VDPP LLC v. Savant Systems, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-08139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In VDPP LLC v. Savant Systems, Judge Oetken denied extra service time and dismissed the patent case without prejudice because counsel failed to show good cause.
VDPP LLC’s patent-infringement action against Savant Systems, Inc.; the court denied VDPP’s service-extension request and closed the case without prejudice.
What happened
VDPP LLC sued Savant Systems, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent. VDPP did not serve Savant within the required 90-day period and asked for four more days to complete service.
The court found that VDPP did not explain why good cause supported an extension. It said the delay resulted from errors and delays by VDPP’s counsel, not the court, and that counsel waited until after the deadline to request more time.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied VDPP’s motion for an extension of time to serve Savant and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk to close the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- VDPP LLC v. Savant Systems, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08139
- James Oetken
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
VDPP LLC brought a patent-infringement action against Savant Systems, Inc., alleging infringement of VDPP’s patent titled “Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff generally must serve a defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint.
VDPP filed its complaint on October 25, 2024, making service due by January 23, 2025. VDPP did not serve Savant by that date. On January 27, 2025, VDPP filed a letter motion asking for an extension until January 31, 2025.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Rule 4(m) requires an extension when the plaintiff shows “good cause,” meaning a sufficient justification for failing to serve the defendant on time. Good cause depends on the plaintiff’s reasonable efforts and diligence, as well as any prejudice caused by the delay.
The court found that VDPP asserted good cause but provided no explanation or detail supporting that assertion. VDPP pointed to the fact that the Clerk issued the summons on January 10, 2025, but the court found that the delay was not caused by the Clerk. VDPP’s counsel waited until December 9, 2024, to request issuance of the summons, failed to correct a filing error identified the next day, and did not submit a corrected request until January 8, 2025.
The court stated that attorney neglect does not establish good cause. It also found that VDPP’s decision to wait until four days after the service deadline to request an extension weighed against good cause. Although a court may grant an extension without good cause after balancing relevant factors, it is not required to do so. The court further noted that no statute-of-limitations concern had been raised and that dismissal without prejudice would not unduly harm VDPP based on the information before it.
Disposition
The court denied VDPP LLC’s motion for an extension of time to serve Savant Systems, Inc. The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 10 and close the case. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered the order on January 28, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.