Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. California

January 13, 2020

PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
U.D. ELECTRONIC CORP., a Taiwan corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. NO. 54.]

          HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is a worldwide design and manufacturer of RJ-45 Integrated Connector Modules ("ICM").[1] (Doc. Number H 19.) Defendant U.D. Electronic Corp. ("Defendant") is a manufacturer and supplier of data communications equipment, including RJ-45 ICMs.[2] Id. ¶ 13.

         Plaintiff 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.[3] 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.)

         After 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 Defendant.

         DISCUSSION

         Leave 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 motion."

         Here, 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 the Complaint.

         CONCLUSION

         IT 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.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.