By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in British Telecommunications PLC v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 11-1249-LPS (D.Del., September 20, 2012), the Court granted Plaintiff British Telecommunications PLC’s motion for leave to file a First Supplemental Complaint to include claims of infringement against a new product and/or service introduced by defendant Google after the filing of the original complaint and claims of indirect infringement based on Google’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least the date of the filing of the original complaint on December 15, 2011.
In granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, the Court recognized the Third Circuit’s liberal approach to granting leave to amend and found there was no evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by Plaintiff. Id. at 2. The Court also rejected Defendant’s argument that the motion was futile because Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim of indirect infringement. Id. In doing so, Judge Stark made it clear that, for purposes of indirect infringement occurring after the filing date, his expressed view is that “an accused infringer is on notice of the patent(s)-in-suit once an initial pleading identifies the patents-in-suit.” Id. (quoting Softview LLC v. Apple Inc., 2012 WL 3061027, at *7 (D.Del., July 26, 2012).
A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.