EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc

Filing 53

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 50 . Signed by District Judge Jon S. Tigar. (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EPL HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-04306-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 10 APPLE, INC, Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 50 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 In this action for patent infringement, Plaintiff EPL Holdings moves under Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 15(a) for leave to file a first amended complaint, which EPL has attached to its 15 motion as Exhibit A. As of the date of this Order, Defendant Apple has not opposed EPL’s 16 motion; the deadline for filing an opposition was March 22, 2013. 17 The proposed first amended complaint asserts new claims of infringement against Apple 18 based on two patents that the USPTO recently issued to EPL: U.S. Patent No. 8,384,720 (“the 19 ‘720 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,345,050 (“the ‘050 patent”). The ‘720 and ‘050 patents are 20 related to one of the patents that EPL asserted in the original complaint, namely U.S. Patent No. 21 7,683,903 (“the ‘903 patent”). 22 In support of its motion, EPL argues that the proposed amendment is timely because EPL 23 filed the motion before the deadline for moving for leave to amend the complaint, which the Court 24 set for March 8, 2013, in accordance with the parties’ stipulated case schedule. See Dkt. No. 48, 25 Stipulation to Modify Case Schedule; Dkt. No. 50, Order Granting Stipulated Request to Modify 26 Case Schedule. EPL also contends that the proposed amendment will not prejudice Apple because 27 the stipulated case schedule approved by the Court gives Apple additional time to comply with 28 Patent Local Rule 3-4. See id. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a pleading once “as a 2 matter of course” within 21 days of serving it or within 21 days after a response to it has been 3 filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, “a party may amend its pleading only with the 4 opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A district court 5 “should freely give leave” to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” Id. “Four factors are 6 commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are: bad faith, 7 undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 8 Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment 9 bears the burden of showing prejudice.” Id. at 187. 10 Here, permitting EPL to amend the complaint would be appropriate because there is no United States District Court Northern District of California 11 evidence of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to Apple, or futility of amendment. Moreover, 12 Apple does not oppose the filing of the proposed first amended complaint. Accordingly, EPL’s 13 motion is GRANTED. Within seven days of the date this Order is filed, EPL may file Exhibit A 14 as the first amended complaint. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: March 31, 2013 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District 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?