SunPower Corporation v. PanelClaw, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1633 – MPT, September 19, 2016.

Thynge, C. M. J. Defendant’s motion to amend answer to assert inequitable conduct defenses is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion for leave to supplement its motion to amend is granted.

The disputed technology relates to photovoltaic roofing products. The court finds that the motion to amend is timely and there was no undue delay in seeking leave to amend. No bad faith or undue prejudice. The court denies the motion with respect to allegations concerning a prior art patent and the prosecution of one of the patents-in-suit, noting that the Examiner was aware of the reference. The motion has adequately pled facts relating to failure to disclose certain prior art relating to the second patent-in-suit, but denies the motion with respect to two pieces of prior art. The motion is denied with respect to allegations relating to the “real reason” plaintiff filed a reissue application. Defendant has sufficiently pled claims alleging backdating and alteration of lab notebooks and also claims relating to the violation of the duty of candor and goof faith. Remaining contested pleadings are not allowed.