Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07691/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07691-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

CASE NO.: 5:19-CV-07691-EJD

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

AND STAY OR ALTERNATIVELY TRANSFER AND SILVERBOW’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BREATHE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW AERA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-07691-EJD 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 

OR ALTERNATIVELY TRANSFER 

AND SILVERBOW'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 30

On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff Breathe Technologies, Inc. filed the original complaint in 

this action (the “Original Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 1). On March 10, 2020, Defendants Inogen, Inc. 

(“Inogen”) and Todd W. Allum filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, 

Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. No. 25). Defendant 

Silverbow Development, LLC (“Silverbow”) joined the Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 32). Inogen 

also sought a stay pending arbitration, or alternatively a venue transfer of Plaintiff’s First Claim 

for Relief (Dkt. No. 25). On the same day, Silverbow filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second 

Claim for Relief (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. No. 30). On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed an 

amended complaint (Dkt. No. 48) (the “Amended Complaint”). 

The Amended Complaint supersedes the Original Complaint and the Original Complaint 

should now be treated as “non-existent.” Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 

(9th Cir. 2015). Both the Motion to Compel and the Motion to Dismiss were targeted at the 

Original Complaint and, therefore, are rendered moot by the filing of the Amended Complaint. 

Case 5:19-cv-07691-EJD Document 50 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.: 5:19-CV-07691-EJD

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

AND STAY OR ALTERNATIVELY TRANSFER AND SILVERBOW’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

See id. (“Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, which was no longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss should have 

been deemed moot”); Lemberg v. LuLaRoe, LLC, No. 17-cv-2102-AB, 2018 WL 6927836, at *3 

(C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (“Because [the] Motion to Compel Arbitration is targeted at a previous 

iteration of the Complaint in this action, [the] Motion to Compel is denied as moot.”). If 

Defendants seek to dismiss or compel arbitration of claims in the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants should file new motions based upon the Amended Complaint. 

The court DENIES as moot Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion to Dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07691-EJD Document 50 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 2