC., EASTMAN KODAK ) COMPANY, AND KODAK GRAPHIC ) COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY ) ) Defendants. )

C.A. No. 06-032-JJF

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), plaintiff R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company ("RRD") moves for leave to amend its Complaint. By its Amended Complaint, RRD seeks, inter alia, to add as defendants NexPress Solutions, Inc. and Kodak Versamark, Inc., which are related to one or more of the named defendants, and to add more detail concerning RRD's infringement claims and the applicable software products through which such infringement is conducted, as well as Defendants' inducement of infringement by others through their sale of certain printing presses. RRD understands that Defendants intends to oppose this motion. Pursuant to D. Del. L.R. 15.1, attached as Exhibit 1 are two copies of RRD's proposed Amended Complaint, and attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy showing how the amended pleading differs from the original pleading. The bases for this motion are as follows: 1. RRD filed this action on January 17, 2006, alleging that Defendants have

infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,205,452, entitled "METHOD OF REPRODUCING VARIABLE GRAPHICS IN A VARIABLE IMAGING SYSTEM" ("the `452 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,327,599, entitled "APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING AN ELECTRONIC PRESS TO

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 2 of 7 2.

PRINT FIXED AND VARIABLE INFORMATION" ("the `599 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,952,801, entitled "BOOK ASSEMBLY PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR VARIABLE IMAGING SYSTEM" ("the `801 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 6,844,940, entitled "IMPOSITION PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR VARIABLE IMAGING SYSTEM" ("the `940 patent"). RRD alleged that Defendants made, offered for sale, and sold infringing software, including Darwin Desktop, a variable digital printing software that directly infringes all four of the patents in suit. RRD also alleged, inter alia, that Defendants induced others to infringe, e.g., through their promotion and sale of the printing presses that accommodate the infringing software of others. 2. RRD seeks to amend its Complaint in part to overcome, to the extent

possible, the unreasonable refusal by Defendants to provide discovery concerning their software products not specifically identified in the Complaint, or information concerning its printing presses, which are marketed and sold so as to induce others to infringe the patents in suit. 3. In its June 21, 2006 Motion to Compel, RRD requested that Defendants be

ordered to provide complete responses to RRD's First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents and Things ("Document Requests") and First Set of Interrogatories

("Interrogatories"). In its Document Requests, among other things, RRD sought documents concerning: (a) Defendants' Software Products for variable digital printing, including Creo Darwin (for both QuarkXPress and Adobe InDesign), Kodak NexTreme DL-100 Variable Data Software, Kodak NexTreme DL-1000 Variable Data Software, and Composer; and (b) Defendants' hardware sales (e.g., sales of printing presses), which relate to RRD's allegations of contributory infringement and inducement. The Motion to Compel also sought responses to

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 3 of 7 3.

RRD's contention interrogatories relating to Defendants' defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity. 4. Despite the fact that throughout discovery RRD has identified specific

software products and printing presses (see, e.g., RRD's response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, No. 1, attached hereto as Exhibit 3), Defendants said they would not provide any discovery on any product not specifically identified in the Complaint, and as a result, have opposed the relief sought in the Motion to Compel. To further this unreasonable limitation on discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Rule 26(c)(4) Protective Order on November 22, 2006 seeking to limit discovery to the Darwin Desktop software, thereby seeking to prevent RRD from conducting any Rule 30(b)(6) depositions concerning Defendants' variable digital print software other than Darwin Desktop or their inducement of infringement. 5. There is no basis in the Complaint, the Federal Rules, or the Local Rules

of this Court that allow Defendants to limit discovery in the way they have attempted to do so. The Federal Rules do not require naming even a single infringing product. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 16. In fact, "all the Rules require is a `short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 335 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). 6. Given the passage of time and Defendants' continued intransigence with

respect to discovery, RRD is moving to amend the Complaint in part to add additional detail concerning RRD's infringement allegations in order to persuade Defendants, to the extent possible, to provide the discovery to which RRD has long been entitled.

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 4 of 7 4.

7.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given

when justice so requires." In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962), the Supreme Court stated that "this mandate is to be heeded": If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a [party] may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. Although the decision to grant or deny leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, the Supreme Court has stated that leave to amend should be granted absent "undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment." Id. at 182; see also Howard v. Snyder, C.A. No. 01-376-SLR, 2003 WL 365912, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2003) ("[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require leave to amend to be freely granted."). Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 states that a party may be added to an action "at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just." The same standard of liberality that applies under Rule 15(a) applies under Rule 21. See Clarke v. Fonix Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2143 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'd, 199 F.3d 1321 (2d Cir. 1999). 8. None of the grounds for denying leave to amend is present here. RRD is

not exercising bad faith or a dilatory motive, nor has this motion been unduly delayed. Moreover, the proposed amendment will not result in undue prejudice to Defendants. In

contrast, denial of the proposed amendment will result in continued prejudice to RRD through Defendants' unreasonable position concerning the scope of discovery. The amendment also is not futile because it pleads a valid claim of patent infringement, and there is no question that there is a justiciable controversy.

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 5 of 7 5.

9. should be granted.

RRD respectfully requests that its motion for leave to amend its Complaint

MORRIS, NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Rodger D. Smith II Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiff R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY

OF COUNSEL: Bradford J. Badke Stuart W. Yothers ROPES & GRAY LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 (212) 596-9000 Steven A. Kaufman ROPES & GRAY LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 (617) 951-7000 January 3, 2007
550369

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 6 of 7

RULE 7.1.1 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that counsel for plaintiff has discussed the subject of the foregoing motion with counsel for defendants, and the parties have not been able to reach agreement on the issues raised in the motion.

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II ____________________________________ Rodger D. Smith II

January 3, 2007

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 3, 2007, he caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following: Frederick L. Cottrell III Richards Layton & Finger I also certify that copies were caused to be served on January 3, 2007, upon the following in the manner indicated: BY EMAIL AND HAND Frederick L. Cottrell III Richards Layton & Finger One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801

BY EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Richard McMillan, Jr. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2595

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected]

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 1 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 2 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 3 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 4 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 5 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 6 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 7 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 8 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 9 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 10 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 11 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 12 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 13 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 14 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 15 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 16 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 17 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 18 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 19 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 20 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 21 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 22 of 60

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 23 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 24 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 25 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 26 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 27 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 28 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 29 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 30 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 31 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 32 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 33 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 34 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 35 of 60

EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 36 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 37 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 38 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 39 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 40 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 41 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 42 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 43 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 44 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 45 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 46 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 47 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 48 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 49 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 50 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 51 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 52 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 53 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 54 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 55 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 56 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 57 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 58 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 59 of 60

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 92-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 60 of 60