AML IP, LLC v. Aero Global, LLC

Background

The case management plan and scheduling order required the parties to file amended pleadings by May 8, 2024. It also stated that motions to amend filed after that deadline would be governed by the “good cause” standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The court stated that no such motions had been filed.

Aero Global filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 5, 2024. On June 19, AML IP filed an Amended Complaint but did not provide the required redline showing changes from the original Complaint. The court stated that the Amended Complaint appeared to remove allegations about continuing infringement, Aero Global’s knowledge of the patent when the original Complaint was filed, and a request for an injunction.

AML IP also filed an opposition brief addressing Aero Global’s arguments about the patent’s validity and stating that it had amended the complaint to address arguments about continuing infringement. The opposition asked for permission to amend again if the motion was granted. AML IP did not address Rule 16’s good-cause standard.

Ruling

The court ordered that the original Complaint would be the operative pleading for purposes of Aero Global’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court explained that AML IP was functionally attempting to amend its pleadings through its opposition brief, which is not allowed. The court reserved decision on AML IP’s request for leave to amend, including requests concerning continuing infringement and Aero Global’s other arguments, in the event the motion was granted.

This order did not state a disposition of Aero Global’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or decide the parties’ arguments about patent validity.