Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc. (PDF) Judge Illston Decided March 13, 2007 ACCO has filed a patent infringement suit against PC Guardian asserting patents ‘794 and ‘989. PC Guardian moved for leave to amend their answer to include declaratory judgment claims of ACCO’s ‘403 and ‘125 patents. Judge Illston denied this motion. ACCO had also filed actions in N.D. IL asserting the ‘403 and ‘125 patents against several defendants, including PC Guardian. In the N.D. IL action, PC Guardian filed a motion to transfer venue to N.D. Cal. At the same time, PC Guardian also filed the present motion. Judge Illston used her discretion under both FRCP 15 and the Declaratory Judgment Act to deny PC Guardianââ?¬â?¢s motion to leave to amend. Judicial economy counsels toward not duplicating proceedings between the same parties involving the same patents. Iââ?¬â?¢m not currently a practicing attorney so I canââ?¬â?¢t quite figure out the strategy of why PC Guardian filed both the N.D. IL motion to transfer and the N.D. Cal motion to amend. Anyone care to comment and enlighten me and our readers