United States District Court, D. Nevada
R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is plaintiff Server Technology, Inc.'s
("STI") motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. ECF No. 77. Defendant American Power Conversion
Corp. ("APC") filed an opposition to the motion
(ECF No. 78) to which STI replied (ECF No. 82).
Facts and Procedural Background
a patent infringement action between STI and APC. Both STI
and APC manufacture intelligent power distribution units
("PDUs"). On January 28, 2011, STI brought suit
against APC alleging that various APC products infringed six
different STI patents: United States Patents numbers 7, 977,
815 ("the 815 patent"), 7, 368, 830 ("the
'830 patent"), 7, 414, 329 ("the '329
patent"), 7, 777, 365 ("the '365 patent"),
7, 268, 998 ("the '998 patent"), and 7, 774,
443 ("the '443 patent"). ECF No. 1. STI then
filed its first amended complaint on April 28, 2011, (ECF No.
22) followed by a second amended complaint on December 19,
2011 (ECF No. 39). Thereafter, on April 12, 2017, STI filed
the present motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. ECF No. 77.
as here, a party seeks to amend its complaint after the
deadline to amend pleadings, a motion to amend is reviewed
under Rule 16 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedures, which
governs the amendment of scheduling orders. Under Rule 16, a
court may permit the filing of an amended complaint where the
moving party demonstrates good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4).
the court has reviewed STI's motion and finds that good
cause exists to allow STI to file a third amended complaint.
Although this action was initially filed in 2011, this action
has been dormant by the consent of the parties and the court
while the parties litigated a previous patent infringement
action between the parties, Server Tech, Inc. v. Am.
Power Conversion Corp, case no. 3:06-cv-0698-LRH-VPC
("STI I"). Now that the appeal in STI I has been
completed, STI seeks to amend its complaint in the present
action by dropping five of the six currently-asserted
patents, adding two new additional patents to the action, and
substituting Schneider Electric IT Corp.
("Schneider") as the true defendant in this action.
See ECF No. 77.
court has reviewed STI's proposed third amended
complaint, attached to the motion in accordance with Local
Rule 15-1(a), and finds that third amended complaint has been
proposed in good faith in an effort to narrow the scope of
this action and eliminate the need for STI to file a fourth
action between the parties covering the two new patents,
United States Patent Nos. 9, 104, 393 ("the '393
patent") and 7, 162, 521 ("the '521
patent"). The two newly asserted patents are within
the same general patent family as the originally asserted
'443 patent, and, in fact, the '393 patent is a
direct continuation of the '443 patent. Thus, rather than
require STI to file another action against APC and
re-litigate similar issues, the court finds that it would be
more efficient to litigate all of the intertwined patents and
issues together in a single action rather than splitting the
litigation into multiple actions which would unnecessarily
duplicate the work by the court and the parties. Further, the
court notes that APC does not oppose the filing of the third
amended complaint in so far as it excludes five of the six
originally asserted patents and the substitution of
Schneider. Rather, APC's only complaint is that it would
be prejudiced in defending against the newly asserted patents
if a shortened scheduling order was issued. This claimed
prejudice, however, is easily cured by allowing STI and
APC/Schneider to litigate the third amended complaint
pursuant to the standard schedule set forth in the patent
local rules. Finally, the court finds that there is no undue
delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on behalf of STI in
requesting leave to amend its complaint. Accordingly, the
court shall grant STI's motion.
THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to file
third amended complaint (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. Plaintiff
Server Technology, Inc. shall file its proposed third amended
complaint attached as Exhibit A to its motion (ECF No. 77,
Ex. A) within five (5) days after entry of this order.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall prepare an appropriate
scheduling order in compliance with the Local Patent Rules
and submit the same for signature within twenty (20) days
after entry of this order.
 The court notes that there are three
currently pending patent infringement actions between the
parties before this court: STI I; the present action, STI II;
and Server Tech, Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp,