From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Innovative Automation, LLC v. Mediatechnics Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Nov 1, 2011
No. C11-03410 HRL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. C11-03410 HRL.

November 1, 2011


ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [Re: Docket No. 14]


Plaintiff Innovative Automation, LLC (Innovative Automation) sues for alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 7,174,362. According to plaintiff, the patent-in-suit describes and claims a computer-implemented method of digital data duplication.

Now before the court is Innovative Automation's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint adding several new defendants. The court has received no opposition to the motion. Upon consideration of the moving papers, as well as the discussion held at the hearing, plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.

At the motion hearing, plaintiff (1) advised that it has reached a settlement with defendant Coptech Digital, Inc. and (2) withdrew its motion to strike the "Answer to Complaint" filed by Coptech's President, Thomas E. Cherry. Plaintiff's motion to strike therefore is denied as moot.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for leave to amend and provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The decision whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave need not be granted, however, where the amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, plaintiff seeks to add three new defendants: Richard Wilson, Vinpower, Inc., and Vinpower Digital, Inc. Innovative Automation believes that Wilson is at least partially responsible for the sale of the accused devices of defendant Mediatechnics Systems, Inc. (Mediatechnics). Vinpower, Inc., and Vinpower Digital, Inc. allegedly manufacture the same accused Mediatechnics machines. Based on representations that these three proposed defendants make, offer to sell, and sell the same accused product, see 35 U.S.C. § 299, and given the relatively early stage of this litigation, the court concludes that the requested amendment should be permitted. Plaintiff shall promptly file its proposed First Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Innovative Automation, LLC v. Mediatechnics Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Nov 1, 2011
No. C11-03410 HRL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Innovative Automation, LLC v. Mediatechnics Systems, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:INNOVATIVE AUTOMATION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MEDIATECHNICS SYSTEMS, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

No. C11-03410 HRL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)