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).
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?