By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Softview LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-389-LPS (D.Del., December 7, 2011), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its September 30, 2011 Order granting Plaintiff Softview’s Motion to Amend Its Complaint to add parties and accused devices utilizing Android software.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached hereto.
In their Motion, Defendants, Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC, asserted two grounds for reconsideration. Id. at 2. First, Defendants asserted that new authorities regarding the requirements for permissive joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2)(A) abrogated the cases on which Softview’s motion to amend relied. Id. In other words, Defendants asserted that Section 299 of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) provides that “accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit.” Id. at 2-3. However, Defendants conceded that the new Section 299 applied to civil actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of the AIA – September 16, 2011. Id. at 3. Thus, the Court found that the new Section 299 was not “an intervening change in controlling law” in this action. Id. Likewise, the Court found that district court decisions issued subsequent to the briefing on Softview’s motion also did not constitute an intervening change in controlling law. Id.
Second, Defendants asserted that there was a “need to correct a clear error of law regarding joinder” in the Court’s September 30, 2011 Order. Id. The Court, however, agreed with Softview that Defendants simply reargued their same position previously asserted rather than showing a clear error of law by the Court. Thus, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. Id.