Defendants' motion to amend their pleadings to include inequitable conduct was denied. ""Defendants argue that their delay in requesting leave to amend is warranted because the factual basis for their newly asserted affirmative defense and counterclaim of inequitable conduct was not fully developed until [2 months ago] when they deposed. . . one of the named inventors of the [patent-in-suit]. Defendants’ decision to wait until little more than one month before the close of fact discovery to depose such a major witness is not an adequate justification for subjecting plaintiffs to the undue delay and prejudice which would result from our granting their motion to amend. Significantly, the allegedly undisclosed prior-art references on which defendants base their theory of inequitable conduct were known to them as early as [10 months ago].""
MagSil Corp. et al v. Seagate Technology et al., 1-08-cv-00940 (DED July 7, 2010, Memorandum & Order) (Bartle, J.)