Phenix Longhorn LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation, Hisense Electronica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Hisense USA Corporation, Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., and Does 1–10

Summary

The court addresses Phenix Longhorn LLC’s motion for sanctions concerning AUO’s late-disclosed counterclaims and affirmative defense. The court denies striking the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Counterclaims but orders them severed into a separate civil action and stayed, while striking the Thirteenth Affirmative Defense for inequitable conduct.

Holdings

1. The counterclaims and additional-party joinder were untimely because they were filed after the applicable scheduling deadlines and without leave of court, but striking them was not required; severance and a stay were the appropriate remedy.
2. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Counterclaims were permissive rather than compulsory because they did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Phenix Longhorn's patent-infringement claims.
3. The court granted the motion and struck Defendants' Thirteenth Affirmative Defense for Inequitable Conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants' untimely Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Counterclaims and joinder of two additional parties should be stricken under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 16.
2. Whether the counterclaims should be treated as compulsory or permissive counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13.
3. Whether severance and a stay, rather than striking the counterclaims, was an appropriate remedy.
4. Whether Defendants' Thirteenth Affirmative Defense for Inequitable Conduct should be stricken.

Disposition

other