Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01690/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01690-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR. THOMAS YAMASHITA, an individual;

SUNBURST PLANT DISEASE CLINIC,

INC., a California Corporation, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, a California

Corporation; HUGHSON CHEMICAL

COMPANY, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01690 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this patent-infringement action, plaintiffs Dr. Thomas Yamashita and Sunburst Plant

Disease Clinic, Inc. move for leave to amend their complaint to add new defendants pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Plaintiffs have brought this motion within the time allotted

in the Court’s case management order and have satisfied the liberal standard for amendments

under FRCP 15. Plaintiffs’ motion is, therefore, GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Dr. Yamashita is the holder of the three patents in suit, which described his

“technology” of “compensatory balanced nutrition.” The parent patent, United States Patent

No. 5,549,729 (“the ’729 patent”), was issued on August 27, 1996. Plaintiff subsequently

Case 3:06-cv-01690-WHA Document 102 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

secured two continuations of the ’729 patent, United States Patent No. 5,797,976 (“the ’976

patent”) and United States Patent No. 6,309,440 (“the ’440 patent”).

Plaintiffs filed suit on March 6, 2006, alleging infringement, unfair competition under

California Business and Professions Code § 17200, intentional interference with contract, and

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

According to plaintiffs, Sunburst has manufactured, marketed and sold fertilizers

utilizing the methods described in the ’440 patent from 1985 up to the present. From

1998–2002, defendant Hughson Chemical Company, LLC was one of several companies

distributing Sunburst’s product to farmers, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley of California. 

According to plaintiffs, Hughson’s regional manager, Howard Barnett, approached Dr.

Yamashita about securing a license to manufacture and sell the Sunburst fertilizer under

Hughson’s name in late 2002, apparently under a threat by Barnett to manufacture an identical

product if Dr. Yamashita refused. When Dr. Yamashita denied the request, Hughson apparently

ended its relationship with Sunburst. Plaintiffs contend that shortly thereafter, Hughson began

manufacturing and selling an identical composition, allegedly copied from plaintiffs’ product. 

According to plaintiffs, Hughson produced two infringing products called “K-Source” and

“Nutra Pak.” Plaintiffs alleged that Hughson’s sales representatives instructed farmers how to

combine the two products to create a formulation that amounted to an identical product to

Sunburst’s fertilizer.

In 2004, defendant Wilbur-Ellis Company acquired Hughson. Plaintiffs alleged that

now Wilbur-Ellis continues to manufacture K-Source and Nutra Pak. Plaintiffs contended that

Wilbur-Ellis has induced and continues to induce infringement by selling these two products

together and instructing farmers how to combine them to create a product which infringes the

’440 patent.

 The nature of Wilbur-Ellis’ relationship to Hughson has been debated during previous

proceedings in this action. Wilbur-Ellis’ counsel has emphasized that she does not represent

Hughson and that Wilbur-Ellis merely acquired the assets of Hughson without acquiring

Hughson’s liabilities or Hughson itself. Put differently, Hughson is merely a shell unaffiliated

Case 3:06-cv-01690-WHA Document 102 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Howard Barnett died, thus plaintiffs apparently intend to name as a defendant Mr. Barnett’s estate.

3

with Wilbur-Ellis. Plaintiffs have previously argued that Hughson’s operations continued as a

branch of Wilbur-Ellis. Plaintiffs apparently have accepted Wilbur-Ellis’ assertions that

Hughson no longer exists. Plaintiffs now, however, move for leave to amend the complaint so

as to name the following former directors of Hughson as defendants: Howard Barnett,

Diana Nail, Scott Severson, and James Wagner.1

ANALYSIS

This Court issued a case management order on June 1, 2006, which required that leave

to add new parties must be sought by June 16, 2006. Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to

amend on that date. Accordingly, plaintiffs merely need to satisfy the liberal standard for

pleading amendments under FRCP 15.

Under FRCP 15(a), “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” “In the

absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as 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 by virtue of allowance of the amendment,

futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the

opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

Wilbur-Ellis contends that plaintiffs unduly delayed in bringing forth the instant

amendment. This order disagrees. First, plaintiffs brought their instant request within the time

specified in the case management order. Second, plaintiffs seemingly lacked the necessary

information to bring the instant amendment until recently. Wilbur-Ellis contends that plaintiffs

could have researched the issue of Hughson’s corporate status through the California Secretary

of State. But it is equally true that Wilbur-Ellis could have produced documents sufficient to

show the nature of its acquisition of Hughson. Wilbur-Ellis apparently did not do so.

Wilbur-Ellis also argues that it will be prejudiced by allowing amendment. This order

disagrees. No deadlines are looming in this action. The non-expert discovery cut-off date is not

Case 3:06-cv-01690-WHA Document 102 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

until January 26, 2007. Nor will adding the former Hughson directors impede the claimconstruction process. The patent-infringement contentions presumably will remain the same

regardless of whether plaintiffs are suing Hughson or its former directors. The fact that the new

defendants may choose to acquire counsel other than Wilbur-Ellis’ counsel does not prejudice

Wilbur-Ellis in any way.

Finally, Wilbur-Ellis has not showed that the amendment is futile. The new defendants

may, of course, seek to dismiss the action. A determination as to the merits of such a motion for

dismissal, however, is inappropriate here.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs

must file and serve their amended complaint on all defendants within one week of this order. 

Finding no further argument necessary, hearing on this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01690-WHA Document 102 Filed 07/19/06 Page 4 of 4