Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06663/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06663-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STRAUSS DIAMOND INSTRUMENTS, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06663-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 25

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”), the manufacturer of Invisalign clear aligners 

and iTero intraoral scanners, filed a complaint on November 1, 2018, alleging eight causes of 

action against Defendant Strauss Diamond Instruments, Inc. (“Strauss”), including a claim for 

design patent infringement. Align now seeks leave to amend its complaint to dismiss its patent 

infringement claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). ECF No. 25. Strauss filed 

an Opposition (ECF No. 41) and Align filed a Reply (ECF No. 52). Having considered the 

parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the 

motion for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

Align filed its complaint against Strauss on November 1, 2018. In that complaint Align 

alleged the following eight causes of action: (1) unfair competition and false designation of origin 

Case 3:18-cv-06663-TSH Document 54 Filed 02/22/19 Page 1 of 6
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

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (3) federal 

trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (4) federal trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(c); (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200; (6) violation of 

California Business and Professions Code § 17500; (7) common law trademark infringement, 

unfair competition and passing off; and (8) patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. On 

December 27, 2018 Strauss filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction for Improper 

Venue. ECF No. 15. In its motion, Strauss argued that this Court is an improper venue for 

Align’s patent infringement claim and that the non-patent claims stem from the same transaction

and thus should be dismissed or transferred all together. After reviewing Align’s opposition and 

Strauss’s reply, the Court requested additional briefing from Align on the following question: if 

the Court transfers the patent claim to another venue, should the Court transfer the entire case 

along with it? Order for Additional Briefing, ECF No. 24. Three days later, Align filed the 

present motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to dismiss the patent infringement claim. 

ECF No. 26. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may amend its pleading once as a 

matter of course within 21 days of serving it. Further amendment of the pleadings is allowed with 

the opposing party’s consent or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court considers 

five factors in deciding a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) 

undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the 

plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust 

Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). The rule is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations 

and citation omitted). Generally, a court should determine whether to grant leave indulging “all 

inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th 

Cir. 1999). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘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 . . . , [or] futility of 

Case 3:18-cv-06663-TSH Document 54 Filed 02/22/19 Page 2 of 6
3

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

amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Bad Faith

Align argues it has not acted in bad faith seeing as no case scheduling deadlines have been 

put in place and no case management conference has been held. Mot. at 3. Strauss argues that it 

is bad faith for Align to seek to proceed on the non-patent claims in one court and the patent 

claims in another court, “unduly burdening Defendant.” Opp. to Mot. at 5, ECF No. 41. 

Furthermore, Strauss argues that “it is bad faith for Align to argue that Defendant seeks dismissal

of Align’s patent infringement claim (Motion to Amend, D.I. 25, p. 2, lines 3-5 and 18-19), 

without mentioning that Defendant sought dismissal of the entire case, and never once isolated its 

request for relief to the patent infringement claim.” Id. at 5. 

Bad faith may be shown when a party seeks to amend late in the litigation process with 

claims which were, or should have been, apparent early. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 846 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Furthermore, “bad faith” generally refers to efforts to amend the pleadings late in the 

litigation in order to obtain an unfair tactical advantage. Id. 

Strauss’s argument that it would be unduly burdened by having to litigate its patent claims 

in one district and its nonpatent claims in another district is not a bad faith argument but rather, a 

prejudice argument. Strauss has failed to establish that in seeking dismissal of its patent claim 

Align is seeking the change merely to “prolong the litigation by adding new but baseless legal 

theories,” or is making “frivolous filings” or that the motion was filed “for an improper purpose,” 

or that Align’s actions “constitute a fraud and willful imposition on the dignity of the court.” 

Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. v. K.U. ex rel. A.D.U., 980 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2013). 

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting leave to amend. 

B. Undue Delay 

Align argues it did not delay in seeking leave to amend seeing as no deadline for amending 

pleadings has been set yet, no case management conference has been held, and no case schedule is 

in place. Mot. at 3. Strauss argues that “Plaintiff knew of the defect in its assertion of pendent 

Case 3:18-cv-06663-TSH Document 54 Filed 02/22/19 Page 3 of 6
4

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

venue over the patent claim at least as early as November 13, 2018” and could have sought leave 

to amend its complaint at any time prior to Align’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. Opp. at 

4. 

“[D]elay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to 

amend.” United States v. Webb, 665 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). However, undue delay combined 

with other factors may warrant denial of leave to amend. See, e.g., Jackson, 902 F.2d at 1387-89 

(holding that prejudice and undue delay are sufficient to deny leave to amend); Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians, 893 F.2d at 1079 (“delay of nearly two years, while not alone enough to support 

denial, is nevertheless relevant”). 

Strauss argues that its counsel informed Align of the pendent venue defect in November 

13, 2018. While it does appear that Align could have sought dismissal of the patent claim three 

months ago, a delay of three months while the case is still in its early stages does not constitute 

undue delay. B.R. & W.R. v. Beacon Health Options, No. 16-cv-04576-MEJ, 2017 WL 930796 *2 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017) (delay of five months was not undue delay when the action was “still in 

its incipient stage”). Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of granting leave to amend. 

C. Prejudice to the Opposing Party

Align argues that there will be no prejudice to Strauss if Align is granted leave to amend 

seeing as “Align seeks only to dismiss its claim for patent infringement, which claim Defendant 

has itself moved to dismiss.” Mot. at 3. Strauss, in turn, argues that if the Court grants leave to 

amend the complaint it would allow Align the opportunity to “launch a second lawsuit against 

Strauss Diamond at any time.” Furthermore, Strauss argues that Strauss “and its customers will 

have the threat of patent infringement litigation by Align hanging over them, or worse, be forced 

to defend separate claims in a different court . . . .”

“[T]he consideration of prejudice to the opposing party [ ] carries the greatest weight” in 

the Court’s analysis. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears 

the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 

1987) (citation omitted). In determining whether there is prejudice, courts consider whether the 

Case 3:18-cv-06663-TSH Document 54 Filed 02/22/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

amendment would “greatly change the parties’ positions in the action, and require the assertion of 

new defenses.” Phoenix Solutions, Inc.v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 683, 690 (N.D. Cal. 

2009) (citing Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)).

As the party opposing the amendment, Strauss bears the burden of showing prejudice 

based on the possibility of a second lawsuit. Strauss has not met this burden, having failed to 

provide legal support for the blanket assertion that the possibility of a second lawsuit in another 

jurisdiction constitutes sufficient prejudice to warrant denial of a motion for leave to amend a 

complaint. 

D. Futility of Amendment

Align argues that the amendment would not be futile given that it would “simplify the 

issues before the Court, and allow this case to proceed on the merits, as well as to a timely 

decision on Align’s preliminary injunction motion.” Mot. at 4. Strauss does not address this 

prong of the analysis. 

“A motion for leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be futile or legally 

insufficient. However, a proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under 

the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim[.]” Miller v. 

Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court 

has held, “‘[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper 

subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.’” Foman, 

371 U.S. at 182.

Given that Align is omitting a claim rather than adding one, this factor does not weigh one 

way or another. 

E. Previous Amendment

The fifth factor is whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. In re W. 

States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d at 738. Here, Align has not previously 

amended its complaint but seeks to do so for the first time. Accordingly, this factor weighs in 

favor of granting leave to amend.

Case 3:18-cv-06663-TSH Document 54 Filed 02/22/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, all of the Rule 15 factors either weigh in favor of granting 

leave to amend or are neutral. Accordingly, Align’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 25) is 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06663-TSH Document 54 Filed 02/22/19 Page 6 of 6