Joint Appendix One

Case 2 10-cv-07678-JFW -DTB
.5
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document 64 Filed 10/07/11 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:1217
are based upon the recently-discovered public use and on sale evidence that has
been in FutureLogic's possession for many years.
There has been no undue delay on the part of Nanoptix in seeking to amend
the Case Management and Scheduling Order and in conjunction, its Amended
Answer and Counterclaim's. Nanoptix has complied with the current Case
Management and Scheduling Order, and filed its Motion soon after the relevant
discovery was uncovered and the mediation completed on September 13,2011.
B. Leave to Amend Answer with Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim
and Defense
Nanoptix also requests leave to file its Amended Answer in light of the
evidence outlined above and the policy of freely granting leave to amend a
complaint when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As such, Nanoptix
respectfully requests leave to file its amended pleading.
The Ninth Circuit has been mindful of the long-standing notion that district
courts should freely give leave to amend the pleadings when justice so requires, and
that the standards for granting leave to amend are generous. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir, 1990). In United States v. Webb,
the court explained the factors that go into deciding whether to allow an
amendment:
In Howey v. Un!ted States, this Court analyzed these factors, and
concluded that they are not of equal weigtit ..... . Only where
prejudice is shown or the movant acts inbad faim are courts
protecting the judicia,! system or other litigants when they deny leave
to amencFa pleading. United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977,980 (9th
Nanoptix, Ine.'s Motion For Leave To File Amended Answer
with Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Defense
-A0326-
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I