Diligence Asserting Inequitable Conduct Measured from Date Prior Art was Known to be Relevant, not Date Prior Art was Known to Exist

Defendant's motion to file amended pleadings to add claims of inequitable conduct and false marking was granted following plaintiff's amendment of its pleadings. "[Defendant] makes the convincing counter-argument that even if it knew certain facts related to [certain] patents for the past few years, these facts did not become relevant until Plaintiff added those patents to this case. The Court agrees that [defendant's] diligence should be measured from the time it knew that certain prior art might be relevant, not from when it first knew of the existence of the prior art."

Aten International Co. Ltd. v. Emine Technology Co., Ltd., 8-09-cv-00843 (CACD January 3, 2011, Order) (Guilford, J.)