Yufa v. Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc.
Filing
145
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 11/20/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
Case No. 09-cv-00968-TSH
SUA SPONTE ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
v.
LIGHTHOUSE WORLDWIDE
SOLUTIONS INC.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendant.
12
13
Plaintiff Alexandr Yufa, proceeding pro se, filed this case on March 5, 2009, alleging
14
Defendant Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions, Inc. infringed upon his patent for particle detectors
15
and reference voltage comparators, Patent No. 6,346,983. The case has been stayed since January
16
9, 2015 pending resolution of four of Yufa’s other cases involving the ‘983 Patent. ECF No. 136.
17
However, on September 12, 2019, Yufa filed a Notice of Change of Ownership of Patent at Issue,
18
stating that he filed the assignment of the ‘983 Patent in compliance with Magistrate Judge Kandis
19
Westmore’s order in Yufa v. TSI Incorp., C-09-1315, and therefore “doesn’t own anymore the
20
patent at issue.” ECF No. 137.
21
A complaint for patent infringement requires that the plaintiff owns the patent. K-Tech
22
Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As such, the
23
Court gave notice to Yufa of its intention to dismiss his complaint sua sponte. ECF No. 42. The
24
Court provided Yufa fourteen days to file a memorandum in opposition. Id. However, his
25
response fails to assuage the Court’s concerns that he cannot state a claim for relief because he
26
does not address his ownership of the patent. Instead, Yufa states he “would like to bring the
27
Court’s attention to the Defendant’s serious violation of the Court’s Sua Sponte intention” and
28
appears to request sanctions against Lighthouse. ECF No. 144.
1
“A trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and
2
dismiss it for failure to state a claim, but the court must give notice of its sua sponte intention to
3
invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and afford plaintiffs ‘an opportunity to at least submit a written
4
memorandum in opposition to such motion.’” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981)
5
(quoting Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979); Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813
6
F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P.
7
12(b)(6).”).
8
9
Here, dismissal is appropriate because Yufa admits he does not own the ‘983 Patent. The
Court therefore DISMISSES his complaint. As he no longer owns the patent, leave to amend
would be futile. Accordingly, dismissal is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. See Nevijel v. N.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The exercise of [the Court’s]
12
discretion to dismiss [without leave to amend] requires only that possible and meaningful
13
alternatives be reasonably explored”); Wong, 642 F.2d 961-62.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: November 20, 2019
17
18
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?