Spectra Licensing Group, LLC v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 44 Motion to Dismiss. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SPECTRA LICENSING GROUP, LLC,

Case No. 16-cv-06093-RS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

9
MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Spectra Licensing Group LLC (“Spectra”) initiated this patent infringement

14

lawsuit in April 2016. On January 10, 2017, defendants Marvell Semiconductor Inc. and Marvell

15

Technology Group LTD (collectively “Marvell”) filed an answer and counterclaim. On January

16

24, 2017, Spectra moved to dismiss the counterclaim and strike the affirmative defenses in the

17

answer pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f). Rather than respond to

18

the motion, Marvell opted to file an amended answer and counterclaim on February 7, 2017.

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleading 21 days after

20

serving it or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service

21

of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Thus, Marvell’s amended counterclaim was timely filed.

22

Technically, Marvell was required to seek leave to amend its answer. Nevertheless, in light of the

23

lack of prejudice to Spectra, Marvell’s failure to seek leave to amend will be excused and the

24

amended answer will supersede the original answer. Spectra’s motion is therefore moot and

25

denied without prejudice.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1
2
3

Dated: February 9, 2017
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 16-cv-06093-RS

28
2