The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) filed by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc.
On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. ("Oakley") initiated this action by filing the Complaint for patent infringement. (ECF No. 1). On November 22, 2011, Oakley filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11). On December 9, 2011, Defendants 5.11, Inc. ("5.11") and Wiley X, Inc. ("Wiley X") filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14).
In this case, Oakley identifies Defendants' "eyewear" as the allegedly infringing product or device. Defendants Wiley X and 5.11 manufacture and sell lines of eyewear containing over thirty and fifteen distinct designs, respectively. (ECF No. 14 at 1). Defendants have extensive product lines that fall under the broad category of "eyewear." Id. at 2. Oakley's allegations do not provide Defendants with sufficient information regarding the features or designs that allegedly infringe upon Oakley's patents. Oakley's broad claims of infringing "eyewear" are not pled with the specificity necessary to provide fair notice of its claims against Defendants, and fail to identify any specific products. The Court concludes that Oakley has not adequately alleged a claim for patent infringement of its three patents. Oakley's allegations of infringement on "eyewear" are not plausibly suggestive that it is entitled to relief. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Id. at 5. The Court stated that Plaintiff could file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff contends that the proposed Second Amended Complaint identifies the allegedly infringing products and cures the deficiencies identified by the Court's order.
On June 11, 2012, Defendants 5.11, Inc. and Wiley X, Inc. filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 21). Defendants contend that the proposed Second Amended Complaint is futile because it lacks factual support regarding willful infringement and it relies on the same conclusory allegations contained in the prior complaint.
On June 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 22).
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that the court "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend under Rule 15(a):
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be "freely given."
Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. ...