United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT [DOC. NO. 54.]
ROGER T. BENITEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Pulse Electronics, Inc.'s
("Plaintiff) Motion for Leave of Court to File First
Amended Complaint. Having reviewed the Motion and related
filings, the Court determines that the Motion is suitable for
decision without oral argument. For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED.
is a worldwide design and manufacturer of RJ-45 Integrated
Connector Modules ("ICM"). (Doc. Number H 19.)
Defendant U.D. Electronic Corp. ("Defendant") is a
manufacturer and supplier of data communications equipment,
including RJ-45 ICMs. Id. ¶ 13.
originally filed the Complaint against the Defendant on
February 16, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff
asserted four (4) counts of patent infringement against
Defendant. See Id. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that "various UDE ICM products infringe four (4)
Pulse patents, including claims 1, and 3 through 16 of U.S.
Patent 6, 773, 302 ("the "'302 Patent");
claims 1, 16, 18, 33, 38, 39 and 41 of U.S. Patent 7, 959,
473 the "'473 Patent"); claims 14 and 17 of
U.S. Patent 9, 178, 318 (the '"318 Patent");
and claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent 6, 593,
840 (the "'840 Patent"). (Doc. No. 54 at 1.)
the parties participated in an ENE and CMC, the Court issued
a Scheduling Order setting the Markman hearing for
April 18, 2019. Id. The Markman hearing was
subsequently vacated after the Court granted Defendant's
Motion to Stay the Proceedings pending IPR review.
Id. The Court lifted the stay on November 18, 2019.
Id. Plaintiff now seeks to add additional patent
infringement claims of indirect infringement against
Defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Id. To date,
no response to Plaintiffs Motion has been filed by the
to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) should be "freely give[n] .
. . when justice so requires." The Ninth Circuit
"has noted on several occasions . . . that the Supreme
Court has instructed the lower federal courts to heed
carefully the command of Rule 15(a), . . . by freely granting
leave to amend when justice so requires." DCD
Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.
1987) (noting "the underlying purpose of Rule 15 - to
facilitate a decision on the merits rather than on the
pleadings or technicalities."). "This policy is
'to be applied with extreme liberality.'"
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d
1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser
Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.
2001)). Courts consider "undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party,
and futility of the proposed amendment" in deciding
whether justice requires granting leave to amend under Rule
15. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.3d
531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 370
U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition, under LR 7.1, failure to
respond "may constitute a consent to the granting of the
since the Defendant has not responded to the Motion, the
Court will deem the Defendant's lack of response to mean
it does not oppose the Plaintiff s Motion. Thus, Defendants
have in essence consented to the Court granting the Motion.
The Court also finds grounds to grant Plaintiff leave to
amend his Complaint. There is no apparent bad faith or undue
delay in the Motion for Leave to Amend. The amendments do not
appear to prejudice the Defendant. The Plaintiffs amendments
do not appear to be futile, as Plaintiff has provided
facially plausible grounds to add the new claims to his
Complaint. This is Plaintiffs first Motion for Leave to Amend
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is
GRANTED. The proposed First Amended
Complaint, adding the new claims shall be filed. Plaintiff
shall file the First Amended Complaint within seven (7) days
of the date of this Order.