MyMedicalRecords Inc v. Jardogs LLC

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND 27 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 11/1/2013 (lc).

Download PDF
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC., 13 14 15 Case No. 2:13-cv-03560-ODW(SHx) Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND [27] JARDOGS, LLC, Defendant. 16 17 On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff MyMedicalRecords, Inc. filed a Complaint against 18 Defendant Jardogs, LLC. MyMedicalRecords owns, among others, U.S. Patent No. 19 8,301,466, which covers Plaintiff’s Internet-based, personal, medical-records system. 20 MyMedicalRecords alleges that Jardogs’s product FollowMyHealth Universal Health 21 Record infringes upon the 22 infringement claim against Jardogs based on Jardogs’s alleged infringement of the 23 466 patent. MyMedicalRecords only brought one patent- 466 patent. 24 On September 23, 2013, MyMedicalRecords filed suit against Allscripts 25 Healthcare Solutions, Inc. MyMedicalRecords alleges that Allscripts acquired all or 26 substantially all of Jardogs in March 2013, thus allegedly rendering Allscripts liable 27 for 28 MyMedicalRecords brought two claims against Allscripts: one for alleged any infringement resulting from Jardogs’s FollowMyHealth product. 1 infringement of the 466 patent and one for alleged infringement of 2 MyMedicalRecords’s 8,498,883 patent involving the same Internet-based system. 3 The Court then ordered MyMedicalRecords to show cause why it had not added 4 Allscripts as a defendant in its suit against Jardogs. MyMedicalRecords subsequently 5 filed this Motion. Because both suits involve the same allegedly infringing product, 6 and Allscripts now ostensibly owns and uses the product that was once owned by 7 Jardogs, the Court GRANTS MyMedicalRecords’s Motion to Amend. 8 First, the Court notes that Allscripts did not oppose this Motion to Amend. 9 (ECF No. 27.) Under the Local Rules, a court may deem a party’s failure to file an 10 opposition as consent to the court granting the motion. 11 C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. Allscripts’s silence bespeaks its position on the Motion. 12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), Allscripts is a “necessary” party 13 and therefore “must be joined.” Rule 19(a) sets forth “necessary” parties, that is, 14 those parties who “must be joined” if they will not deprive the court of subject-matter 15 jurisdiction. A party is necessary if, among others, disposing of the action in that 16 party’s absence may “as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to 17 protect the interest; or . . . leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of 18 incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the 19 interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). If a necessary party has not been joined, the 20 court “must order that the person be made a party.” Id. (a)(2). 21 As noted above, the Jardogs suit was filed nearly four months before the 22 Allscripts suit. There is a potential risk that adjudicating the Jardogs suit could leave 23 Allscripts open to “incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.” 24 Fed R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). 25 Allscripts each infringed the same patent through the same product, varied rulings in 26 two different cases would render Allscripts subject to “inconsistent obligations.” The 27 Court thus finds that Allscripts is a necessary party in the Jardogs action. 28 /// Since MyMedicalRecords alleges that Jardogs and 2 1 Further, under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a), a plaintiff may join multiple alleged 2 infringers in one action if plaintiff’s claims arise “out of the same transaction, 3 occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, 4 importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused 5 product or process” and “questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim 6 defendants will arise in the action.” 7 FollowMyHealth—the allegedly infringing product—is the “same accused 8 product” in both the Jardogs and Allscripts suits. MyMedicalRecord’s suits against 9 each Defendant go further. MyMedicalRecords alleges that Defendants infringed the 10 466 patent through the same product: FollowMyHealth. Issues such as the 466 11 patent’s validity and whether FollowMyHealth’s infringes the 12 common to both suits. The Court consequently finds that joinder of Allscripts is 13 proper under § 299. 14 15 16 466 patent are issues The Court therefore GRANTS MyMedicalRecord’s Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 27.) IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 November 1, 2013 19 20 21 22 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?