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)

Download PDF
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?