Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 53 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`
`ORDER DENYING APPLIED
`MATERIALS, INC.'S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO LODGE NEW
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`COMPLAINT
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 48
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied”) filed this current action against Demaray LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Demaray”) seeking declaratory relief under the patent laws of the United States. Now pending
`
`before this Court is Applied’s administrative motion for leave to lodge a new declaratory
`
`judgment complaint against Demaray. (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 48. Having considered the parties’
`
`moving and response papers, the Court hereby DENIES Applied’s administrative motion.
`
`I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`On September 1, 2020, Applied filed its operative complaint and shortly thereafter, filed its
`
`motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Demaray from proceeding with patent infringement
`
`actions filed against two of Applied’s customers in the Western District of Texas. See Dkt. Nos.
`
`13, 14. The Court took Applied’s motion for preliminary injunction under submission without
`
`oral argument on November 10, 2020. Dkt. No. 35. While Applied’s motion was under
`
`submission, Demaray filed a motion to dismiss Applied’s operative complaint pursuant to Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on November 23, 2020. As of this date, the Court
`
`has not yet ruled on Demaray’s motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2020, however, the Court
`
`Case No.: 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`ORDER DENYING APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO LODGE NEW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMPLAINT
` 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 53 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`denied Applied’s motion for preliminary injunction after concluding that Applied did not establish
`
`that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action. See Order
`
`Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Order) Dkt. No. 47 at 12.
`
`Following the Order denying its motion for preliminary injunction for lack of subject
`
`matter jurisdiction, Applied proceeded to file this administrative motion on December 24, 2020.
`
`Applied asserts that since the filing of Applied’s operative complaint, Demaray’s conduct in this
`
`action and Demaray’s infringement actions against Applied’s customers confirms that there is a
`
`substantial controversy between Applied and Demaray, of sufficient immediacy and reality
`
`regarding the patents at issue. Mot. at 2. Applied next claims that because subject matter
`
`jurisdiction is determined by the facts as they existed at the time of the operative complaint, and
`
`recent developments post-date the operative complaint in this action, Applied has filed a separate
`
`updated complaint as a new action to account for the facts as they exist today. Mot. at 2; see also
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, 3:20-cv-9341 (N.D. Cal.). However, Applied argues
`
`that it would be more judicially efficient to have this new complaint become the operative
`
`complaint in this action (or alternatively in a new action before this Court) in light of the Court’s
`
`familiarity with the facts and procedural posture of this action. Id.
`
`Accordingly, Applied seeks the following relief in its administrative motion: (1) leave to
`
`lodge the concurrently filed declaratory judgment complaint, (2) that the Court permit the new
`
`complaint to become the operative complaint in this action, and (3) that the Court deny as moot
`
`Demaray’s pending motion to dismiss. Id. at 3. Alternatively, Applied proposes taking the
`
`following steps: (1) voluntarily dismissing the operative complaint in this action, (2) proceeding
`
`with a new-filed action based on the concurrently filed complaint, and (3) seeking to relate the
`
`new action with this case under Local Rule 3-12.1 Id.
`
`1 At the time of this Court’s Order, Applied has already filed an administrative motion to consider
`whether cases should be related pursuant to Local Rule 3-12. See Dkt. No. 52. Demaray did not
`file an opposition. The Court will address this administrative motion in a separate order.
`Case No.: 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`ORDER DENYING APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO LODGE NEW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMPLAINT
` 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 53 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Under Civil Local Rule 7-11, the Court recognizes that a party may require a Court order
`
`with respect to “miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute,
`
`federal or local rule, or standing order of the assigned judge.” Civil L.R. 7-11. Although titled an
`
`administrative motion, Applied’s request “for leave to lodge a new declaratory judgment
`
`complaint” is not the proper subject of an administrative motion. See id. Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 15(a)(1)(2) states that after a party has already amended its complaint once as a matter
`
`of course, the “party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
`
`court’s leave.”
`
`
`
`Here, despite Applied’s concurrent filing of its new declaratory judgment in a separate
`
`action, its request for leave to lodge the new complaint is essentially a request for leave to amend
`
`the operative complaint in this case. Applied should have raised its request as a properly noticed
`
`motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)(1)(2) but chose instead to improperly
`
`make its request in the form of an administrative motion for leave to lodge. Because Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)(1)(2) appropriately governs, the Court must deny Applied’s request
`
`for leave to lodge its new declaratory judgment complaint as well as its request for the new
`
`declaratory judgment complaint to become the operative complaint in this action. The Court also
`
`denies Applied’s request that Demaray’s pending motion to dismiss be denied as moot.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby rules that Applied’s administrative motion for
`
`leave to lodge a new declaratory judgment complaint is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: January 6, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`EDWARD J. DAVILA
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No.: 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`ORDER DENYING APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO LODGE NEW DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMPLAINT
` 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`