Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-0594-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 NXP USA, INC., UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 15 Defendant. LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; and 16 17 (2) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S 18 TIME TO RESPOND 19 [ECF No. 66] 20 21 22 Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file an Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 66.) This is Plaintiff’s first such 24 request. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 Under Rule 15(a)(2), leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has held that, although the question whether to 27 grant leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) is left to the trial court’s discretion, the 28 determination “should be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15(a) . . . which [is] to 1 facilitate decisions on the merit, rather than on technicalities or pleadings.” James v. Pliler, 2 269 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition to reaffirming that “[c]ourts may freely 3 grant leave when justice so requires,” the Ninth Circuit has also indicated “public policy 4 strongly encourages courts to permit amendments” and “[t]he policy of allowing 5 amendments ‘is to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 6 732 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 7 (9th Cir. 2001)). Denying a request for leave to file an amended pleading is appropriate 8 only where amendment will result in “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part 9 of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or 10 undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment.” Foman 11 v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 12 Plaintiff represents that its proposed Amended Complaint “asserts claims against an 13 additional patent, but simultaneously removes . . . allegations of indirect infringement.” 14 (ECF No. 66.) Based on its review of these amendments, and Defendant’s non-opposition 15 thereto, the Court is satisfied that none of the prohibitive factors that generally bar leave to 16 amend is present here, and that permitting Plaintiff to file its Amended Complaint will 17 advance the public’s interest in deciding this patent dispute on the merits. 18 Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (ECF 19 NO. 66.) Plaintiff is ORDERED to file its Amended Complaint (ECF No. 66-1) on the 20 docket. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // | 2 Having granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, the Court now turns to the 3 || parties’ joint request that Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint be 4 ||extended until December 1, 2022. The parties contend additional time is needed for 5 ||Defendant to prepare a response because the First Amended Complaint asserts an 6 || additional patent. Having found good cause, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint request 7 ||for an extension of time. Defendant is ORDERED to respond to the First Amended 8 ||Complaint by no later than December 1, 2022. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 10 || DATED: November 18, 2022 Lin 4 (aphaark 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28