Summary
dismissing motion to dismiss as moot in light of substantive changes to complaint affecting motion's resolution
Summary of this case from Doe v. Marion Indep. Sch. Dist.Opinion
Civil Action No. SA-14-CV-1030-XR
02-12-2015
MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER
On this day the Court considered Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's ("State Farm") Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. Docket no. 16. For the following reasons, the motion is dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., ("Maxim") filed its original complaint (docket no.1) against State Farm for violating three of Maxim's patents related to performing secure financial transactions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) on November 19, 2014. The Court granted State Farm an extension to answer the original complaint. Docket no. 15. State Farm then filed this motion to dismiss on January 26, 2015. Docket no. 16. Maxim filed an amended complaint as a matter of course (docket no. 18) and a response to the motion to dismiss (docket no. 19) on February 9, 2015.
Maxim filed 5 related cases against different defendants. All of the cases have been assigned to this Court. This case was re-assigned on December 19, 2014. Docket no.12.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 permits a plaintiff to freely amend its complaint within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). --------
State Farm argues in its motion to dismiss that Maxim cannot plausibly state a claim for patent infringement because Maxim's patents involve hardware and software systems, and State Farm's alleged infringement involves only software. See docket no. 16 at 4. Maxim argues in its response to the motion to dismiss that it has plausibly stated a claim with sufficient specificity against State Farm, and, in the alternative, the motion to dismiss is moot because Maxim filed an amended complaint. Docket no. 19 at 2-3. Maxim also points the Court to a similar case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania where the court denied a motion to dismiss Maxim's claim on a very similar, if not identical, theory. See docket no. 19 at 3 (citing Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 12-cv-1641, docket. no. 37 (W.D. Pa. March 19, 2013).
Courts have held that a pending Rule 12(b)(6) becomes moot when a plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of course. See Merritt v. Fogel, 349 F. App'x 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002); see also Melson v. Vista World Inc. & Associates, No. CIV.A. 12-135, 2012 WL 6002680, at *12 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2012); ABB, Inc. v. Reed City Power Line Supply Co., No. 1:07-CV-420, 2007 WL 2713731, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2007) (collecting cases); but see Roller Bearing Co. of America, Inc. v. American Software, Inc., 570 F.Supp.2d 376, 384 (D. Conn. 2008) ("When a plaintiff amends its complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending" courts may deny the motion to dismiss as moot or consider the merits of the motion to dismiss in light of the amended complaint). Especially given the substantive changes in the amended complaint, new causes of action, and more specific facts about the infringement that may go to the heart of the motion to dismiss, the Court finds State Farm's motion to dismiss is moot.
For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES AS MOOT Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (docket no. 16).
SIGNED this 12th day of February, 2015.
/s/_________
XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE