By Eric Schweibenz
On January 27, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 13 in Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-887). 

According to the Order, Respondents Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd and Sany America, Inc. (collectively, “Sany”) filed a motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions.  Complainant Manitowoc Cranes, LLC (“Manitowoc”) filed a response supporting the motion in part. 

Sany requested to add “inadvertently-omitted anticipation charts of a single Manitowoc crane to their Invalidity Contentions that was previously cited in their Response to Complaint, Notice of Prior Art, Invalidity Contentions, and Supplemental Invalidity Contentions.”  Sany argued that, while their Invalidity Contentions identified the Manitowoc M-250 (“M-250”) crawler crane and included charts in their answer to Manitowoc’s complaint, their final submission did not include the charts.  Additionally, Sany argued that they only recently discovered the omission.  In response, Manitowoc stated that it did not oppose the motion to the extent it sought the inclusion in Sany’s Invalidity Contentions, but that it did oppose the motion to the extent that it sought anything further.  Specifically, Manitowoc argued that Sany had not properly noticed Manitowoc of using the M-250 crane as a prior art reference.

ALJ Shaw agreed with Sany that the amendment would correct an inadvertent error and would not prejudice Manitowoc or cause delay in the investigation.  ALJ Shaw also noted that Sany cited the M-250 crane itself, as well as related publications, in its Invalidity Contentions and Supplemental Invalidity Contentions.  Furthermore, ALJ Shaw noted that Manitowoc has responded to written discovery regarding the M-250 crane and provided witnesses to testify about the M-250 crane.  ALJ Shaw also found that the invalidity contentions would not prejudice Manitowoc or cause Manitowoc to engage in third-party discovery or extensive research. Accordingly, ALJ Shaw granted Sany’s motion.