Judge Stark Denies Intervenor’s Motion for Reconsideration or Reargument
In LD Display Co., Ltd. V. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 06-726-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2011), Judge Stark denied intervenor Anvik Corporation’s motion to reconsider an order that denied its request to modify the protective order to allow Anvik access to certain sealed and confidential materials filed in this case. The Court was not persuaded that the order was clearly erroneous or based upon a misapprehension of fact or that adhering to it would cause manifest injustice, and therefore denied the motion.
Judge Stark Denies Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Add a Counterclaim
In Magnetar Technologies Corp., et al. v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc., et al., C.A. No. 07-127-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2011), Judge Stark denied several defendants’ motion for leave to amend to add a counterclaim against plaintiffs for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Defendants argued that the proposed amendments would not prejudice plaintiffs, since they had long known the facts underlying the proposed antitrust counterclaim, as these facts were an integral part of the invalidity defenses and counterclaims already asserted by defendants. The Court held that plaintiffs were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, since defendants’ proposed counterclaim was primarily based on plaintiffs’ actions in bringing this patent infringement action, and therefore the proposed amendment would be futile.