The first part of this headline is no surprise. As long as a motion to amend is filed before the deadline in the scheduling order, it's very hard to lose. In fact, Judge Andrews didn't even issue a written opinion on this one (another plug for the importance of monitoring oral orders in D. Del.):
I do not see undue delay, and Defendant basically concedes that any prejudice can be pretty easily ameliorated. The Court is not concerned about the prospect of a five-day trial with seven patents from seven families. That scenario will never come to pass.
The surprising part is what happened next. After dismissing the defendant's concerns, Judge Andrews ordered the plaintiffs to narrow their claims within a week:
Plaintiffs are limited to asserting five claims each in the two new patents. Plaintiffs need to make that election within one week. To the extent amendment makes the current schedule inefficient, the parties should agree upon a new schedule.
Claim narrowing is par for the course in D. Del., and Judge Andrews might have been motivated by the fact that the parties had already started exchanging terms for claim construction. Still, this is something to watch for if you're a plaintiff (and consider asking for if you're a defendant).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
