Motion To Intervene Denied After Jury Verdict Of Patent Infringement Where Third Party Had Notice Of Case And Could Have Intervened Sooner

After a jury determined that certain defendants induced infringement of the plaintiff's patents by, among other things, selling unregulated and semi-regulated bus converters to third parties, such as Cisco, Cisco moved to intervene into the case. The district court explained that "[t]he jury found that Cisco, among others, was a direct infringer whose products incorporating Defendants' bus converters directly infringed SynQor's patents when they were sold in the United States. Judge Ward entered a Permanent Injunction and awarded supplemental damages for Defendants' continued sale of bus converters through January 24, 2011."

Cisco sought to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a). Cisco asserted that it purchased intermediate bus converters ("IBCs") from the Defendants that are the subject of the damages and, as a result,. Cisco sought to intervene for two reasons:

"Cisco has agreed with certain defendants to assume liability for damages that may be awarded in this case, giving Cisco a significant interest in ensuring the damages awarded to SynQor are accurately calculated and not inflated; and Cisco has the most relevant and important evidence regarding the number of IBC shipments for which SynQor is entitled to a royalty." In response, SynQor asserted that the '444 case, and its predecessor action (the '497 case), have been pending for five and a half years. As explained by the district court, "[a]ccording to SynQor, even though Cisco asserts its end products account for nearly all of the infringing sales at issue and it has a significant state in the outcome of this case in light of its indemnity agreements with several defendants, Cisco has never made any attempt to intervene in the '497 case. SynQor further asserts Cisco did not move to intervene for the one and a half years that the '444 case has been pending even though the parties were days away from trial before the case was continued in October of 2012. According to SynQor, Cisco has repeatedly emphasized and derived benefits from its status as a non party. SynQor contends Cisco's untimely intervention less than three months before the rescheduled trial date would be highly prejudicial to SynQor." SynQor also argued that intervention was not necessary because the Defendants adequately represent Cisco's interests.

The district court then explained that "[i]n order to intervene of right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), an...