MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID A. FABER, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the court is defendant's Motion to Amend Answer to First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 480). For those reasons stated herein and on the record during trial, the motion is DENIED.

I. Discussion

In its motion, defendant argues that the court should permit it to amend its answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(1) to reflect an affirmative defense of copyright misuse. Defendant contends that amendment will aid in the presentation of the case's merits and will conform the pleadings to the evidence. Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion, arguing that defendant must satisfy the more stringent requirements set forth in Rule 16 as the deadline for amendment of pleadings has passed. Plaintiff further argues that defendant's amendment would be futile, as the court has already determined that a defense of copyright misuse does not apply to the agreement at issue in this case.

The court agrees with defendant that the more lenient Rule 15(b)(1) is the applicable standard, as defendant proposes the amendment in response to evidence raised during trial. Under Rule 15(b)(1),

(2012). The decision to permit or disallow amendment is within the discretion of the court. See Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, Md., 191 F.3d 394, 400 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Elmore v. Corcoran, 913 F.2d 170, 172 (4th Cir. 1990)).

However, defendant's proposed amendment of its answer to include the affirmative defense of copyright misuse would not aid in the presentation of the case's merits. The court has already determined that a defense of copyright misuse is inapplicable to this case. In the court's September 4, 2015 Order denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of damages on plaintiff's contract claim, the court stated that "the doctrine of copyright misuse does not bar plaintiff from collecting damages on its breach of contract claim." (Doc. No. 444 at 3). While defendant characterizes this ruling as merely evidentiary, the court's reasoning was based upon the substantive determination that copyright misuse is not a relevant defense in this case.1 As a result, amendment of defendant's answer to include this defense would not aid the presentation of the case's merits or help the jury's understanding of those merits.

Furthermore, defendant's proposed amendment will not conform the pleadings to the evidence presented as defendant claims.2 The court notes that defendant's proposed use of Rule 15(b)(1) is not the use which the Rule contemplates. The Rule contemplates a scenario where one party presents evidence, the opposing party objects, and the court permits amendment of the pleadings to reflect presentation of that evidence, absent prejudice to the opposing party. In this case, plaintiff's witnesses have given testimony, albeit limited testimony, regarding the restriction of rights in the SAS Learning Edition license agreement and defendant has objected to that testimony.3 Yet plaintiff has not moved to amend its pleading to reflect this additional evidence. Instead, it is defendant who is the moving party, moving to amend its answer to include a defense that responds to plaintiff's evidence. Therefore, amendment would not conform the pleadings to the evidence already presented but would alternatively permit defendant to present a defense to contested evidence, a defense the court previously determined to be without merit. With these considerations in mind, the court finds that denial of defendant's motion is appropriate.

II. Conclusion

For the reasons herein stated and those placed on the record during trial, defendant's Motion to Amend Answer to First Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 480), is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.