Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc.

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., GRANTING 64 Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and DENYING AS MOOT 42 Defendant's motion to dismiss and 70 Plaintiff's administrative motion. Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document. Amended Pleadings due by 08/22/2017. (hsglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HYPERMEDIA NAVIGATION LLC,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
YAHOO HOLDINGS INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-03188-HSG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 64, 70

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Hypermedia Navigation, LLC’s motion for leave to

13

amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 64. Also pending before Court is Defendant Yahoo Holdings,

14

Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for lack

15

of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Both motions are fully briefed.

16

The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s motion. Under Federal Rule of Procedure 15(a)(2),

17

“leave to amend shall be freely granted ‘when justice so requires.’” Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska,

18

543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This policy is to be applied

19

with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.

20

2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The five factors relevant to determining proper

21

amendment are (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of

22

amendment, and (5) previous amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also

23

Wash. State Republican Party v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (same

24

factors). The Court weighs prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316

25

F.3d at 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining

26

Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

27

Id. (emphasis in original). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that

28

Defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice or make a strong showing as to any of the other

1

Foman factors, and the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend applies. Therefore, the

2

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.1 Plaintiff shall file the

3

amended complaint by August 22, 2017.
Given that it is granting leave to amend the complaint, the Court hereby DENIES AS

4
5

MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but without prejudice to Defendant timely filing a

6

responsive motion to Plaintiff’s amended complaint.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: 08/18/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
1

27
28

The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
2
Consequently, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s administration motion for leave to
file a sur-reply to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 70.
2