Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp.

Good Law
609 F. Supp. 2d 1090·2009 WL 541529·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17023
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2009CV-F-05-1411 OWW/GSACalifornia4,734 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND FOR JURY TRIAL FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Doc. 268) AND DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS (Doc. 274) AND DEFERRING TRIAL ON DEFENDANT’S NEW CLAIMS

Before the Court are two motions to amend.

A. DUHN’S MOTION TO AMEND AND FOR JURY TRIAL.

On January 13, 2009, Plaintiff Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. (“Duhn”) filed a motion for leave to amend its Complaint and request for jury trial regarding its proposed amendment. (Doc. 268). This motion seeks to amend Duhn’s Complaint to assert a claim against Defendant Cooper Cameron Corporation (“Cameron”) for willful infringement of Duhn’s '925 Patent and enhanced damages regarding Cameron’s “New Style” and “Original” design frac mandrels and for a jury trial on the issue of Cameron’s willful infringement.

1. Governing Standards.

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” “The purpose of pleading is ‘to facilitate a proper decision on the merits’ ... and not erect formal and burdensome impediments to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.