Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00373/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

JAN 1 5-2020 

CLERK US r)ISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN '."lJSTAJCT OF ALIFOANIA 

Y OEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

9 PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., a Case No.: 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEA VE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

U.D. ELECTRONIC CORP., a Taiwan 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

[Doc. No. 54.] 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Pulse Electronics, Inc.' s ("Plaintiff') Motion for 

19 Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint. Having reviewed the Motion and 

20 related filings, the Court determines that the Motion is suitable for decision without oral 

21 

22 

argument. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 

23 Plaintiff is a worldwide design and manufacturer ofRJ-45 Integrated Connector 

24 Modules ("ICM"). 1 (Doc. Number ,i 19.} Defendant U.D. Electronic Corp. 

25 

26 

27 Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of 

28 Pennsylvania and maintains its principal place of business at 15255 Innovation Drive, 

Suite #100, San Diego, California, 92128. (Doc. No. 1 ,i 1.) 

3: l 8-cv-00373-BEN-MSB 

r 

Case 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-DEB Document 60 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 ("Defendant") is a manufacturer and supplier of data communications equipment, 

2 including RJ-45 ICMs.2 Id. ,r 13. 

3 Plaintiff originally filed the Complaint against the Defendant on February 16, 

4 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted four ( 4) counts of patent 

5 infringement against Defendant.3 See Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "various 

6 UDE ICM products infringe four ( 4) Pulse patents, including claims 1, and 3 through 16 

7 of U.S. Patent 6,773,302 ("the "'302 Patent"); claims 1,16, 18, 33, 38, 39 and 41 of U.S. 

8 Patent 7,959,473 the '" 473 Patent''); claims 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent 9,178,318 (the 

9 '"318 Patent"); and claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 16 ofU.S. Patent 6,593,840 (the '"840 

10 Patent"). (Doc. No. 54 at 1.) 

11 After the parties participated in an ENE and CMC, the Court issued a Scheduling 

12 Order setting the Markman hearing for April 18, 2019. Id. The Markman hearing was 

13 subsequently vacated after the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Stay the Proceedings 

14 pending IPR review. Id. The Court lifted the stay on November 18, 2019. Id. Plaintiff 

15 now seeks to add additional patent infringement claims of indirect infringement against 

16 Defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Id. To date, no response to Plaintiffs Motion has 

1 7 been filed by the Defendant. 

18 DISCUSSION 

19 I,eave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) should be "freely give[n] ... when justice so 

20 requires." The Ninth Circuit "has noted 01: several occasions ... that the Supreme Court 

21 has instructed the lower federal courts to heed carefully the command of Rule 15(a), ... 

22 by freely granting leave to amend when justice so requires." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 

23 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting "the underlying purpose of Rule 15 -

24 

25 

2 Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Taiwan and 

26 maintains its principal place of business at No. 13, Ln. 68, Neixi Rd., Luzhu Dist. 

27 Taoyuan City 33852, Taiwan. (Doc. No. 1 ,r 2.) 

28 

3 Plaintiff asserts claims of infringement as to the '3 02, '4 73, '318, and '840 Patents. 

(See Doc. No. 1.) 

2 

3: I 8-cv-00373-BEN-MSB 

Case 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-DEB Document 60 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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 

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 I'equires granting leave to amend under Rule 15. Moore v. 

Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.3d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) ( citing Farnan 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 Comi 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 Plaintiff's amendments do not appear to be futile, as 

Plaintiff has provided facially plausible grounds to add the new claims to his Complaint. 

This is Plaintiff's 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. 

Dated: Janum~, 2020 

3 

3: 18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB 

Case 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-DEB Document 60 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3