Verint Systems Inc. et al v. CallCopy Inc.

Filing 74

ORDER granting 27 Motion to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 4/10/14. (jr1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

VERINT SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Civil Action 2:13-cv-942
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King

CALLCOPY, INC.,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This is a patent infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271
instituted in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.

The Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 21, alleges that eight (8)

of defendant’s computer software and/or hardware and/or systems or
products infringe one or more of twelve (12) of plaintiffs’ patents
relating to electronic communications.

Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 12, 2013.

Doc. No. 23.

On

August 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs Verint Systems Inc. and Verint Americas

Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
(“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend”), Doc. No. 27.

On September 23, 2013,

the action was transferred to this Court from the District of
Delaware. Memorandum and Order, Doc. No. 32. This matter is now before
the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and
memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (“Plaintiffs’
Memorandum”), Doc. No. 28.

1

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint “to
include additional factual allegations to overcome any issues that
might have been validly raised in the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant[.]”

Id. at p. 4.

Defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Amend on the basis that amendment would be futile.

Defendant

CallCopy, Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 31.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

That rule provides that “[t]he

court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

“[T]he thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce

the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than
the technicalities of pleadings.’”

Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d

557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639
(6th Cir. 1982)).

The grant or denial of a request to amend a

complaint is left to the broad discretion of the trial court.

General

Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).

In

exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such factors
as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance
of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.”
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Foman v. Davis, 371

“A proposed amendment is futile if the

amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir.
2000) (citing Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987

2

F.2d 376, 382-83 (6th Cir. 1993)).
As noted supra, defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend on
the basis that amendment would be futile.

The Court has considered

the parties’ arguments concerning the viability of the proposed second
amended complaint.

However, having considering those arguments and,

inter alia, the early stage of the litigation, the undersigned
concludes that the proposed Second Amended Complaint is sufficient
when measured by the standards of Rule 15(a) and that defendant’s
arguments are more appropriately addressed by the District Judge on
dispositive motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 27, is
GRANTED.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to file plaintiffs’ Second Amended

Complaint, which is attached to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum as Doc. No. 284.

With the filing of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,

defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is now moot.

The

Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to remove Doc. No. 23 from the Court’s
pending motions list.

April 10, 2014

s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

3